It would be very ill-advised to prevent someone from being able to spend all of their coin that is in their wallet unless a criterion is met (being within a geofence) as they could potentially mean the end-user is unable to spend all of their coin. Someone with login access to an iOS device can arbitrarily change the time/date, so it would be trivial to override any $/unit_of_time limitation. It would also be necessary to prevent someone from being able to access their private keys while outside of the geofence, or else an adversary could simply access the private keys and spend the entire unspent UTXO set controlled by a seed.

---

I do have one solution:
The current implementation of iOS allows automation based on certain criteria, including leaving a location and arriving at a location.

If you have a LN wallet on your phone, and a LN node on a home computer, you could create an automation that causes your phone to create a LN invoice that requests x BTC (potentially based on the current price) and sends that invoice to your home computer whenever your phone leaves a particular location. You could also create an automaton that automatically sends the remaining unspent coin whenever your phone arrives at a location.

Separately, you could create a script that approves/pays a LN invoice received from whatever information channel you designate to receive payment requests from your phone, when certain criteria are met. Your script can also automatically receive a transaction from your phone when it arrives to your home geolocation.

If your phone wallet is a LN node with a direct open channel connected to your home computer, moving the coin back and forth will be free. If your phone wallet is bluewallet (a custodial wallet), or does not otherwise have a direct LN channel open with your home computer, you will have to pay tx fees to move the coin back and forth.

The OP is describing a common employment scam.

The scam works like this:
Someone is hired to receive payments to their personal bank account from a third party. Often the payments being received are checks being mailed to the "employees" residence.
The "employee" is to deposit the check into their personal bank account.
The "employee" then is to either wire the funds to the "employer", buy gift cards, or send cash to the employer, less a percentage cut for the employee.
The check is either drawn on a non-existent bank account, or is fraudulent, or will otherwise result in the "employees" bank ultimately reversing the deposit.

Replace receiving a check with receiving a PayPal transaction, or an ACH payment, nad replace send cash with send bitcoin, and you have what the OP is trying to facilitate.

Both Roobet and Stake appear to be licensed. I think most likely that both are regulated by their licensing agency, and both also almost certainly self-regulate to certain standards.

Both also appear to have resources for those that are addicted to gambling, such as the ability to self-exclude themselves from gambling on their respective websites.

Further, the low house edge of both Roobet and Stake allows their customers to gamble more before the EV of their customers' cumulative bets is such that their bankroll will decline to zero.

There are plenty of things that traditional casinos do to entice gamblers that crypto casinos do not do.

My understanding is that an invoice requires the specific amount of bitcoin (or coin) to be paid. I understand that if any other amount is attempted to be paid, the transaction will not be valid.

The reason for this is that both parties to a channel need to agree on the proposed new channel balance and the specific new channel balance amount needs to be known in advance.

0.00014165 BTC.

The invoice amount is the amount that will be received by the LN node (or your bluewallet account). Most services that hold bitcoin on your behalf with deduct any transaction or withdrawal fees from your account balance, not the withdrawal amount.

I am not even 100% sure they are not two different people.

interiawp appears to have been selling a script capable of stealing a key after so many transactions being "sent" by that key appear on the blockchain (or are otherwise available to the person using the script).

The script is not coded particularly well, and the math involving eliciptal curves is above my pay grade, so I am unable to determine if it actually works or not.

Rittenhouse did not murder anyone. He was literally found not guilt of murder today.

If Rittenhouse was one of the rioters, he would not have even been charged, so there would be no verdict. For example, the court found that Rittenhouse was reasonably afraid of being killed by Gaige Grosskreutz, yet Gaige Grosskreutz was not charged with attempted murder, even after he admitted in open court to pointing a gun at Rittenhouse.

If one of the BLM terrorists shot someone, it probably wouldn't have been in self defense. I don't think there were any instances of BLM terrorists being attacked during last year's riots.

There are a number of issues with this figure that makes me believe it is not reliable.

They are only polling people with a smartphone, and they are only polling people with their smartphone app (these are two separate issues). Neither of these are going to be representative of the general population.

They say the survey is ongoing, but they released some of the results ahead of time. This has the potential to affect future responses.

Typically, when conducting a survey, the person conducting the survey will calculate how many responses they need in order to get an accurate representation of the general population and will stop once they receive that many responses. 11k+ responses seems like a lot to me.

I think conducting the survey via their app (likely paying them to do so) will likely oversample responses from poorer countries. The dollar for example is widely accepted throughout the world, even in places where it is not the official currency. This is because the dollar is trusted more than the local currency. In some places, if you are traveling from the US, you almost don't even need to exchange your dollars for the local currency -- you can pay for everything in dollars, and sometimes end up getting a better price for doing so (although in these types of places, many vendors are willing to negotiate on price for everyone).

Perhaps the rule could be narrowed such that it would always apply. One suggestion might be to narrow the rule to say that you cannot complain about posts being deleted from that specific thread unless the thread is in meta. Another option might be that it is not acceptable to repost a post that was previously deleted by the moderators, without permission from a moderator, or that you cannot take action to reverse what a moderator did, unless you are complaining in meta, or have received permission to do so.

I don’t see it every day, but there are spirts of instances where someone will complain about the moderation about a specific thread in that thread, specifically they are complaining that posts are being deleted (never about posts not being deleted).

Regardless a one line about the moderation in an otherwise on-topic post, I have seen off-topic divergences that have one line related to the OP, even though the majority of the post is off-topic. I bite my tongue and don’t report these posts because they are technically on-topic. Perhaps some similar standard could be written.

My biggest concern is that someone who is complaining should know where to complain about the moderation. Almost all the time, if a post is moderated, the moderation follows forum policy. However there is always the risk a mod goes rogue, or a mod account gets hacked. If this happens and people complain in the wrong section, the administration will have difficulty detecting the moderator doing something he shouldn’t be.

The case is unusual because both sides are agreeing on a fact that is widely disputed and is very likely not true.

The article says that the defense (Wright) has said the evidence will show that Wright created bitcoin on his own. This is a very interesting legal strategy because if Wright were to make the Kleiman family prove that Wright had anything to do with bitcoin's creation, the case would fall on its face, and would potentially reach the point of being frivolous, as I don't believe there is credible evidence to support Wright having anything to do with bitcoin's creation.

Wright has credibility to gain in this case.

There is obviously a reason why Wright has subjected himself to scrutiny in claiming he is satoshi, and the public humiliation and ridicule when he publishes "proof" that a knowledgeable person might believe shows that he is fraudulent. Assuming Wright never makes any money from any coin that satoshi mined, Wright could likely make far more money by leveraging his skills and knowledge than he is currently (what I believe to be) by pretending to be satoshi. It is possible Wright intends to try to securitize and/or collateralize satoshi's bitcoin without giving the buyer/lender any actual access to the private keys of the underlying coin. This would obviously be dangerous for the buyer/lender that would be highly likely to result in them loosing all their money.

The author is not part of the bitcoin/crypto community (that I am aware of). I understand he has a long history of reporting on various markets, most recently reporting on bitcoin/crypto markets for the past ~6 years.

Someone buying a S19j Pro directly from bitmain today would pay approximately 0.26BTC.

I would judge a miner's success based on the total return versus how long it takes someone to achieve ROI with their equipment. Although I do agree the two are generally correlated.

At $3500, the S19s pro was probably priced too high to ROI in BTC terms unless you had very cheap electricity (absent the China ban and chip shortage). Bitmain obviously priced their gear this way because they want to maximize their own profits.

While the China ban is likely to be permanent, the miners that were mining in China are likely to eventually find a new home, and the chip shortage will eventually get resolved.

I am confident this is a rule enforced by the moderators but does not appear in the OP.

"34. Discussions about the moderation of threads, or the forum are automatically off-topic in all threads except threads located in meta"

I think it would be beneficial to add the above to the OP. I don't think everyone is aware of this rule, and adding it should cut down on these rule violations.

The OP (and others) were posting about posts being deleted in a thrad in the altcoin section. I would note that complaints about moderation in any thread except for those in meta are automatically off-topic.

My guess is something along the following happened:
1 - The OP wrote in the above thread about posts being deleted.
2 - Around the same time as [1], the OP sent someone a PM about posts being deleted
3 - Someone reported the OP's posts, either for violating the multi-posting rule (which he also appears to have violated), or for discussing complaints about moderation outside of meta.
4 - A moderator deleted the OP's posts.

I think it is likely that all 4 of the above probably happened around the same time. If the OP was posting about the moderation, he was likely also PM'ing about it (if he was to send any PMs about it) around the same time. I think all of the events have a correlation. It should also go without saying that correlation =/= causation.

It might not be unreasonable for someone to make a similar statement to you.

It has been explained to you that the nonce values of satoshi's blocks were distributed in such a way that allowed satoshi to use multiple computers to mine, and to prevent any of his computers from doing work already performed by another of his computers.

Yea, I figured you were referring to an agricultural farm.

Tractors, for example, can have a useful life of 20-30 years. So the cost of buying a tractor can be spread over that time.

I think you are probably overestimating the useful life of a miner purchased today (by understanding future difficulty increases). Production of new (including next gen) gear is being slowed by the chip shortage. Once the chip shortage is resolved, difficulty will start to go up at a faster pace. China banning mining in their country gave miners mining elsewhere a big boost via a difficultly decline that has still not recovered.

Bitcoin has shown itself to be very difficult to cover by the MSM. I don't know how many times articles have said that the mining process is a bunch of computers trying to "solve a complex mathematical problem" -- mining can be more accurately described as trying to brute force the solution to a mathematical problem. Journalists tend to find a single "expert" to use as the basis for a statement in their article and will just roll with it.

Anyone in the bitcoin/crypto world knows that a court saying that a particular person is satoshi does not actually mean that is true. Most people are not in the crypto world.

I like to keep an open mind, and am willing to hear evidence that will possibly change my mind. However, I very strongly doubt that any evidence will ever emerge that CSW is satoshi. The only way I can see myself even considering changing my mind would be if CSW lost the case and actually transferred a half-million bitcoin, on-chain to the Kleiman family. I think it is unlikely any of this will happen, but if it does, I would still look at the situation with a skeptical eye.

Here is how I view the situation from Ira Kleiman's point of view. Her brother was likely associated with CSW around the time that bitcoin was created, and there may be some evidence they were in business together around that time. From the looks of it, Kleiman may have had the technical expertise necessary to create bitcoin (there are a decent number of people who meet this criterion, so this does not prove Kleiman is satoshi). Then, a few years after her brother dies, CSW starts claiming to be satoshi.

If CSW loses the case and has to pay 500k bitcoin to the Kleiman family, he will be unable to do so. Selling his BSV will be insufficient to even come close.

You forgot to factor in the depreciation of your mining equipment. Obviously, current costs will depend on what specific manufacturer/model of equipment you are using.

It will only be profitable to use any specific equipment for so long, and that equipment needs to be paid for. The chip shortage has effectively prolonged the useful life of miners currently running, but the chip shortage will not last forever and is something that probably shouldn't be assumed will happen again when forecasting profits.

I don't know your parents' specific situation, however, I think it is probably fair to assume that their farm's equipment has a longer useful life than most mining equipment historically has had.

It sounds like those businesses don't want to be used by money launders. They want to avoid any investigation of them not complying with reporting requirements.

I don't doubt that some people in the crypto world will engage in similar procedures out of an abundance of caution. That doesn't mean that someone not following the above types of procedures would be violating the law.

I think it would probably be better to try to stop people on the OFAC list at the on/off ramps that convert bitcoin to/from fiat (or even goods/services) than at the mining level.

When sending a wire or opening a bank account, in order for the bank to be in compliance with OFAC regulations, they need to compare the person's name (and the receivers name for wires) with all names on the OFAC list (and if there is a match, to confirm if they are actually the same person).

The public key associated with the address 1KFHE7w8BhaENAswwryaoccDb6qcT6DbYY belongs to the mining pool f2pool. There are thousands (if not more) of miners who mine on f2pool, but all of f2pool's found blocks payout to the above address.

If f2pool makes it to the second round, any miner who is not participating in the second round will switch to mining on f2pool, or another pool that is participating in the second round. If a miner sits idle (or is not otherwise producing work that has the potential to find a block) during the second round, their equipment is losing out on potential value.

The difficulty of the first round could be "x", and the difficulty of the second round would be "10000x". Each of the miners who are "selected" during the first round could need to have their "block" include the hash of the previous block, and the first "block" in the first round would need to include the hash of block found in the second round. The found block in the second round would need to sign the hash of the last block of the first round. This is very similar to how bitcoin mining occurs today.

This article appeared in the November 15, 2021 paper edition of the Wall Street Journal (it was written on November 13, 2021).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-could-be-unmasked-at-florida-trial-11636808401

The family of David Kleiman (via his estate) is suing Craig S Wright for half of the bitcoin that satoshi mined in bitcoin's early days. The lawsuit claims that both Kleiman and Wright created bitcoin as a partnership in 2008/09. As many know, Wright has long claimed to be satoshi, without offering any (what I believe to be) real proof to backup this claim, however, he has presented (what I believe to be) fraudulent proof to suggest he is satoshi.

Regardless of the outcome of the case, I think Wright will claim that a court had ruled that he in fact created bitcoin. Even though the Kleiman family has a long history with Wright, I see this to largely be a case between two parties who are "friendly". Kleiman did create a partnership in 2011 that was titled in a way that might suggest some kind of partnership between Wright and Kleiman. Even with the partnership (that was created years after bitcoin was created), the Kleiman family has a long way to go in order to win their case.

If Wright receives a court ruling suggesting that he created bitcoin, he will gain credibility, although, IMO such credibility will be ill-deserved. Both sides of the case are arguing that Wright helped create bitcoin, and there is no one in the case arguing that he did not create bitcoin.

[moderator's note: fixed date format in title]

You said he was "actively shooting" - that is the same as an "active shooter":
Rittenhouse's father lived in Kenosha, he worked there and had other family and friends there. He lived "across state lines" in Illinois with his mother, who had custody of him (at least most of the time).

No, not all BLM protestors are terrorists, some are naive enough to not understand their goals. However, the goal of BLM as an organization is to terrorize people, especially when they roit and "protest". Trayvon Martin was killed by a Hispanic Obama supporter who was lawfully patrolling his community, and Martin instigated an attack against who would ultimately become his killer before Martin reached for his gun.

I think Rittenhouse will either be found guilty on all charges or will be acquitted on all charges. The evidence is strong in favor of a very quick acquittal (there is very little evidence in favor of a guilty verdict).

The criminal complaint against Rittenhouse can be found here. The accusation is that by shooting his AR-15 at the various people he shot (at), Rittenhouse is guilty of either murder, attempted murder, or reckless endangerment. Here is the statute Rittenhouse is charged under for reckless endangerment. It is vague, and I am not sure where the various terms are defined. The relevant self-defense statutes would apply to all of the charges, although the facts would need to be applied individually to each charge (Rittenhouse needed to meet the criteria for self-defense for each time he fired his gun).

He is likely not going to be able to live any kind of life resembling what a normal 18-year-old would expect to live. I think he will likely be able to find work though.

Also, a lot of the reason why Rittenhouse sees such dismal life prospects is due to the slander and defamation by far-left politicians who are trying to divide the country and get additional votes from their base. Rittenhouse should be able to get judgments against a lot of the "blue check" mob on twitter and by people like Job Biden, who, without evidence suggested he is a white suppremist, and that he Murdered the two people who died that night.