This. Without the secret ballot, it would be possible for governments to intimidate people into voting a certain way. This is why "cardcheck" voting for union votes are so bad (and why unions are so in favor of it).

---

Another issue is that it is trivial to create an ~unlimited number of private keys. A blockchain vote could prove that a candidate received a certain number of votes, but it would be impossible to know if only eligible voters cast votes.

In early 2020, Chinese citizens were locked inside their apartments, and people starved to death. The "lockdowns" employed by the West was something exported from China. Prior to covid, "lockdowns" were not considered to be something health officials considered to prevent the spread of contagious viruses.
China did not report having as many infections as Western countries did. The Chinese government also lies. I draw different conclusions than you.

Loyce's experience with the error messages is likely (IMO) a result of poor coding and/or the lack of testing (and resolving issues when tests fail). If you are not receiving any funds when Loyce received funds 3x, may mean that someone already took all the funds.

There are two ways this could be done.

1 - When a new post is made, the post will show which section the subject thread is located in. If a new post is made in an existing thread, the location of the thread can be updated.

2 - When a thread on your watchlist is moved, it will show up on your watchlist again, even if there are no new posts. TryNinja could theoretically add every thread to his watchlist and monitor for the thread's location being changed, although this is probably less feasible than the above.

Pretty much every exchange allows users to place limit orders.

I would also not describe the price on coinbase as the "price it gives" the customer. I think it would be more accurate to say the price is based on the market participants on the coinbase pro exchange. In general, liquidity on DEX's are lower than that of major exchanges, which will generally allow for better pricing on the major exchange than on a DEX.

Increasing the nonce effectively produces a random number. What I said is a very simplified explanation of what happens.

Yes, it does. The expected number of hashes required to find a block is the same regardless of if one miner is trying to find a block or a million miners are trying to find a block.

If a nonce, x results in a valid block, nonce x + 1 will not necessarily also find a valid block.

I disagree with your terminology.

When there are two competing blocks, block x, the work spent trying to find block x + 1 is duplicated. However, as I mentioned, this has happened approximately 1% of the time int he past, and is likely lower now. There is no other duplication of work.

It is only a matter of time before someone takes all the coin intended to be offered to MuunWallet users. The process you described already sounds easy to automate at scale, and simply accessing a LNURL is even easier.

According to the graphs you cite, the number of nodes and channels has more than doubled over the past year. 100% YoY growth is pretty good.

Also, not all nodes will necessarily be known to the public, especially if a node is only connected to one other node. Some of LN usage is going to be via custodial services, such as BlueWallet, and I would consider this as increased adoption.

No. A checksum is used to help you quickly determine if a value is valid or not. It is not possible to go from the checksum to the original data (just as it is not possible to go from the hash of data to the original data).

The only way a checksum could potentially help you recover data is if you stored many versions of data, but a particular checksum would only validate one of these versions. This would allow you to quickly determine which version of your data is valid. However, for every checksum, there are an infinite number of potential data that has a given checksum. So using a checksum to recover your data is useless unless you have a limited number of data candidates.

It really depends on when the reports were made, and when the cutoff for the reporting period was. For example, if someone happened to make many reports shortly before the reporting cutoff, it is possible that the mods simply had not yet had time to handle the reports.

A useful piece of additional context would be of the ~1700 unhandled reports, how many were handled as of 48 hours after the reporting period ended.

e:fix typo

I think it is most likely that exchanges stand to lose more in trading fees than they do in additional transaction fee revenue if they required their customers to withdraw their coin immediately after trading. I don't think transaction fee revenue is as much as a revenue center as it is a way to discourage smaller accounts.

If someone with $20,000 worth of coin is forced to immediately withdraw, if this results in this customer from making a single trade, this type of policy would be a net negative from a profit perspective.

Another negative is that this policy would effectively make it impossible for an exchange to store customer money in cold storage. Currently, if a malicious actor were to compromise the trading engine, and say for example crash the price down to $0.01, the exchange could simply reverse the trades, and take the hit for whatever was in their hot wallet. If customers had to withdraw, anyone holding USD would likely be left holding the bag.

Appearently Mailchimp has a decent number of crypto-related companies as their customers.

Mailchimp is likely to only have a list of email addresses, and at most your name (although this could be limited to your first or last name and gender). Obviously, the fact that you are likely a customer of a particular company was also leaked, which allows the hacker to send phishing emails.

I don't see any centralized exchange ever doing this. Requiring customers to withdraw their coin will lead to higher costs in the form of transaction fees, and will likely result in transaction fees increasing if the exchange is large enough.

Allowing customers to keep their coin on an exchange will also make their account more "sticky" as their customers will have to do more to move their money elsewhere. Further, allowing customers to keep their money on an exchange makes it easier for their customers to trade, which leads to both more liquidity, and to higher trading fees.

There are just too many incentives for Robinhood, or any other exchange to implement something similar to what you propose.

This is the reason why I think it is unlikely for 2FA to ever be implemented on bitcointalk.

There is a lot of commerce that takes place on bitcointalk, however, a bitcointalk account is intended to be used for discussion. So the types of verifications that 2FA provides is better done when trading, rather than when logging in. There are sometimes occasions in which someone will legitimately lose access to their private keys, and the market can decide how to handle these situations, which will typically be that the person will need to earn trust subsequent to losing their private keys.

If 2FA is required to even log in, there will be instances in which the administration will be faced with the choice between not allowing someone who has evidence they are a long-standing forum member from accessing their account and potentially allowing an imported from accessing a long-standing forum member's account.

This is false.

When miners are mining via Bitcoin's PoW protocol, they are generating random numbers, passing each of those random numbers through a hash algorithm, and when the output of the hash algorithm is below a target, the miner will broadcast their found block. The output of the hash algorithm is effectively random, so with a given target, the expected number of "guesses" will be the same regardless of if one person is working on the block, or a billion people are working on the block.

There might be an argument that some work is waisted when two miners find a block at approximately the same time, however reducing the number of miners mining at once will not address this issue as most mining entities are going to be using multiple computers at once to try to find a block. I am not sure of how frequently this happens, but I understand that in the past it had occurred approximately 1% of the time, and this has likely gone down.

So reducing wasted work theoretically has an upper bound potential to reduce the amount of electricity consumed via bitcoin PoW by 1%.

It is generally a good business practice to have a little extra capacity than what you actually plan on utilizing in case someone wants to purchase extra (in this case, ad space). Doing so will keep your customers happy when you can sell to them, will prevent them from looking elsewhere (in this case to advertise), and will allow you to sell at a premium.

The $73 works out to about 1.4%, and the trader presumably got the market rate/price. On a DEX, there is a fee to the DEX plus the potential for the price to not be in your favor.

When trading, it is best to consider both the total fees, and the price you will get when compared to other mainstream markets.

No, that is unlikely. N0nce has less than 2k merit, and o_e_l_e_o and theymos both need less than 500 merit to reach 10k. I think it is most likely that one of them will reach 10k within a month.

My guess is that your older posts received more merit when the merit system was initially introduced, and over time the ratio of merit received for recent posts to merit received for older posts increased.

If you have been deleting posts over time, given your high post count, if the merit system had been introduced a month before you created your account, you would likely have substantially more merit than you have today, well above your 7800 estimate.

I like receiving merit as it shows that others appreciate my posts. Having additional merit gives you potentially more weight in the trust system because you are able to "vote" for more users to be eligible for DT1.

What was changed/edited?

---

---

I would add that plagiarism often results in posts that make little sense in the context of the subject conversation.

The above is important because copying the above ASICII art into a bitcointalk post would be illogical as this is not ebay. This is a subtle, but important detail. If you were to post this ASICII art in a sales thread (for example), it would raise more questions than the post would answer.

Disregarding the plagiarism question, I think saying that you traded on eBay when a seller says they will only sell via the forum, without additional context/information, may rise to being off-topic.

I would also point out that the person who sent these eBay feedbacks likely did so in order to attract attention to his own eBay store. Almost as a means of free advertising. Given your already high profile status as a trader, and your existing reputation, I think using something similar to what is referenced in the OP is not a good use of your time from a business perspective.