Not sure I agree. I think ColdCard is probably one of the more difficult hardware wallets to get a grasp out there. I'd say the Trezor is probably the most user friendlier, especially since they've added the Trezor Suite. Although, personally I do think ColdCard is probably the best option out there for security features, unfortunately that usually does come with added complexity, which I do believe is the case here.

For the latter, in my mind it would just be a better idea to use Bitcoin Core as a offline wallet. Although, I guess you'll have to download, and verify core, and get it on the machine, so I'm not saying its a terrible idea by any means. However, some hardware wallets have physical threats, that a Bitcoin Core won't necessarily have.

That's interesting. I'm still not finding the answer to why they choose to limit who their targets are. It isn't exactly political, in the sense that their software doesn't seem tailored to a certain demographic, except for the countries, and it's a bit odd since most malicious attackers want to widen their attack surface not shrink it by a good margin.

Unless, it's political, and they don't want to be doing any harm to the residents of these countries because their country is friendlier, since it's quite obviously biased to a certain eastern part of the world. I don't think it would be for reducing their chances of being found out. I don't know, I'm kind of lost on it.

Windows isn't something so inseucre that simply connecting to the internet compromises you. I mean, technically any machine connected to the internet or using Wifi private or not could be compromised, but for a gaming machine, personally the threat level is rather low.

Instead, the better advice is to just move your Bitcoin to a offline machine, and then use a hardware wallet for sending funds. That's probably the best approach to the situation. This particular software requires you to execute it anyway, so unless you're downloading dodgy stuff, you aren't likely to be effected.

We might be making the mistake of overlooking it. However, our team should be able to beat them without those players. The biggest loss for this game being Fabinho to stop the counter attacks. VVD probably isn't needed, and having Matip, and Konate is pretty damn good back up cover. Meanwhile, Salah hasn't been at his best, and quite frankly I believe we may have been playing better without him on the pitch recently, which is a little crazy to say. Maybe, not better, but at times he has tried to do too much, which just ends up causing frustration.

I'm probably as confident as I can get against Southampton. Although, I'm worried about Romeu potentially injuring our players. I just want a clean bill of health going into that Champions League final. Salah, and VVD should be back, as they were small knocks according to what I was reading earlier.

For me, something isn't quite adding up. I don't know if that's because of the language barrier or if what they're saying is accurate. If it's accurate I wouldn't say that's evidence of anything, but rather something that should potentially be taken into consideration if more damning evidence is found.

I like facts, and even though I find their reasoning, and counter argument not convincing at all. That's isn't exactly evidence to me. Now, my personal opinion is something fishy is going on, and that's why I think there's merit to definitely investigate it further, and I wouldn't be surprised if the accounts are connected. However, that's just my personal interpretation, I can't act on that.

In that case, that might well be true. Although, now three have ignored it, and one responded. Does that change anything for you? Personally, it doesn't for me, and that was my original point. I'm not saying you're wrong in what your saying, just giving my two cents. I imagine plenty of users will disagree with me, and that's why we have a trust system setup like it is.

Highly circumstantial I imagine. If there's a legitimate reason to change a username, and theymos agrees that, I imagine he's more inclined to do it. Although, timing could be hit, and miss. Might have just caught them at a good time. Although, most of my communication with theymos has been relatively quick. Although, I wouldn't base how quick it too this time around or my experience with theymos. If you ever wanted to change your username, you ask, and it either gets rejected or takes as long as it takes.

There's absolute no reason to believe they're linked simply because they all have ignored the message. That's not evidence, that's just a correlation, which as we all know doesn't equal causation. In similar effect, it doesn't really matter much whether they all reply here, two reply here or one replies here. That doesn't add anything to the evidence, at least at linking the accounts. I'm aware that one has now replied, but that simple fact doesn't change anything. Although, their explanation is down to interpretation.

English Patrol Scuad, has provided at least some evidence to why they're suspicious of the accounts, although its probably not enough in its current state. Unless, more damning evidence appears, I'm afraid not much can be done.

Yeah, I understand that, and I did allude to that being the case. However, it's probably a decent idea to at least get the matching usernames on as many platforms as possible. I mean it doesn't exactly hurt, if you have a unique username just register them you don't have to use them. Although, yeah you'll never stop others impersonating users, and unfortunately with the different characters some platforms allow, some can pretty much look undistinguishable.

Yeah sites like Discord that use the identifier system e.g #0001 are particularly bad for impersonators. The other option is to state explicitly you don't use any other platforms, however if you do use a few, that can be rather difficult to clarify then, so best to just get the matching usernames, and never use them. It's at the very least a extra step of protection, even if it doesn't solve the problem completely, it at least mitigates it slightly.

Bloody West Ham giving me more hope than I should have right now. I know I said that I expect City to drop points in the last two games, but now its actually happened, I'm starting to believe again, which usually sets you up for disappointment, especially when I look at that Spurs game, and how we should've probably won it with better finishing.

I actually think Aston Villa can get a point from that game. They will need to be up for it in defense, but I know they'll get their chances. I'd love to see Coutinho, and Ings lighting up City, but a draw will do. Then it's entirely in our hands with our game in hand. We win the next two games, and City drops points. It might be a historic year, not just for Liverpool, but for any English club. Quadruple is still on, and I can't believe it after that Spurs result, and how City basically went on a goal fest.

Everton look to be surviving despite the result yesterday. Leeds have got Brentford next which is a must win, not sure they will though. Even then, Everton have two games to get something from. Burnley have probably the hardest fixtures left, so unless something crazy went on, I'd see Everton surviving. They did kick into gear the last few games though, so they probably do deserve it, I'll give them that.

Just watched some of the highlights of the fights on the weekend. Looked like a good event overall, obviously I haven't watched the full length fights, but from the highlights it looks like there was some decent match ups. Shame about Rakic's leg, I probably had them 1-1 going into that third round. It'll be interesting to see what's exactly happened, and to what extent. We know he's likely strained/ruptured something, but to what degree could be the difference of a minor knock to his plans or a complete rehabilitation. It did look like it was the outside of the knee to me, which isn't the ACL at least. I believe that one on the outer which the name escapes me right now, isn't as bad as long as you don't fully disconnect it. So, who knows could be back in a few weeks or months. Otherwise, if it's a full on tear, I imagine he won't be fighting again this year as you've got to factor in recovery time, as well as getting back to fighting fitness.

Well, that's the first UFC event missed of the year for me. Hopefully, not too many more. I will be away later this year, but other than that I'm hoping to catch every minute of them.

Nick Maximov
Tatsuro Taira
Virna Jandiroba
Alan Patrick
Viviane Araujo
Jake Hadley
Manuel Torres
Amanda Ribas
Davey Grant
Ion Cutelaba
Jan Błachowicz

I'm going with Polish power for the main event. I just can't go against someone who beat Izzy, despite the size difference in that fight. Although, in all seriousness I was quite impressed with his striking in that fight. Didn't look too fazed, although again likely the weight difference giving him a bit more confidence.

I've gone for some underdogs on the card. The ladies fights I can see going either way. Virna is a confident pick, along with Cutelaba, and Torres.

I just don't see the need of this, even if you're trying to intimidate the guy, I just don't see how it would . Ridiculous.

You can't. However, I would have personally took this opportunity to create the identical username as many places as I can, even if I aren't going to use them, just to try, and prevent impersonators having the exact match. You can't do anything about those that create similar usernames or places that have an identifier system, and not truly unique usernames.

It's partly the reason why I like generic usernames so I don't have to go into the effort of all that. There's thousands of Welsh's out there, and I'm fine with that.

You know, the ones which you slap a bunch of full powered computer components inside a briefcase, with all the framing, and what not, and call it a portable computer?

I've been thinking of doing it myself, since I'm getting a little bit tired of the price to performance ratio of laptops, plus I quite like the idea of having a triple monitor setup to aid with doing work on it. I'm not looking for a full powered gaming computer, this will mainly be a working computer. So, it'll likely be coming out in the field with me, so the weight ratio will have to be decent, and it would need to be semi rugged. I tend to buy rugged computers anyhow due to my life style.

I'm wondering if anyone has any specific security recommendations or thoughts before I commit to building it. If I'm going to do it, I might as well put hardware kill switches on it, and all the bells, and whistles. Then, throughout the years I can stick to this machine, rather than upgrading laptops. The current laptop that I do the majority of my work on is rather old, and quite slow when running Qubes OS, but I'm finding it rather difficult to justify upgrading due to the expense I would need for a rugged modern laptop.

I'm taking a little inspiration from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSJZ7MtKe1w although, that's way too big for my liking so I would be looking to downsize quite considerably. Although, he does have quite an interesting video on a battery, which I think I'll be whipping up also. Here's his power station video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSJZ7MtKe1w

I don't plan on storing Bitcoin on it, so no need to go into that sort of detail. Although, I might think about integrating a Bitcoin node somehow. Haven't given it enough thought yet on how I'd achieve that especially if I wanted to run it 24/7.

The difficulty adjusts based on the overall hash rate. It wouldn't change because of energy efficiency technically. It would only adjust if the hash rate changes, either way. So, Bitcoin is going to be mined around 2140, and the difficult will keep on adjusting, to make sure that happens. So, if we get a massive increase in miners i.e hash rate, the difficulty will rise. If we have a drop, the difficulty will become easier.

That's basically the idea of it. Obviously, there will be some variation. So, anything to do with energy doesn't really effect it directly. The authorities that you speak of, don't exist in terms of Bitcoin. The authorities, i.e the government can't directly change the difficulty since Bitcoin is decentralised. If that makes sense?

I was thinking this was just "another one of those", however what has quite interested me is the latter part. Anyone have any idea why they would not have the malicious program run if you were from one of those countries? What's the motive behind that? My first thought would have been from countries that have banned Bitcoin, and so to avoid detection they've not included those countries, although that wouldn't make much sense since they aren't countries which have banned Bitcoin.

I'm not quite wrapping my head around why they would do that. Obviously, a eastern bias to it.

Could it be that you simply haven't gone to view, and selected the "receiving addresses" tab to show? I'm doing it by memory here, but as far as I can remember that isn't enabled by default. If not, just run us through step by step of the process you took, and we can let you know where you're going wrong exactly. Obviously, take out any sensitive information like private keys or seeds.

Alternatively, if you're having problems you could create a new Electrum wallet, get the receiving address for that one, and send your Bitcoin on Blockchain to it, obviously that requires a fee, so only do this option if you must. It's a good learning lesson to know how to import/export things anyhow.

Not sure, I thought there's been quite a lot of gambling related signature campaigns over the years, but there's been others mixed in too. Although, I guess you could say there should be more when compared to other services, because signature campaigns definitely work, and who has a lot of disposable income? Probably gambling sites. I've been contacted quite a few times by users asking about my currently worn signature. Actually quite frequent too I find. So, it definitely works even if it's not direct clicks through an referral link, it most certainly does stick in certain user minds. The only exceptions would be those that have added them to an ad block filter or disabled signatures, which I can't imagine many users do.

One could argue that merely being invested in Bitcoin, regardless of your outlook or reason for being involved, is in fact gambling. Since, I assume most of us are counting on it going up in the long term at the very least. So, yeah we are all banking on either making a lot of money through Bitcoin or banking on Bitcoin replacing our current fiat system, both can be seen as a gamble even if not in the traditional sense.

I definitely won't be missing the 21st of May event. One of my favourite fighters Michel Pereira is fighting. Probably one of the most entertaining fighters in the UFC, and while I'll admit he does gas out, he's always entertaining up until that point. Honestly, he's gifted, and if he didn't do as much jumping around as he did, he would probably win more fights. Since, he does tend to win most of the rounds up until he gasses out. I still remember that jump onto the top of the cage, and then back flipping off, and finishing it off by tagging his opponent. Just incredible stuff.

I'll get my predictions out in the next few hours, still need to look at a few of the fights.

I mean, Know Your Customer (KYC) is increasing whether we use cryptocurrencies or not. That's the reality of it all. There's definitely ways of avoiding KYC though, most peer to peer exchanges don't require KYC. The reason the government are pushing for KYC is because they require the company themselves not you as the customer to know who they are dealing with, and whether their funds could have been used for malicious reasons. Cryptocurrencies can depending on their features complicate that detection. Although, I don't believe Bitcoin is one, it's the more privacy oriented cryptocurrencies which aren't traceable are the ones with pretty problematic features for companies, and the government.

Any exchange whatever the currency will require KYC. This is likely to keep increasing in the following years, and while that definitely is a cause of concern, using Bitcoin or not isn't really going to stop it. These companies require it to operate under government laws. Although, like I said peer to peer exchanges seem to be the go to for people looking to buy Bitcoin, and that could be an alternative. Obviously, check your laws on peer to peer to avoid any issues.

I mean I try to do this weekly, and have done for a long time now. I've been close several times, including two bets which I was one or two bet builder bets off £500k+ so it can definitely be done. Honestly, these long shot bets are really the only ones I do these days. I usually put on a 4/5 fold accumulator for football, and then like a 5/6+ on the UFC. Sometimes combining the two to have a larger bet, but since most sites cap the amount you can win with UFC, that's usually for shorter odds.

I've even had bet builders breach the million mark, obviously never landed them. However, I've been close to the 500k like I said, and what I mean by that is I was like one goal off, and didn't get the corners correct (over market). So, painfully close.

So, while I can understand the scepticism, and definitely it could be a publicity stunt, I assume people bet like I do, and actually land them from time to time.