Okay so I experimented a bit with these devices and modified a few laptops to make sure there's no more wireless modules on any of them anymore so that I can control the internet access by myself, physically.

I got stuck somewhere though, and it may seem off-topic but I thought it didn't make sense to create yet another thread for this one: I'm not sure how the perfect wallet setup is supposed to look like, honestly.

I'm mostly accomodated to Electrum, but if I understood correctly, Electrum connects to third-party servers which means it broadcasts my addresses and balances. I thought it'd make sense to create my own server then, but I'm not sure whether that's a better option than simply running a full Bitcoin Core node instead.

I have more than 4 devices available to use for my Bitcoin activity, so as long as privacy remains at a maximum level, I'll be using as many as I need. Right now, I have an airgapped PC prepared with the Electrum installed on it. This one will never have any external connection ever again. But I'm a little bit scared of having a "watch-only" wallet on my other Internet-connected Electrum device because I don't want my addresses/balances to be broadcasted to anyone.

I read somewhere that I should be setting up ElectrumX, but I'm not sure whether it's safer/better than the original Electrum or if I should go for the Bitcoin Core instead. Is Bitcoin Core with Tor the safest option privacy-wise, or should I pick Electrum (or something else)?

Also, I'm unsure how I'm supposed to have both unique Tor sessions and a full node Bitcoin Core at the same time. By "unique Tor session", I suppose we're talking about something such as Tails or some other live OS. Is there any way to "renew" the Tor session or my identity through Bitcoin Core?

I thought I'd do everything the following way:
 1. Airgapped PC for signing and cold wallet
 2. Internet-connected PC for running the full node
 3. Tails-running PC for broadcasting txs after connecting to the 2nd device's node

However, I'm honestly completely stuck right now.

Are you that sure people care? If exchanges thrive using KYC, why would mining pools not do so if the gov wants KYC with pools as well?

Well, you're missing the fact that a lot of people actually prefer to be law-abiding rather than rebel and risk something, and the gov including all mining pools in the KYC bucket is just a very small step away. Miners make money, and if US does that, it'd get to the point where this activity would be a risk if you don't provide your identity.

I'm very, very curious to know how my privacy and personal data would be better protected through this digital fiat than using cash, because I can't remember filling in personal details for the past hundreds of cash transactions I've had, to be honest.

Also, I'm wondering why the title talks about a supposedly "decentralized" euro? I'm quite sure an ECB-created currency would never be decentralized. If there's something ECB and Lagarde despises, it's losing control.

This is awesome. I wish I had this website back when I started using BTC, or that such info would be available on the bitcoin.org website somewhere very easy to find.

The resources on BPG are great; I like how the website is very simplistic, requires no JS for fancy visuals yet you can still get the information you need. One particular thing I love about it is that it shows steps easy to understand for complete beginners or more advanced users. Privacy and Bitcoin should be like a married couple, and I'm happy to see that some people care.

A violent crime is committed every 25 seconds. Why is it so shocking that Bitcoin is used in some crimes? It's a currency, so it's being used as one. It's not like it was created to avoid and eliminate all murders. I am honestly surprised a lot of countries still did not ban Bitcoin. They could, but I suppose there will never be a global ban on it. To be honest, if it was banned in my country, I would contemplate migrating.

There could be protests against BTC, but the thing is, even if it was banned in your country you could still use it. The beauty of decentralization, right? You could still hide your tracks and make use of the currency in a peer-to-peer way. If people get to ban BTC through protests for being used in a murder, then the world has gone crazy for sure. I still have a little hope that humans still use their brains nowadays.

It's actually quite hard to mistake a character and still insert a valid Bitcoin address. Most of the time, if you take one address and intentionally change a char attempting to send a tx, you'd get the "Invalid address" error. I don't think we can have reversibility without unintended consequences. How do you decide whether my tx should be accepted as a reversal and why would your choice be fair? In a decentralized system, mistakes are not forgotten.

Irreversibility is both one con and one pro of Bitcoin. But investing in BTC means you should already know the stuff you do is permanent - from the fingerprints you leave to the txs you create. It's all a historical record.

I'm sorry but traditional investors are quite silly if they see an insanely successful asset such as Bitcoin as a "seasonal bubble". To me, market cap isn't worth that much when it comes to asset comparisons. I value other characteristics way more than mcap.

I don't think market cap is directly proportional to the mainstream adoption. These two don't go that way.

A lot of people see him as if he's some kind of God. Same goes for a lot of other successful people. Success doesn't make you right/perfect. We're all humans and I personally see following others and letting yourself be influenced by them as a quite sad way of thinking. I'd rather think on my own and commit my own mistakes.

Bitcoin is so obsolete the adoption rate is at an all-time high and the price is close to it.

As I said, there are two outcomes: either the remuneration would be high enough to be abused or it'd be so low it wouldn't matter. Mining is a different thing: one CPU equals one vote, as Satoshi said in the Whitepaper. A lot of hashing power = you earn a higher % of the block reward (or are lucky enough to mine a block by yourself on solo).

Full nodes can be started by anyone in multiple instances, abusing the remuneration. Hashing power cannot be falsified, hence it cannot be abused. You have to spend a ton of money to get an advantage in the mining game, whereas with full nodes you can easily multiply the nodes as many times as you want while maintaining a very affordable cost.

That is 0.0365BTC in 10 years. Full nodes obviously consume way less energy than mining does, but put it another way: if making money was as easy as running a full node, then so many people would abuse it that Bitcoin's price would just crash at one point. I'd be stupid not to profit off this chance.

If the remuneration was, on the other hand, even lower, then nobody would run a full node for something insignificant.

And even if we wanted to add this remuneration for running full nodes, where would that money come from? Tx fees? How can we make sure Bitcoin's max supply sticks at 21M while we still run the same block reward, keep the fees low and still make the max supply be a long-term target?

Well, these two are definitely conflicting ideas. It either is or isn't. If Bitcoin has become an investment, then it is.

So what's the point here? Bitcoin is an investment, cryptos are investments as well as real estate, precious metals etc. An investment portfolio can be entirely made out of cryptos, because you just admitted (I think) in the previous quote that Bitcoin has definitely become an investment.

Well, any 2 assets you take are two completely different things - and that includes assets that are part of the same category (say copper and gold).

I'd advise to check and calculate interest rates vs annual inflation as well. Many times, the interest rate ends up to be actually lower than the annual devaluation of your sum.

Honestly, I would say this isn't necessarily true. Besides Bitcoin's ATH (which is only $4k from today's price), you'd be on a profit no matter when you've invested in BTC since its inception. People lose money because they are greedy and unexperienced, and they're being controlled by emotions. My crypto portfolio has done very, very well so far. Bitcoin's price crashes do not make for bad investments. Gold crashes as well, so does silver, so do stocks. It's all about you choosing the right time to cash out, hodl or invest.

Before investing in anything, you have to do research. If everyone who invested in BTC did proper research about its past and had not pushed themselves into extreme greed waiting to become rich, things would've looked different. I'm not saying someone should invest their life savings into cryptos, but if you can't help but be led by market FUD and stuff like that, then take some time and educate yourself before you put your life savings into something. The idea itself that you have spent a life saving bucks and randomly invest it all into something you have never studied in your life is very stupid.

You have already posted a thread about your issue and you have already received answers you have never answered to. I'm very sure you're the same account owner because the two posts look quite similar:


If your request is real, here's an answer from your other thread:

Don't open multiple threads for the same issue, you're only spamming the forum. Now that you have two different stories, this entire thing doesn't add up and only makes people not want to spend their time helping you anyway. I'm sorry but I find it quite funny how while the last time you perfectly knew what you've done to obtain the "gift package of BTC", this time it's you telling us that you've gone crazy after waking up from a surgery.

I highly suspect you've bought a fake Bitcoin wallet. If so, then just accept it: you've been scammed.

Something isn't right in your logic. Pizza cannot "boom". If it gets to the point where one pizza becomes worth more than $15k, then I doubt people would not refuge in alternative economies such as gold and crypto.

If famine hits you, pizza would be a luxury, a specialty. But comparing that to BTC just doesn't make sense. Pizza is perishable; Bitcoin lasts forever and under any circumstance.

It would be kinda interesting, but I have conflicting feelings about it. Like, testing imo shouldn't be something that costs. What happens if a Testnet-Bitcoin becomes worth $1000? Would it be worth the price? Would you pay that much for a testnet coin or wouldn't everyone just create their own testing chains instead?

I believe the Testnet would remain intact as long as people want to have them valued rather than free. But because everyone else decided Testnet coins should be worth nothing, hence the chain was reset.

Props to this man if his forecast really goes as well as it's been so far. The funny (and sad, at the same time) part is, most of these guys (*cough* McAfee *cough) just vanish when their predictions go wrong.

If we take all the existing predictions around the Internet and put them together, we'd basically have all possible outcomes predicted. It's just that one of them goes well at one point, and that "analyst" shines brightly for a while. I personally expect a price somewhere around $100k by the end of 2021. More than that would be just spectacular, but not something that I wouldn't expect considering BTC's history.

So far, so well. Hopefully, Bitcoin sticks up in the sky like it's always done. Almost nobody here wants it to drop, but sometimes it's good to be realistic as well.

If governments ever endorsed it, I'd be kinda suspicious about their endorsement. Bitcoin is not something they want, so endorsing your enemy is against my logical way of thinking. I feel like we take these elections too much into account when speculating Bitcoin's price. Biden's support is obviously necessary if we want Bitcoin to grow under his governance, but it's not required. Bitcoin goes on its own path.

There are reasons such as something better than it popping up. If nobody thought of the idea of Bitcoin before (or thought about it but never put it into reality), we may not have any idea what other decentralized currency could be coming up soon. Maybe something that will be more fair than Bitcoin, more decentralized, more flexible and scalable, under a different structure than blockchain and much easier to use.

I don't think there ever is "enough" information about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies that we have in our minds. There always is at least one more thing you don't know about. This is a constantly developing and growing domain, and you always have new stuff coming in.

Get used to the users who don't read posts before replying. It's sometimes easier than going through many, many posts of a thread. In fact, I'd sometimes rather post before reading other replies because I found out my reply gets influenced a bit by previous posts if I do the opposite.


I think Bitcoin is financial freedom, not just something similar to it. By using BTC, you're theoretically free to do whatever, whenever you like with your finances. The thing is, third parties mixed up with regulations changed this negatively and significantly. But there is a good part that stands still and untouched: although the privacy-oriented mass of users has a quite limited variety of remaining options today, they still do have a few options that will likely (and hopefully) never be touched such as the ability to complete peer-to-peer transactions.

Oh man, it's hard to get out of the system and not love it when you know it's what brought you up to the top. This man loves money and loves what the Fed has done with it. These guys only wait for bearish Bitcoin runs so that they never come up with positive news about it, and people fall for that. Just think about it: your money gets devalued per year more than the interest your bank offers you for holding the money in your account, yet a lot of people still do that. Economy is a game for the smart.

You see, this thing is only getting more suspicious the more economists and large names come out supporting Bitcoin out of nowhere, after years of hatred.

From Nouriel's Wikipedia page:

He's been working with the big boys. What happened now, so that all of a sudden these guys are supporting BTC? It's a question that is really giving me a headache. I doubt they all just woke up randomly believing in it. Like come on, something must be up

I wasn't here at the time, but I suppose people knew Satoshi has been a pseudonym from the start. Otherwise, it would've been quite suspicious to find out as an investor that the creator of your asset is actually an artificial identity although you always thought he was real. Would've lowered the credibility of Bitcoin considerably. Satoshi never gave much details about his identity and as long as people never questioned him, I suppose this is what happened. Just my 2c.

If 2017 repeats all over, it'd make Bitcoin worth buying even at $50k. But I have to say that history doesn't always repeat itself and you shouldn't make plans based purely on this saying. It is very true in various contexts but not in this one. The best proof is Bitcoin's 2015 charts. It could fall at any given time. Otherwise, you could've simply purchased stocks based on this saying and be a millionaire in no time.