There is logic in using such gas, but those who constantly attack Bitcoin using the environmental vector will not say that this is something positive if we know that they focus on Bitcoin consuming electricity like a smaller country. They don't even care that the losses in the electric network on an annual level in the world are about 50 000 TWh, but they are worried about the absurdly small 200-300 TWh consumed by BTC during the whole year, and at least 50% of that comes from renewable sources.

The saying "We do not negotiate with terrorists" is well-known, but I think that after the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, it became completely meaningless, considering that the terrorists became good guys literally overnight. Even your president is starting to change his rhetoric a bit when he talks about possible political negotiations with a "terrorist state" when the conditions are met, referring to successes in the military field.

If we take into account the number of people who die in this war, negotiations are something that is logical and humane, but on the other hand, until the Ukrainian soldier stands on every meter of Ukraine and drives away the occupiers, we cannot say that Ukraine has succeeded.

Africa has always been exploited in the past, and this is the case even now, only Europe may not do that anymore, but Russia will take the main role - and the people who live there obviously do not understand that they must free themselves from all foreign influences if they finally want to start living as the rest of the world.

It seemed unfair to me from the first moment I heard about bounty campaigns, and that's why I've never participated in such things because the risk factor is simply too great compared to the possible reward. The problem is that most of those who participate in such campaigns do not understand this risk and are often disappointed in the end when they receive nothing or some worthless tokens.

Regardless of the fact that some will disagree because they have personal financial benefits from all of this, I somehow look at it as using those who are desperate enough and also uneducated as cheap or even completely free labor. We can also call it modern internet slavery without any reservations, no matter how ugly it sounds.

No matter how you look at it, it really took them a long time to do something, not to mention the fact that those behind that bot network probably started several bot networks in that period, and some of them are probably still functioning today. It's an eternal game of cat and mouse, and the cat is happy because it caught the mouse, regardless of the fact that countless mice are still around it.

---

I'm somehow convinced that much more damage was done through fiat than through cryptocurrencies, because at the time when the bot network was supposedly created, Bitcoin didn't even exist, and it wasn't until 2017 that BTC made its way into the mainstream and became popular with hackers. Even today, the number of people who own cryptocurrencies is below 5% of the total population, but there is no doubt that hackers exploit them much more than one might expect.

I don't know how you interpret what you wrote, but for me this is more than a clear recommendation. You definitely recommend both wallets, only the second one as an alternative.

Without fooling ourselves about what people are talking about Bitcoin, the fact is that most people don't understand even the most basic things, and the others don't even try to understand because they think it's all one big scam. Therefore, it is strange to me that people at their gatherings, after everything they do online, still think that it is normal to talk about Bitcoin and not about some much more relaxed topics that go better with good food and drinks.

In addition, talking about Bitcoin in public today is not the same as it was ten years ago when it comes to your safety. Be sure that when you talk about Bitcoin there are always those who do not have the best intentions, and if you show that you know something more than what the average person knows, you will certainly catch someone's eye.

I'm really interested in how much it would take for someone to earn $1, while adhering to all the rules, especially those regarding spam and the quality of posts? I don't see that it can succeed in the way the owner envisioned, because it is too much work for so little money, and I believe that even the most stubborn spammers will not see their opportunity in this.

I'm really surprised that you give such a recommendation at all, considering that Trust Wallet is also mentioned in the context of Libbitcoin Explorer and so far $900k worth of cryptocurrencies stolen. There is nothing trusted in that wallet except the name, and besides, the company that privatized that wallet is really shady, not to say a harsher word.

[WARNING] Wallets created with Libbitcoin Explorer (bx) are insecure!

On the link you posted, there is no mention anywhere about how much crypto was seized (it is not actually mentioned at all), and that $8.6 million really sounds ridiculous if we convert it into BTC (a little more than 300 BTC). If we take into account that it is certainly not only about BTC but also about various altcoins, then this news doesn't really have much to do with Bitcoin, right?

In any case, good PR for the director who put a big smile on his face, even though it only took them 15 years to achieve this result - and how much money they spent on it is better not to mention.

Someone who deals in cryptocurrency trading should have at least a little understanding of the concept behind bounty campaigns. Unfortunately, we once again see how the influence of social networks brings people to the forum with only one goal, and that is to try to earn something, without actually doing anything but copy/pasting links from morning to night and hoping to get the promised reward.

I know that some will say that there are bounty campaigns where you can make some money, but that's like looking for a needle in a haystack - not to mention the moral side of promoting such projects that mostly fail or turn out to be scams.

If the fee of 0.7% is too expensive for you, you are actually looking for something that would fall into the "no fee" category, but I believe that every service has a price, especially if it is something that will provide you with a high level of privacy. I personally consider 1-2% of the fee to be more than a fair price, although I understand that if it is about larger amounts, everyone would like to pay as little as possible - I hope you will find something that will satisfy you.

There will certainly be some effect, but not only because of Gabon, but because of everything that is happening in other African countries where the interests of the West and the East are in conflict. It seems to me that what is happening right now is directly related to Russia's influence in these countries and it is in some way a continuation of the war in the sense that Russia wants to take revenge for the support that the US and the EU provide to Ukraine.

If we take into account the history of European colonization and exploitation of Africa as a continent, which continued in modern times, then we should not be surprised that some of the African countries openly showed their support for Russia, and just a few days before his death, the boss of Wagner posed with a group of excited people who wanted a selfie with him.

Well, that same man paid a fine and was given a conditional sentence because, I think in 2018, he manipulated the price of his companies' shares. I guess at some point he got the signal to stop his media activities when it comes to cryptocurrencies or he would find himself in trouble with the SEC again.

I guess it all depends on how powerful you are, and when you have a few hundred billion $, then the threshold of tolerance is much higher than for an ordinary mortal.

And then I wonder (as well as some others) why the market reacted in such a positive way, considering that regardless of the court decision, 5+ months may still pass until the SEC makes a final decision whether to approve a spot ETF from any company. However, theoretically, the approval can also happen during 2023, considering the deadlines, especially if the SEC is a team player of the company (BR) that is closest to the top of the US government and that has the greatest chance of being the first to get the green light.

In any case, in less than half a year we will know whether the SEC will finally give in to the pressure, or whether the story will have a new continuation during the next year as well.

I had the opportunity to log in to my laptop almost 15 years ago using facial recognition technology, and I gave it up very quickly because it caused me more problems than benefits, and after that I never used such a method of protection on a smartphone. I agree that this method is even less secure than fingerprint protection, but also both methods can be very easily abused in various situations. Whether it is a physical attack in which the attacker will unlock your device without any problems, or one of your family members will use your face or finger while you are sleeping and peek into your device.

When it comes to mobile wallets, we always have the option of additional protection for each app on the device with a PIN or additional password, so that even if someone manages to unlock the device, they still cannot access our wallet without additional actions.

Therefore, I would recommend for everyone who uses Android to additionally protect all apps that contain sensitive information - and information on how to do this on different devices can be found at the following link -> How to Lock Apps on Android Phones in 2023.

To me, there is nothing strange here, because not all people who invest or use Bitcoin are the same, some only want profit and have no other motives, while others (who are the minority) were attracted by something else. If someone did a serious global survey on how many BTC investors would agree to sell all the BTC they have at some expensive price, but if that meant that BTC would no longer exist after that, what do you think the survey results would be?

What do people really want? Well, some want the price to be as low as possible because they think that BTC is simply too expensive to invest in it, while others who just want to profit dream of a big pump. But wishes are one thing, and reality is something completely different - which means that anyone can buy and sell BTC at any time and in any amount, without asking for any permission from anyone else.

Why such a question at all when everyone who has been active in this board should already know the answer - every few weeks/months the OP appears with identical questions to which he has already received countless answers. The conclusion has long been more than clear, he simply does not accept anything he reads here.

For those who think I'm exaggerating ->

When you sell something, you should be more precise in some details, because otherwise it can lead to unpleasant situations.

For example, here you claim that the account is "unlimited", but you state the following in the shop :


Which means that after 30 days you can refuse to extend the use of the service for any reason. Also, you are not selling an account here, you are selling the use of one profile within that account, which is a big difference. The price of $10 may be favorable for some, but for the same price I buy a completely legal Premium UHD account and use 4 profiles simultaneously on 4 different devices.

In addition, in most countries you can no longer share profiles outside the household if you do not pay extra, or you cannot share them at all.

We can be sure of that, given that they have been working on it for at least 10 years, and this was confirmed by someone who had an insight into all that. If we look at the actual volume of their work, which included time, money and specific knowledge, then it is clear how much of a priority this issue was for them.


Guessing pays very well today, and that's why many people started to engage in this business. It is obvious that all the companies that pay for their services need some kind of justification for the purpose of disclaimer in order to fight against money laundering and of course the state's enemy number 1 - terrorism.

This is the situation when someone says "based on the collected data, we did not think that we should take any actions to prevent...", and I guess that's exactly what such companies are for.

Exactly, these are the funds of their clients that are there because they trade with them, but there are probably also those who use these companies as banks, which is definitely not recommended. However, if you were to add up all the BTC that are in custodial wallets, you still get millions of coins that are at risk of being hacked or seized at any time.

It would be ideal for everyone to use non-custodial wallets, and to trade via DEX, but that is something that is hard to expect considering that people mostly choose simplicity at the expense of privacy and security.