The stories shared here highlight a pattern of targeted theft and manipulative tactics, yet people still entrust their funds to this platform. The community needs to question why individuals continue using Freewallet despite its notorious reputation.

The present average Bitcoin fee at 123 sat/vB, amounting to $6.29, renders it useless for everyday transactions.

In 2017, the high fees and slow confirmation times pushed many large merchants away from Bitcoin. Increasing block capacity could help address these issues and encourage broader merchant acceptance.

I noticed the option to delete account is gone. Any specific reason for its removal? It was great for privacy. When and why was this change made?

I'm sorry to hear about the situation. The chances of recovery might be low, considering the amount. Still, it's essential to report it to the police for documentation. Even if the amount is small, having an official record could be useful.

Trading with leverage can be tricky. Always factor in fees, especially with high leverage. It's like they say, "Know your fees, know your game."

It's great to see Bitcoin gaining traction in Turkey! However, given the political situation, considering migration to a more freedom-oriented country does cross my mind.

LN could be a game-changer if more merchants adopt it. The fees for opening channels can be a hurdle, though.

It's crucial to strike a balance between cautioning about the risks and providing guidance. Bitcoin trading can be highly volatile and risky, so it's responsible to make newcomers aware of these challenges. However, this should be done in a constructive and educational manner.

Encouraging newbies to seek knowledge, research, and develop a solid understanding of the market is essential. Sharing resources, recommending reputable sources for learning, and emphasizing the importance of risk management are all positive ways to help newcomers on their journey.

If there were a successful quantum attack on SHA-256, which is the hashing algorithm used in Bitcoin, it would have significant implications for the Bitcoin network and its infrastructure. Here's how it might affect miners, mining hardware, Bitcoin wallets, and the need to migrate funds:

Miners and Mining Hardware:

Miners would be affected because the current Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm in Bitcoin relies heavily on SHA-256 for mining.
Quantum computers could potentially break the cryptographic primitives underpinning SHA-256, which would render the current mining hardware and strategies obsolete.
To maintain the security of the network, Bitcoin would need to transition to a quantum-resistant PoW algorithm, such as one based on quantum-resistant cryptographic primitives like lattice-based cryptography or hash-based signatures.
Miners would need to upgrade their hardware and software to adapt to the new algorithm, which might require significant investments.

Bitcoin Wallets:

Existing Bitcoin wallets that use classical public-key cryptography could become vulnerable to quantum attacks if a quantum computer becomes capable of breaking these algorithms.
Users might need to transition to quantum-resistant wallet software or generate new quantum-resistant addresses.
It's essential to note that not all wallets would be equally vulnerable; those that use post-quantum cryptographic techniques would be more secure.

Migration of Funds:


Depending on the severity of the quantum threat and the actions taken by the Bitcoin community, there might be a need to migrate funds from old addresses to new quantum-resistant addresses.
This migration process could be initiated by wallet software providers or done manually by users, depending on the circumstances and the transition strategy chosen by the Bitcoin developers and community.
The migration would involve creating new quantum-resistant keys and transferring Bitcoin holdings to these new addresses. Users would have to follow guidelines provided by wallet developers or the Bitcoin community to ensure a secure transition.


In summary, a successful quantum attack on SHA-256 would necessitate significant changes to the Bitcoin network, including a transition to a quantum-resistant PoW algorithm, upgrades to mining hardware and software, and a potential migration of funds to new quantum-resistant addresses. The specifics of these changes would depend on the nature and timing of the quantum threat, as well as the response of the Bitcoin community and developers. It's crucial for users to stay informed about developments in quantum computing and the Bitcoin ecosystem to take appropriate actions to protect their holdings.

Of course, they did lock it. They wouldn't lock your account if you lost a million. That's a standard casino practice.

Is anyone still using Wasabi after the revelation of their collaboration with chain analytics companies? What is its liquidity, does it even have enough users to coinjoin with?

Has anyone had issues, has their Bitcoin been rejected or blocked by Wasabi, and does it even make sense to use it after everything that has happened?

It's interesting how casinos care about your identity, source of funds, etc. only if you win. You can lose millions and they will not ask for any documents.

Right now they are busy destroying hard drives, phones, cleaning or burning their houses... Because, they don't want their local barista to know what they were doing with Bitcoin. 

Even before data was seized, it was possible for analytics companies to see all incoming and outgoing transactions from ChipMixer. It was so clear and obvious, onchain. The problem was to to make a connection of incoming and outgoing (chips).

So, the only thing that really matters is if he kept sessions (logs) for more then 7 days.

Back online!

Is the owner of this casino still the cocaine addict from Australia?

I can't even access the site right now. Tried directly from my ISP and from VPN.

And, it is not just me. 

https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/blackjack.fun.html

People are committing suicides and "Stablekwon" is still on freedom, starting his new ponzi/scam.

There is somebody still "investing" in "new Luna" after recent events?