I'd be shocked if Dana gave Nick that fight. Diaz brothers are losing their following quite fast, and I think we all know the result of that fight before it even happens. Wouldn't do big numbers for the UFC, wouldn't rise the stock of either fighter. So, I don't see it happening. I'm not sure who's the most logical fight for Diaz if he wants to fight. Probably someone at the tail end of their career, just to keep it somewhat interesting.

This is exactly the reason I believe a lot of people aren't already using Bitcoin. The non-reversible side of Bitcoin is actually what intrigues a lot of people, and not just scammers to be clear. I'm sure a lot of us have been scammed via people charging back their payment, and usually when it comes to payment disputes, Paypal rule in the buyers favour.

So, one of the issues with Bitcoin albeit a small one is normal small time business owners are going to find it difficult to get Bitcoin as a payment because they haven't established enough trust. Whereas, the bigger companies which are more established will probably benefit from Bitcoin due to the issue with chargebacks. I know some users here have commented about Amazon in the past, and how people used to abuse the system to get free stuff. That ends with Bitcoin, and protects them. Unfortunately, this means that the seller of the service/product technically has the power due to no chargebacks. That is understandably a draw back for many people, especially when dealing with less established sellers. 

No one needs to know your private key. You could setup a solution to you passing away today, to assure that they get your Bitcoin. This is actually being discussed at the moment over in the Bitcoin Discussion section, see this post for details. However, I'd recommended taking a look at the whole thread.

I'm of the belief that no matter what the circumstances are your private key should be only known to you, and you only. As it suggests in that post, they can unlock it via their key after the defined amount of time, however you can prevent it any time you want with your private key.

The thing is you might as well upgrade the damn thing. The quoted price, although it has risen is much more bang for your buck than what's on the market right now. Especially, when you consider its speculated durability. Especially, if you're going to go offroading, and abusing it a little bit.

Yeah, I've been looking into Tesla's for a while, and considering here in the UK all new cars sold after 2030 will need to be electric, I thought it's best to do the research now. I imagine by that time electric chargers will be widespread. However, I've read about range anxiety in places with plentiful chargers, i.e in certain parts of America, and I'm wondering what the peformance of a Tesla would be in British weather, with very hilly terrain thrown in. I suspect, it'll be much less than what most Tesla drivers are getting out of their machine.

Although, from what I can gather due to the nature of batteries, it actually performs best at lower temperatures, well not extreme temperatures, but I believe around -10-10c. Don't quote me on that, that's just the figure I have in my head.  

If it wasn't for the lack of chargers in Wales specifically, I'd probably would've opted for the Tesla 3 performance model already.

I'll admit, I was sceptical at first. I had mixed feelings, and that's why I didn't end up pulling the trigger in the end. However, now especially in the electric field this is the vehicle for me. I might contact Tesla, and see what they say about taking the order off UK, and whether it was law related. Since, for a machine like this I'd be willing to import it over if it's still road legal over here.

Based on o_e_l_e_o's findings, you either withdrew the Bitcoin back last year, which I'm sure you would've remembered doing or the wallet was compromised. Being on your Google Drive, I'd probably assume that's also compromised if the latter is the case. Could also be malicious programs running on your machine or at least at the time the wallet was last accessed. Though, I wouldn't know enough about your exact circumstances.

If the password was simple enough to bruteforce or you stored other compromising information on your Google drive, and that was compromised it's not too far fetched to assume it was hacked that way.

Considering the wallet is empty, any attempt on the hash would be futile.

Ah, yeah I forgot about the judges . I was thinking that the fighters themselves are unlikely. However, there's a obvious bias in certain fights. While, I don't consider the bias to be fixing itself, there's definitely bias. Again, I don't want to throw too much shade Boxing's way, but the judging there can be absolutely awful, just look at the first fight between Fury, and Wilder.

Back to the UFC though. It does seem like every weekend there's a questionable decision on the card. Some are absolutely mind boggling, but I do have to admit they don't get the significant strike statistics like we do, and they don't get the best view either. Us fans get the best view. I do believe the judges don't get the TV view we do, and just watching from the sides right? All from different angles?

Well, potential criminals probably wouldn't know since you could effectively use multiple addresses. Plus, it entirely depends on how you're using the wallet in the first place. Broadcasting that you have any significant amount of money probably isn't the best idea, hence why reusing addresses isn't recommended. Although, we all pretty much do it out of laziness/convenience.

Even then though, that's opening you up to what I would consider unnecessary risk. Instead, you could just have a wallet Electrum, Bitcoin Core or whatever one you own the coins on, have it online with the same amount you're willing to risk, and transfer it to the exchange when need be. It would take like 10-15 minutes more, and a small fee. However, that additional time/cost will benefit security.

Not really, as most trust issues can be avoided with the LockTime mechanism. There's some caveats in that plan potentially. If you expect the person you're leaving the coins too, to do harm to you then that's a potential issue or if you leave your coins to someone that you are regularly with, and you happen to have an accident which leads to both of you dying. So, there's definitely things to consider with the LockTime method, but it alleviates some trust issues.

My concern wouldn't be the transferring onto an exchange, and depositing it back into a bank, rather it would be handling the Bitcoin securely up until that point.

I guess another question would be; would she see more benefit of holding it rather than converting to fiat. So, might be worth giving her the run up on why, and how to secure it, plus the potential benefits of holding it instead of fiat, assuming she doesn't already know which she may well do.

Depends entirely what you can offering. If you can do your job, but accept Bitcoin, i.e development work. You could very well be in a better situation to escape inflation. So, while your advice is good, since it probably does apply to most people that are working for other people, if you can work for yourself using your skills, and transfer them to Bitcoin, I'd say you have a better chance of escaping the rat race, due to that inflation.

So, while it still might not make you rich, you're right. You could be in a better position than you were using fiat. Obviously, its not a guarantee as with anything in life.

I mean, if we look at the bigger picture, and assumed that this would work, which obviously as already established many places wouldn't have the same effectiveness of those in the southern areas of the world, Bitcoin could benefit from this. At the moment the biggest argument against Bitcoin would be the fact that it uses the grid for its miners,  whereas if every household converted to generating energy via the sun, we would see that argument become pretty redundant, and would likely benefit Bitcoin's adoption. At the very least, reduce its attack surface.

Not something I'm massively in know of, but I'm wondering if transferring the energy that has been collected in countries or areas which are more prone to sun, to places without that much sun could be an option. I'm assuming this would likely be quite expensive, and would likely mean losing some of that energy in the process, but I keep hearing that this is priority from the governments, so why haven't they kicked into gear?

Yeah. I guess the defense against this is they're going to need that production at first, but once they convert everything to solar, hydro or wind they'll be able to manufacture these things without using fossil fuels. Whether we ever get to that stage is another thing mind you.

The vast majority are here to make more money. There might be a few that have already achieved enough wealth, and want to contribute to a system, which could potentially either replace our current broken system or be the foundation, and inspiration from future cryptocurrencies. Although, I would say they're thin, and far between.

Ultimately though, Bitcoin allows you not only remove the requirement for any third party, but it also allows you to work remotely much of the time. Especially if trading, but also a lot of what Bitcoin offers is global transactions, without the risk of chargebacks like fiat currencies. So, some will be here to avoid those issues, especially if they can do their job without working for a company, and offer it online.

That's not true. There are definitely security benefits of separating funds. Even with hardware wallets which I pointed out above. Although, some are a little more hardened than others. The point is the vast majority probably don't have enough to justify going through these additional steps to secure their Bitcoin.

If you've got a completely offline wallet, then you could argue there's no risk of losing it. However, that entirely depends on how you're storing the back up. Separating these doesn't necessarily mean you'll keep the second copy any more secure than the other.

However, there are definitely certain circumstances which separating funds will prove to be beneficial from a security stand point.

UI/UX is always either underdone or overdone, rarely do you see it just right. However, I do think this was just right. I liked the message behind the project, as well as how minimalist it was done, but also some special effects with the confetti.

Always worth giving credit when its been done right, as its often not as I said.

I actually started a Bitcoin timeline project a few years ago. It was basically a sort of 3D timeline, where you would progress through time at least that was the illusion. However, I thought it might have not gained enough traction to put in all the research. I considered going about it by auto generating the content via Wikipedia, and various other sources, and obviously accredited, but that didn't take my fancy.

Ultimately, I stopped due to the project probably not being appealing enough to justify the effort. Not sure if that's something along the lines you were considering. When you start looking at Bitcoin from the very start to now, a lot has happened. Though, I guess a lot of that can be pruned to be specifically about Bitcoin development rather than drama's around it.

Anyway, if its more like a traditional calendar rather than a timeline looking back at history, I think that's a decent idea. Again, not sure how much use it would have in the grand scheme of things, but probably a fun little project without too much effort.  

I imagine a lot of users here know the date or at least are familiar with that announcement thread about the faucet. Although, I wouldn't have recalled that tweet if I'm honest.

While I definitely believe Know Your Customer has become increasingly hostile, and quite frankly a breach of privacy, I can understand the concept of it when it was first introduced. However, despite it maybe being a good idea for specific cases, it has quickly turned into a marketing ploy that companies are basically abusing. Although, having said that I'm not even sure we can blame the companies themselves, usually this information is required by the government of the country they operate in. Some being much more invasive than others. However, I have no doubt that this information being collected is not only being used for verification, but being used to better their marketing.

The most secure way of accessing a online wallet i.e Electrum/Bitcoin Core connected to the internet without using a hardware wallet, would be accessing it via a computer on a home computer connected to the router via a Ethernet cable. However, that's assuming the network is safe, and the computer is safe.

Generally, most people don't know. However, as soon as you start taking your wallet with you there's additional risk, whether through theft or losing it. If you don't have a backup, and lose that phone or corruption occurs you could be screwed. However, I won't get into that here.

The most important thing to consider is a mobile phone that you're carrying on you frequently has a bigger attack surface than that of a computer at home, simply because of physical theft or threats.

I've got the point where as soon as someone on TV starts talking about Bitcoin, I roll my eyes, and just turn it off. They rarely have anything of substance to say. Usually, the same regurgitated crap that everyone else says.

You're right though, they have bias for speaking that way.

So, while I do agree with most of your points. This is where I don't agree, while buying Bitcoin might seem easy from a user that has been doing it over several years. You present the idea to a person of the general public, and they wouldn't have a clue. I still have people around me asking whether you can buy real things with it...that's how misinformed the public are. That isn't of any fault of their own, the news has pushed this idea that Bitcoin is rather worthless, and limited, which at the beginning could have been somewhat true, though times have definitely changed.

Anyway, the reason I disagree with this somewhat is; basically as soon as you buy Bitcoin you're effectively your own bank. So, if you wish to hold a large amount of Bitcoin you do need to be security conscious, and hopefully have some knowledge about it. Now, this isn't common knowledge. Securing money is something we've relied on banks for years, and years. We don't need to have any knowledge to rely on these, since they do all the security work for you. Whereas, that isn't the case with Bitcoin. Obviously, users like you, and I might see the lack of a third party as beneficial, but not everyone will due to the lack of belief or knowledge they have.

Effectively, to be able to purchase Bitcoin, and secure it properly you need to learn about common security practices i.e strong passwords etc, isolation be it physical or virtual, and the drawbacks of that. Plus, social engineering prevention, securing credentials, and/or wallets physically.

There's a ton of work including learning the software that Bitcoin relies on i.e Bitcoin wallets. This is much more than just linking up your bank account, and buying some Bitcoin. That suggests that the person is leaving their Bitcoin on the exchange, which is definitely not recommended as we all know.

Fiat as become somewhat easy to use over the years, Bitcoin has a long way to come, and probably won't ever be as simple as fiat, due to the fact you cut out the third parties which do much of the work for you.

I think so. At the end of the day Bitcoin would have been the very first cryptocurrency that people had even heard of let alone used. So, early on when it was worth a couple of quid, meant that it got neglected. So, really in reality while coins might not be completely lost in the terms of what rational people would considered indefinitely lost i.e those that have died, coins being sent to burner addresses, and what not. Simply, a lot of users back then would have forgotten their passwords, and likely won't ever gain access to it again. However, they can't be as easily considered as lost.

The next generation will have a better idea of how many were lost, but even then not without any uncertainty. I think it's probably best to just assume that all 21 million can be accessed, even though we know that isn't the case. Since, after all we aren't worried about it increasing beyond that theoretically supply of 21 million, whereas with fiat we're constantly seeing millions or even billions poured into circulation. The reassuring thing is; that'll never happen with Bitcoin.

I suppose physical security is something that should be considered. Especially if you're holding onto a lot of Bitcoin. As the saying goes, if physical access is given, assume your device has been compromised. I do believe there has been issues in the past with hardware wallets being compromised physically.

Obviously, if you're going into the expense or time to get multiple wallets, they shouldn't be stored in the same place, that's quite obvious I hope. Although, the poll reflects what I would expect, most users don't actually need to have multiple wallets, and it all depends on your own personal threat model. Most of us don't have the amount of Bitcoin where setting up multiple wallets is worth it. Plus, most users aren't invested completely into Bitcoin, but rather have a small amount of their net worth invested.

So, I've actually become increasingly interested in getting the Tesla, except most don't have enough range for me. Whereas, the Cybertruck is estimated to be having 500 miles of range, so probably safe to assume it'll get at least 400. The thing is where I live it is rather hilly, and the lack of charging points is quite evident when you compare it to the USA or even England. So, range is incredibly important. However, after coming to the decision of actually finally reserving it, they've removed the order button for UK/Europe.

I think it's to do with laws, and how big its going to be. So, safety laws. Makes sense, I remember hearing the dimensions on the reveal, and thinking that would never fit in Welsh lanes. However, I guess that would need to be worked out rather than just assuming.

I guess for those living in the UK, we'll have to order it from the USA, and have it imported, as long as it's considered road legal. The thing is most of the other cars in their inventory doesn't interest me. Model 3 doesn't have the range, but I nearly pulled the trigger on it a while back, and the model S plaid looks promising, but the price is just too much to justify.

This at least provides that range, and for a somewhat reasonable price. Plus, I'll be honest the specifications, and the look has grown on me over the years. Typical when its no longer available.

Nah, I don't think there's any fixed fights. I tend to believe that most high level sports doesn't have fixed games. The only thing I would say is a fighter could take a dive secretly without the commission or UFC knowing, but again seems pretty unlikely.

I do think I've seen some questionable dives in Boxing, but never in the UFC.

Don't get me wrong, if we had more events in the UK or Europe I'd be all for it. They just aren't as often as in the US, which is fair enough being a US company. I'm not complaining too much. It's why I like British boxing events, not because they tend to have more British boxers, but it's just more comfortable to watch them.