So I think you could use BCH client software from 2017 to do this still

1. Get a copy of that software (ABC 0.14)
2. Sync the BCH chain up to the block that ABC 0.14 got hard forked into ABC 0.15 (it will do this without you telling it to)
3. Open Armory 0.96.5 (which has a lockboxs fix). Sync it against the ABC chain you have
4. Use the wallet on 0.14 ABC to get a new address
5. Compose a transaction sending the BCH to that new address from step 4 (Armory won't work with anything more than 0.14, so this must be done)
6. Save that tx in Armory as a hex string
7. Get latest version of ABC
8. Sync it against the 0.14 blockchain
9. When it's caught up, send your hex string saved tx using bitcoin-cli sendrawtransaction or on the console in ABC gui
10. profit


You might have problems with step 2. It might get stuck syncing the first ever BCH block (their first hard fork basically didn't work, lol). Later versions of ABC might have this fixed, so you could solve it "simply" by switching to latest ABC at that point, then when you're sure it's now switched to the BCH fork, IMMEDIATELY (or at least very quickly) quit the ABC latest and switch back to ABC 0.14. Armory will not sign the transaction with any version after 0.14

---

You can do the above in a "proper" way rather than the "basic" way as outlined above, but as there's money involved, you might find the "proper" way more frustrating. The outcome will be identical in either case.

Also, I think Tier Nolan figured out a patch to latest Armory (0.96.5) that bypasses the above rigmarole, but that involves compiling his code. FWIW, he's known and of good standing on bitcointalk/in bitcoin generally

so there banning something that's already banned. Double banned! It's like something out of a tv commercial

every time you say "server", it makes it sound like bitcoin needs the computing equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger to run. in fact, bitcoin has been getting progressively leaner as software over the years. And there are more plans to continue that, while internet infrastructure and data plans have continued to improve.


I used to bring this up years ago, and people dismissed running a bitcoin node on a phone as impossible. you sound slightly like one of those people (although you're right that a raspi can do it, all you're really confirming is that a phone can too, as raspi's are based on the same hardware platform as modern phones)

large numbers of people in a Coinjoin are actually also leaking information, as it's somewhat unlikely that a regular batched transaction would use dozens (or hundreds) of equal amounts in it's inputs. It's not impossible, but it's a massive arrow pointing at the transaction, saying "this is a probable coinjoin". Then you're in possession of 'coinjoin tainted' BTC, which brings attention in and of itself.

So it's actually much better to use small numbers of people, with input amounts that differ. These are indistinguishable from regular wallet transactions, as it's common to use 3 or 4 inputs of different amounts. This has the advantage of overt coinjoins that not only is the ownership blurred, but there is no obvious way of identifying that ownership was blurred in the first instance. It appears that one person made a transaction, so long as there's no extra information available other than what's on the blockchain.

The above technique has another big advantage: if you do this when you pay someone for something, they can use the transaction to consolidate their dusty inputs from other customer payments.

what do you really think these politicians are like behind closed doors? if you really believe they're the sufficiently stupid to think that that policy will achieve it's publicized aim (when even the empty pints in the pub know the same thing you know), then it's you that's naive

the worst thing a government can do is:

• be really serious about doing something
• failing to do it

because it makes them look weak (which is a pretty accurate description of their regulatory capabilities vis a vis cryptocurrencies; weak)

it's highly likely that the main reason no government has implemented a serious ban is because the are afraid it won't work, and they have too much to lose in those circumstances


so, that's not a very good reason. let's take a look at your 2nd reason



all these so-called "reputed" news sites frequently back the government or corporate class' view of just about everything. So maybe the scare tactics are real, but the news is still (ugh) fake. A real report about something that's not going to happen is a real report, you're right about that, lol


The fact remains: no one, anywhere, has or will implement an effective ban. The governments appear to be "playing for time", as they say in sports commentary. Look what they've done with their time so far (10 whole years): a big, fat nothing

I'm not



no-one, not least these international buffoons themselves, has ever answered this question:


what. are. they. going. to. do.


so far, it's a whole load of "nothing". that's because there isn't anything that can be done.


you can't shut filesharing networks down, that software has had the best and brightest minds working on keeping it resilient to attack for 15 years. 3 or 4 multi-billion dollar industries were essentially decimated by that occurrence. Outcome: they gave up fighting They ignored, they ridiculed, they fought, they lost, done

So, I say it again: what are they going to do. Be honest, it's still "nothing", isn't it?

The above graph tells us how much energy is needed to re-write the blockchain (400+ days worth right now), using the hash rate that was available at the time. There's your energy backed currency JC.

Not directly redeemable, but in fact this is better: the energy redeems the currency, not the other way round

Privacy and/or anonymity work both ways round.

• People use privacy to do bad things because good people are stopping them otherwise
• People use privacy to do good things because bad people are stopping them otherwise

the taproot proposal is the most significant update to Schnorr deployment. Maybe it'll go into 0.20.0 (~ April-ish next year), or maybe even 0.19.0 (seems unlikely though)

that's not what "price" means

prices are an aggregation of bids made in many different contexts, but it's misleading to believe that one can trade any good at an aggregated price. There's no such thing as "the" price in a world with such a wide variety of market conditions. Remember when BTC traded at $10,000 first in Zimbabwe (and something like $6-7000 at web exhanges). Many said "that's not the 'real' price", but had you been in Zimbabwe, it was real.

Bitcoin already is an abstracted form of energy based currency.

input: proof of work -------> output: BTC coinbase tx

ONLY do this if the spam dust is sent to the same address, for privacy reasons (combining spam from different addresses suggests the same individual owns them all)

you can get the magnet/hash directly from the bittorrent network. that way it's decentralised, as no trackers or websites are needed

don't see the point of this

Lightning has been designed to make Bitcoin transactions cheaper and faster, but also more private. If you use Windows or the Chrome browser, you just sold all your privacy. You got a great price too: Google/Microsoft get everything, and you get nothing.

right, but there's a problem with that list.


I remember getting into Austrian economics and wondering why mainstream media/culture are so dismissive of it; if you don't look for it, it appears not to exist at all. Yet it makes so much sense, at least in comparison to the economics served up in the mainstream.

Then comes the subtle stuff.

Some (but not all) of the people on that list were two-faced. They espoused free markets, classical liberalism and sound money, but then behaved very differently where the rubber met the road. The trangressing parties (namely, Milton Friedman, Rothbard and Hayek) ended up caricaturing these positions, in a way that made it easy for opponents of these ideologies to say "look at these nazis/corporatists/genocidal maniacs"


What has sound money got to do with being in favour of corporatism or genocide? ZERO.


It's interesting that these people that get celebrated for promoting sound money have these other (unconnected) associations. And that's ever so convenient for those who lose if sound money became popular.

The conditions for the bounty are:


And, having considered this for a while, my perspective is that no-one has really achieved this.

---

Coinjoin (as currently implemented) has a problem: coinjoins with a large number of participants and also similar/equal output amounts are easily identifiable on the (public) blockchain. This simply reduces fungiblity in a different way: now, outputs from mass coinjoins can be identified as "coinjoin related" and labelled as such.


Payjoin and PaySwap (link: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-April/016888.html) are the real solution, and they are as of yet unimplemented by anyone.

Coinjoins must look exactly like any other transaction on the blockchain in order to make Bitcoin transactions truly private.

FTFY

Google tried to sned all the cool kids back in ~ '07 when Android launched, but huge parts of Android are now as closed source as windows

Huawei won't be shipping with any improvment on Android.

Look into the smaller Linux based phone platforms (Jolla etc) or using Lineage without Play Services/Gapps, for now those are the only alternatives I've found

that's easy to say, what do you think the practical reality was? (remember reality, from whence you were attempting to pitch your pithy retort?)

I suspect that dollars have been in shorter supply compared to Bitcoin, as highly indentifiable pieces of paper such as 100 dollar bills probably don't make it across the Argentine borders in the same quantity that the smugglers always hoped.

this in fact only demonstrates an advantage of Bitcoin over paper cash under hyperinflation conditions: if you still have internet, Bitcoin is in greater supply. It might be 2nd choice, but that makes little difference if the various trolls under bridges "confiscate" the 1st choice (which in addition pushes up the dollar exchange rate anyway, making it less attractive even if you can get your hands on some)