I do agree, from a business perspective i.e only thinking about profits rather than customers security, it makes sense to have a web wallet on your platform. Although, I do believe this is where Bitcoin should be the outlier, we've gone through all this work to assure that people are free to hold their own money, and be responsible for it, why would we then want to encourage the same capitalistic ideals, that corrupts traditional fiat companies?

I hate the fact that a lot of companies pretend that they're looking after your best interest, and the annoying part this does actually convince a lot of their users. However, while they might appear to trying to improve their services for the user it's all about how much profit they earn. Having a web wallet, is probably fundamental to their success as a platform unfortunately.
 
Good point. See, to me an exchange which did that would have much more credibility than any other service out there that didn't, and to be honest credibility, and therefore trust should be at the top of their agenda. Although, obviously profits cloud their judgement, but I'll be quite honest I care far less about how well an exchange is doing, than user security. Something which exchanges should be caring about, but the truth of the matter is they don't, they only care whether they're storing that Bitcoin on their platform. They likely do measure the amount of Bitcoin stored on their platform, and they likely have internal meetings about how they can improve/increase the amount stored on their platform, as it probably directly correlates with profit.

Yeah, although a lot of Qubes OS specific features don't work. For example, copying between Qubes whether its text or files. Also, you can't make use of Sys-usb inside a Windows machine via Qubes I don't believe.

Yeah, there we go this page covers the known limitations of a Windows operating system running in Qubes OS. I guess if you're going to be using it as a offline wallet, you wouldn't need many of the above features. Although, for users that want to easily copy their address from their offline qube that's storing their Bitcoin, I find the local/global copying system could be of use. Although, more of a inconvenience than a requirement.

Which, is conveniently not mentioned in that image, and that is something I would consider a deal breaker, no matter what ever other benefits it has. It encourages centralisation first, and no wallet that you use should be limiting you to what services you can use. There's just no fail safe.

Wallets should always allow multiple ways to access, and manage your Bitcoin. Otherwise, leave them be. Although, we already have enough wallet software which is very much capable of the above, and we don't need all these new comers which try to convince others they're better. The current options in my opinion are perfect. Open source, have decent security implementations, and aren't pushing some sort of service or agenda on you.

Yeah, although to be a little more specific  a computer which isn't connected to the internet at all would be better, since then you aren't in danger of a compromised network being your down fall. So, not just a computer which you don't use for browsing, but one that you don't use for the internet at all. If you can't do something like this where physical isolation is the best policy, that's when a operating system like Qubes OS is the next best option.

Really, network/device wide you shouldn't be downloading anything that you haven't been able to verify the signature of, and obviously trust whoever signed that signature.

I'm not sure if bringing in more judges would be beneficial, and potentially allowing the judges to review each round in between rounds when the fighters are in their corners if that makes any sense. Although, I guess it depends on what they see in that minute or so, and could potentially swing their favour depending on what minutes they actually review. I don't know the solution, although I'd like to think if we had five judges instead of the traditional three, there might be more consistency, at least to mitigate the wild decisions that some of the judges have on fights.

It says it all when a two judges score a fight 2-1, and then one of the judges scores it 3-0, and this happens in fights which I didn't even deem close.

Talking about 0-0's being deceptive, I thought Crystal Palace played well, and had multiple chances to score. I thought Leeds were poor, and in the end they probably got lucky with the point. I'll never bet against Palace at home, they're a completely different team, and they have one of the best atmosphere's in English football.

To be honest I'm still a little annoyed at Everton, and it has kind of cemented my view that I'd like to see them get regelated, and to be honest looking at how they're playing, they might just do it. If they get a point against Chelsea playing like they did against us, I think they'll do it. However, they turn up against Chelsea in the same manner, and also lose in the same manner I think they'll lose all fight.

To be honest, you've got to question Pickford's attitude when he's time wasting as much as he did, but also the fact he's winking to the fans as he's doing it, when ideally to get out of danger they need to be winning games.

Anyway, enough about Everton. I like the idea of Liverpool winning by 3-0, Man City winning 4-0, and I think Chelsea will just about do it against Man Utd, going for a 0-2.

I think it was Allan on the Everton team that only had two successful passes, both from the kick off. I haven't really verified that statistic, but if it is true that's pretty insane for a midfield player.

Technically could, although there would be no way to prove this as far as I'm aware, so there isn't a way to verify it either. It would be a pretty sophisticated attack though, it reminds me how computer forensics would freeze computers in the past, specifically the ram in order to extract data. Also, I do believe that some programs in the past, which I can't recall right now would give you supposedly random data, i.e a password generation based on the temperature of the device, and various other things.

I'm not sure how plausible this kind of attack would be though.

While I'm definitely not going to start yelling corruption at the top of my lungs because I don't actually think that's the case, I do believe some of the decisions as of recent have been awful. Seriously, even when I think a fighter has dominated their opponent, I'm a little worried if it comes to a decision. To be honest, its partly the reason I've been going for more underdogs as of recent, because they have a chance simply because of the inconsistency.

Although, I guess we do have to take into consideration that the judges might not have the best angles, as far as I'm aware they don't have any screens specifically for reviewing the fight, and all they have is cage side real time viewing. So, while their viewing might be good for seeing all the action, angles can change the perspective of a fight.

Honestly, I think they reward control time up against the cage while not doing anything way too much, and they also kind of favour pressuring your opponent which I also disagree with.

That's the impression I get, I think I mentioned it recently that I believe exchanges would gain a little more respect if they ditched the option of long term holding on their websites altogether, and while not forcing users to lose their money if they don't remove it, but I think by encouraging users to move it to a non custodial wallet, they'd automatically in my mind become a little more respectable, since they're actively encouraging their users to follow good security practices.

Although, what Coinbase has done it seems is leverage that to try, and promote that sort of idea, without actually providing better security since of certain implementations such as the fingerprint, also the fact it isn't open source, and I also don't like the idea that they do push the user to use their exchange. So, ultimately to me this just looks like giving the illusion to users that its more secure, when it likely isn't.

Dean Barry ruined a fight that he was basically cruising through. Think he might have got a little bit too excited, which ultimately bit him in the arse. Main event was good, Andrade I thought was brilliant, first ever standing triangle I believe in the UFC.

I'm looking forward to the next event, I think there's a few tasty fights, and one I'll likely put a bet on for. There was nothing wrong with last nights event, it was just rather iffy in terms of odds, and the fights being evenly matched,

Well, that first half of Liverpool vs Everton must have been the most frustrating game I've watched in several years. Talk about anti football, although I don't blame them you could see that we're far superior, and they're fighting for regelation so. At one point, Richarlison literally went down from heading the ball, a pretty soft header too. Then he went down attempting a tackle, and Everton went mental because we didn't put it out.

The amount of diving was awful also. However, on the flip side Mane could have easily seen red for his two face touches, whatever you want to call them. I was surprised that Klopp kept him on for as long as he did. Thought he might have been taken off at half time.

Good game in the end, second half opened up with Everton also somewhat threatening. Although, at that point you just thought it was inevitable that we would at least score one.

You can run Linux inside Qubes OS. So, the way it works is basically Qubes OS attempt to provide isolation via virtual machines, so you could have your USB virtual machine known as sys-usb, network, firewall, and then your operating systems all separated. It allows running of Fedora34 (or whatever the version is now), and Debian right out of the box, so the installer allows you to choose.

It requires a decent machine to run, and not all hardware is compatible. You'll need a CPU that supports virtualisation to start with. Although, while I consider Qubes OS the most secure way of going about things, it definitely isn't for everyone. I couldn't possibly touch upon everything, so refer to the links I've got below.

Although, if you're looking to effectively become your own bank, then I don't think security should be compromised. Technically, you could create a Bitcoin wallet on a offline "Qube" (which are the virtual machines), and never have that connect to the internet. So, effectively its a offline wallet, however you can copy the Bitcoin address easy using another Qube, and using the global copying system. So, there would be benefits of doing it on Qubes, but ultimately physical isolation is always more beneficial than system isolation like Qubes. Though, Qubes is better than just running a virtual machine via vmware or VirtualBox.

Qubes OS is my main operating system, although I don't use it for storing Bitcoin. I use physical isolation, which ultimately I would recommend over Qubes. Qubes though if you care about security, should probably be considered.

Luckily, despite Qubes OS being quite different from a normal OS, its got brilliant documentation. You can read about the general idea for security here: https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/security-design-goals/ or if you want to dive deeper, check out the docs: https://www.qubes-os.org/doc/

No, when you compare it to other alternatives, then no for the reasons you've already kind of touched upon. They recommend poor security implementations, which is reason enough for me to stay clear, and not recommend others to use it.

Other than that, I don't trust Coinbase with my information, and due to its closed source nature, you don't know exactly what they're collecting, even if they've claimed to not collect anything invasive.

At the end of the day, the biggest factor for me is there's already wallets that do the job good enough, and are open source, and verifiable. Plus, also aren't branded, so aren't pushing a certain usage. There's a very limited usage of a wallet like this, and that's new users who aren't quite familiar with how Bitcoin works, and therefore the integration with their exchange might actually benefit that type of user, although to be honest I still wouldn't recommend that, and would prefer education how proper storage, and usage.

Almost certainly selling or sharing your data. For a start, companies tend to go to mass survey providers, and therefore any data you give that survey company, will then share it to the company that asked them to do a survey, so instead of having one company have your data, you now have two companies. Plus, survey companies I would argue have an incentive to share data between all of their clients, since they're basically a honeypot for data. Personally, I would steer clear of them, especially since the downsides outweigh the rewards.

Generally, anything that's offering a reward for information from you, is almost certainly sharing that data on the mass.

A user that is careful, and avoids downloading random stuff on a Windows machine, will be safer than a Linux user that downloads stuff from random websites. Basically, it really does depend on how you use it. Linux tends to have some permissions which help with security, although if a user is downloading random stuff or not verifying the signature, they'll likely bypass those additional security measures by elevating the permissions.

Most operating systems of today are decently secure. If you want ultimate security install Qubes OS. If you want moderate out of the box security go with either Linux or Windows, ultimately it depends on how you use it. Same goes for Qubes, while it definitely is more security conscious than a lot of other operating systems, and you will be protected more by default, it really does depend on how you use the virtual machines.

If you want ultimate security, create a wallet on a offline machine. It's the only way to secure from online threats. Obviously, there are still physical threats depending on how you're storing the backup or wallet i.e still make sure to encrypt it.

Ask, and you shall receive! Although, disclaimer I'm not including any of these picks in a betting slip, as I'm not overly confident on a lot of them. So, for anyone looking for some influence on what you choose, bear that in mind.

Dean Barry
Philipe Lins
Preston Parsons
Cameron Else
Tyson Pedro
Dwight Grant
Marc-André Barriault
Lando Vannata
Alexandr Romanov
Montana De La Rosa
Clay Guida
Jéssica Andrade

Haven't got many dogs in the race for this event, so I'm fancying quite a few underdog wins. Big favourites for me personally would be Alexandr Romanov, and Dean Barry. Other than that, toss up on a lot of those. Potentially Jessica Andrade, but I tend to find WMMA odds are a little skewed with the favourite, and it's often much more competitive than the odds show.

Whatever sport you enjoy the most, that way you're getting a bit more bang for your buck. Betting has made matches/fights I wouldn't normally be that interested in, quite excited. Obviously, only if done in moderation, as that can quickly become out of control. So, as long as you're disciplined I say the sports that you're already watching now.

That way you should already have a good base line knowledge of the game, and the strengths, and weaknesses of each team/fighter.

Yeah, definitely were known as that. Although, I don't think that has anything to do with Liverpool, it's just incompetency from VAR, rather than corruption. I know some might think it's corruption, and to be honest with some of the decisions, even when they're looking at still images, and have all the tools at their disposal, some of the decisions are absolutely baffling, even leaving the commentators baffled.

So, I do get that, but really I just think the people behind VAR, and the decisions need to be held accountable. After all, if a player cheats or a manager cheats they'll have it in the neck. There needs to be some sort of responsibility when making game changing decisions. Especially with VAR as it takes some of that pressure off that could be excused in the past when a ref makes a bad decision in real time.

Well, community set standards don't always correlate with forum enforced standards. So, as long as you aren't breaking the guidelines, which you'll know since you'll either be warned directly or have posts deleted, or you'll be aware of it yourself, you can carry on posting like you do.

It kind of touches upon my earlier post that not everyone is here to be acknowledged for their knowledge, not everyone is here to make money, and some are here just to discuss about Bitcoin/Cryptocurrencies which is absolutely fine. Quality is demanded by the community, and while I do think that's a good thing, it doesn't mean every post someone makes has to meet it. I mean, there are plenty of extremely good users that post quality content, but also post rather lacklustre content to their usual standards, but they aren't spammers.

I said it before, but I genuinely believe United find themselves in a position that Liverpool was in not all that long ago. Man United are a massive club, and while they've definitely been in a bit of a rut recently, they likely will recover. In what time frame I don't know, the only issue I see with United is they are about to lose a lot of their players, on a free who to be honest are world class players. It isn't a problem with the players quality, but rather motivation it seems. A lot of these players will move to another club, and find themselves playing to their ability again.

I don't know exactly what the problem is with United at the moment, but I do think its going to need some proper leadership to get them out of the rut they're in. Which, at the moment doesn't seem to be an option, since there aren't many managers out there. I think Ferguson almost saw this coming, he knew there would be some sort of hangover when he left, and that's probably the reason he tried to get Klopp to sign there.