Sorry 1miau, I agree with @hosseinimr93 here: if one posts into a self-mod topic he knows that his post may get removed. This doesn't happen with a "free" topic. Changing this "during the game" is unfair advantage for topic owner.

Just imagine a shady business getting a couple of bad reviews: in your proposal it will be allowed to change to self-mod and remove those. Those users, if they would have known that there's a chance their posts get removed may have been made the complaints in completely different topics.

Your use case takes into account only your situation when the topic starter is honest and the posts he wants to remove are probably spam (which can be reported) or bad intention garbage (which, at an extent can be ignored, and if a threshold is passed the topic ends with a link to the new moderated topic). We are old enough around here and can find our ways. Let's not give more tools to the scammers only because we want some things be easier for us.


This would make sense, but may be more difficult to implement.

Mulțumesc Gazeta, am participat la toate ultimele concursuri. Baftă să avem!

---

Avem o nouă reeditare a concursului lui Krogoth.

[FREE RAFFLE] 504th ฿ECAUSE I AM STILL IN A GOOD MOOD-CYPHER HODL PRINTED COIN
Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5442637

Organizator: krogothmanhattan

Premiul: o monedă Cypher Hodl printată la imprimantă 3D


Sunt acceptate doar conturi create după 1 Februarie 2023.
Înscriere: se alege un număr de la 00 la 99 (care nu a fost deja rezervat).
Transportul este gratuit doar în SUA, în rest de discută cu MJ.

--
Edit: s-au mai adăugat la premiu niște chestii foarte interesante - un petic "Magic Internet Money" și un abțibild cu primul bloc.

This logic is useful only if another pool gets a target hash in the same time, which happens rather rarely.
In most cases that competition for milliseconds between pools doesn't exist. It's not like all pools find the block all the time exactly at 11:23:56.777 and being the quickest really matters.
So normally the pool can easily grab both the block and the fees. Sometimes it may not be able do that, but it doesn't know when is that.

Maybe I'm missing something, but really, if you would be right, all miners would just mine empty blocks.

I think that if one makes his own casino.. may spoil the fun of it. Or, at least, would not play at his casino (and then it's two unrelated things).

Having/managing a casino is not necessarily for a gambler. It's for somebody who knows to handle all the legal things, all the software and security issues. Gambler(s) can be asked for opinion now and then in order to spice up the games. But the rest is more management than gambler-mind business.

Even more, a gambler may take unnecessary risks with his business (eg start with too low bankroll and risk not having money to pay the winnings at start, especially as the start is more expensive due to increased advertising and bonuses), so he can doom the business before properly starting it. Not a good mix.

Making Bitcoin/crypto illegal is stupid at best. The government makes (some of) the voters unhappy and also loses money it could get from taxing crypto gains.
So getting it legal is an easy step and a win-win situation. The "like El Salvador" is another step, a much bigger and harder one. But I wish you good luck and may the right candidate win and also fulfill his promise!

I'm not trying to justify anything. Imho any fee bigger than the minimal (for my small sized transactions) is probably not worth it because I'd pay less on LN if I'd bother switching.


I don't deny that. But if there's no huge improvement in the number of blocks mined by the pool, the miners will not be happy about those fees they're losing.
And I can bet that the pool does care about keeping (most of) its miners there.


Again, I think that you're over-simplifying the things. Let's say the pool doesn't care and mines empty blocks. But if the pool constantly mines empty blocks and the miners don't get the income they're expecting, they'll leave. And then the pool will care. (Of course, again, the pool will make sure this doesn't happen, hence will try to find a good balance.)


... But I think that we've started now to get somewhat off topic...

It seems that Luke was targeted. It seems that Luke didn't use hardware wallet nor a proper cold storage (ie completely offline).
So a proper cold storage (if you know what you're doing) or a hardware wallet should do. Then you cannot really get hacked.
You can make smaller transactions also with one wallet. Nowadays a (HD) wallet can have many addresses and you can use them wisely with the right wallet software.

Of course, I also think that if somebody has really big money in bitcoin then multiple wallets (most probably hardware wallets) may not be a too bad idea.
I think I've read in the news of a family that has a big number of wallets spread all over the world, exactly for this reason.

However, that one cold storage - multiple online wallets (probably watch only?) - thing doesn't make sense to me, but I may be missing/misunderstanding something there.

Come on, Franky, the fact that some can now and then make a deal with the mining pool to mine their tx with small or no (on-chain) fee (who knows if other payment was made and how much that was?) is an exception.
The rule is that in 99.999% of the cases a mining pools will prefer the transactions with the higher fees ( per vByte ).


On the other hand, I do agree that paying more may, on long term only make all the fees gradually increase with no benefit for anybody else than the miners. Plus the users think that the next fee after 1 sat/vByte is 2 sat/vByte, not 1.1 or so, making the rise more abrupt.
I'd like to see this NFT spam gone, but I don't think it'll happen too soon. And I fear we are heading to ... what we had in December 2017 (as fees).

Bitcointalk Username: NeuroticFish
Utopia Public Key: B60BB01CBC88C8E9E36206CF8D92C733AE5AA972439A12C5E6CDE80A45E31352
Message Deep Link (Chat link): https://utopia.im/d53b4431fd604e2f0261792444797aa4?tid=2465403565634570826
Slot No: 24

Thank you.

Legal tender should not mean tax exemption, knowing that the state is, by definition, hungry for money.
But if bitcoin becomes legal tender there might become pretty difficult to know who and how much bitcoin did spend, since the grocery store doesn't ask for your ID.

I guess that sooner or later bitcoin will be recognized for what it is: another form of money. Then it should be no need for such tax and legal tender would be easy and normal. But governments need to be interested to do such a move, so my hopes are very low on that.

I'm not sure what country are you from, but Bitcoin is legal (ie not illegal) in most countries.
However, if Bitcoin will become legal tender, ie I'll be able to pay for everything I want with Bitcoin if I want to, then I'll be indeed very happy.

You're one hour off. Q1 is already running.


I've seen P3 and there Aston Martin and Mercedes have also looked strong. Max may have some real opposition this year. And if so it'll be great!

EPS is focused for single-wallet usage.
Electrs can be used with any amount of unrelated wallets. Also can be used by block explorer (if you install one).


I'm not sure what you mean here. I've always user Electrs locally and didn't expose it to the internet, it works very good like that. But I don't know if or where would be the settings Electrs would advertise itself as Electrum Server. However, since I have no port forwarding done for it, I'm not concerned.
On the other hand, I've done tests with another server, Fulcrum, and there I had to explicitly disable its announcing to get to same behavior as I have with Electrs.


In theory the seeds should be enough to re-create the wallet if it's the case.
Just imagine: from the seeds you can restore the original 3 wallets. And I guess that from the 3 original wallets the multisig one can also be re-created. I don't see any reason to not be like that, but you can easily try this when you have the devices (or wait until you get answers from somebody who has actually done that).

Thank you.
From what I've seen I think that the account was not banned (not even temp ban), still, removing that garbage is an obvious step forward.
So I'll add my "thank you" to the mods too.

Sunt de acord. Felicitari pentru initiativa si pentru traducere!
As adauga doar ca nu strica sa punem mai la vedere adresele de donatii. Ca fiecare leu satoshi poate sa ajute.
Am gasit postarea acesta, dar nu stiu daca mai este de actualitate, ca am vazut ca nu a mai donat nimeni de multisor, iar topicul este inchis. Stii cumva ceva despre asta?

I didn't manage to make Bitcoin Core work with hardware wallet. It was half a year ago, but I don't expect it to be better now.

If it helps, I use (with my hardware wallet) Electrum with Electrs as server, not EPS. I've found EPS far too restrictive (although afaik it does support multisig wallets too!). So if you'll get into troubles and want to go for a better server, my tutorial is made for Windows, but since Electrs is installed onto the WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux), it can be useful even if you have actual Linux.

It is built into the price and from what I also know nothing else is shown. Maybe some extra fee as "transaction fee" in some cases.
However, the ATM shows both buy and sell prices and you can easily see how big is the spread, hence the fee they're trying to get from you. Not the most straightforward way, nor the most exact, still it can work/can help.


Wow. I've seen ~14% fees and I've found them very big (normal would be somewhere closer to 6%). But in your case, if my math is right, it's 23.5%. That's indeed excessive.

You may be missing something here and there.
1. I do have address (actually 2 addresses) staked, still, when I want to do things, I usually do on completely different addresses so I don't reuse that much. Would that make me a scammer? I hope not 
2. Knowing the fact from point 1, nobody stops a hacker (especially the hacker of a long inactive account) remain with this badge and still use a different address.
3. One can make a new account and stake his address and might be (wrongly) seen as reputable.

So.. I think that this kind of badge would not help. It could even mislead. The proper rules for engaging in trading on the forum are:
* Read carefully all trust feedback no matter who made it, then decide for yourself.
* Make proper use of reputable escrows.
* Avoid impersonation by avoiding other messaging platforms and by using and requesting signed messages (and here the staked address will help).


I think that this is more appropriate for Meta.

Yes and no. Bitcoin is still risky too. Clearly not in the way it was 8, 10 or more years ago, but still risky, let's be honest. Some accept and embrace that risk, some get scared and end up buying high and selling low. Some don't even understand that if Bitcoin will be an even bigger success than now, it will be even farther than now from what it was 10 years ago (as privacy - KYC, as hacks, as technology - see LN for example). Plus the war and a (bad ass) blizzard can still drop the hash rate significantly in 2023!

So bitcoin is still fair to be seen as a risky investment. Riskier than some others (like buying a house and renting it out, for example). Better than some others (imho bitcoin is less risky than many stocks!).

Altcoins, omg, yes, much, much riskier. But pure gamble? No, I wouldn't call them that. I would call 95%+ of them scam, simply because their sole use is to get money flowing for no good reason. Then there are the actual altcoins that may worth attention. Now and then they have good gains even vs bitcoin. Now and then they fall badly. A skilled trader or even investor can earn nicely. Some are strong projects that even worth more support. But gamble? A beginner, probably he can see them as a gamble and they will most probably lose in that. For somebody with enough experience it can be.. just a higher level of risk.

So if one wants to go that route.. it needs years of research before the first move is made. Clearly at that point one is no longer beginner. Before that... yes, avoid.

You're right. The newspapers have greatly fueled this misconception, but it was debunked nicely on bitcointalk, see:
Misconception of selling at premium in Nigeria

Basically the BTC-USD parity is the normal one, just the USD price/rate in Naira is much bigger on the street than what's in the official papers.
So the premium is not on Bitcoin itself, it's actually on USD, if we can say so.