I know what most users are thinking, your data has likely already been compromised so why bother? Well, if you can completely detox, data six months ago could potentially be worthless, or inaccurate. So, if you can follow the privacy advise here, as well as change your personal details or anything that could have potentially been compromised to something else, then you've effectively almost got a clean slate.

It's probably true that most of us have already leaked a metric tonne of information, and that information has probably reached someone who you never thought would've been able to gain access, but the older that data is, and the less its being renewed the less valuable it is.

Unfortunately, things like addresses which unless you plan on moving aren't exactly easy to disassociate, however at the very least if you aren't renewing that information  i.e leaking out a recent address, then the malicious attacker who might have gained that information, would have to assume, and not know. That's quite a powerful thing, because more up to date information is more likely to be used, since there's a certain degree of accuracy to it.

Obviously, avoid from now on leaking any of your data that you might think compromises you in anyway, and be careful who you trust with your data. Unfortunately, in our world you will likely need to trust someone, but as suggested there's ways to at least limit it.

What I've found a useful tool over the years is using the feature of adding a "+" to your email address. For example, signing up to this forum with welsh+bitcointalk@wales.com instead of welsh@wales.com. That way if your email is ever compromised or your data has been sold, you can find out exactly who sold it. If you get spam a couple of days after signing up addressed to "welsh+bitcointalk@wales.com" you can almost be sure that the website you signed up to using that email address has given your data away or been compromised. While this doesn't exactly prevent you from getting your data exposed, its a good way of trialling a company before inputting real information in if you absolutely need too. Otherwise, using temporary email addresses or throwaways is the way to go.

Jesus. You know when you thought the news couldn't get any more far fetched, and then they release this utter drab. It's a sensationalist clickbait title, that literally has zero substance at all. The fact that they've sourced this to a "team in Queensland University" I'd be absolutely embarrassed to even be associated with this. I'd like to know exactly how they determined it, the people they actually studied, because this is either shouting out absolute bullshit or they've fallen victim to correlation doesn't equal causation, because my question would be, if you selected 1000 people by random, wouldn't they show similar traits to at least some extent even if they wasn't crypto investors. I don't actually understand the significance of cryptocurrencies here, and I certainly don't understand how they've woken up one day, and thought screw it we'll see the common traits of Crypto investors.

This is people, not specifically cryptocurrency investors. Jesus, every day I see this sort of attitude in every topic you could think of. The thing is, most of us display a little bit of these traits, its the actual definition of it that matters. How much you actually demonstrate it i.e how far along the spectrum for each trait.

I mean its your decision at the end of the day, I don't anyone claiming it to be selfish has any real weight behind it. Personally, I do think its a good idea to set something up, although I think there might be better ways that going through it via coding it in, or even using a dead mans switch. Ultimately, it depends on your threat model. Whenever we are talking about major wealth, then having a multisig setup could potentially be dangerous, you only have to look around you to see how far some people are willing to go to get their hands on wealth.

Even families can turn against each other, so I wouldn't listen to anyone saying you're being selfish.

Usually at the Apex, we see some quickly fights ending up in a finish. Honestly, I quite like not having much of a crowd, I find the crowd annoying most of the time. Booing when there's highly technical wrestling going on, and boring whoever is basically losing. For example, the other night with Chimaev, basically Burns was getting prior to the fight for whatever reason, and then suddenly after the fight Chimaev was getting booed. Infuriates me at times.

Andre Fialho vs Miguel Baeza, I've always liked the look of Fialho, very dangerous maybe a bit of a problem with the gas tank in previous fights. Although, definitely is a pressure fighter. I'm thinking the co main event will be a decent one too, undefeated fighter going against a solid opponent. Think it'll be close. I'm not much of a fan of Belal, so I'm thinking Vicente Luque gets the finish. Pat Sabatini is always fun to watch, although I expect him to find the finish, don't see too much competition in that fight. Chris Barnett being a larger guy is surprisingly agile, you might remember him getting a round house KO then doing either a backflip or front flip on the mat. Probably going to be one hell of a night. William Knight also a dangerous fighter, he'll either find the knockout or gas out.

I don't know there's a few decent fights. I don't think its a completely no namer. Decent card I say.

Same thoughts, who you got in that match up? Personally have Andre Fialho winning it. Although, I definitely agree on it being a night for underdogs, usually you see that when there isn't as many big names. Then betters tend to bet for favourites since they like betting, but don't have too much information on the fighters. My predictions are probably mainly going to be underdogs.

Should still be a good night, I see some decent match ups there. Expecting the Andre Fialho fight to be absolute chaos at a high pace.

Not easily that's for sure. Although, I get it not everyone cares about relying on a third party, my concern with OP's suggestion was purely on it being mandatory, since that forces the user rather than giving them the choice. There will be people using Bitcoin for different reasons to the third party concerns, and some will be comfortable with it. Personally, I wouldn't be, and I wouldn't advocate it, but I do understand that some people would actually prefer it. If we want mass adoption, then that's the reality of things, and depending on that individuals circumstance, could actually make some sense.

It should never be mandatory to trust someone else with your Bitcoin, that's the whole point of Bitcoin, we don't automatically rely on third parties as willingly as people who use fiat does. Bitcoin could potentially go through a fork in the future if Bitcoin is still around, and the amount of Bitcoin lost has come such a problem that its becoming detrimental, although I do believe Bitcoin will either be replaced or we'll just use further denominations, which unfortunately could make it a little more complex to use.

At the moment its not a problem, and its likely not going to be a problem in the immediate future, if it ever becomes a problem, then I'[m sure there'll be a bunch of ideas thrown around when it's required.

I must say, Chelsea have annoyingly impressed me today. I've got a vendetta against them since they've cost me so much money over the years, especially this year. They're like my bogey team, but they've been playing absolutely brilliant up to this point. The only disappointment for them I think will be that they haven't managed to score more than one goal in the first half. I expect Real Madrid to look to counter in the second half, with Chelsea having most of the possession. Could potentially be going to extra time this game.

Also, for tomorrows games I expect Liverpool to win 3-0, and I think Man City will now be able to run away with the game now that Atletico Madrid have to chase the game, and not play their usual sit back, and hope approach.

Yeah, the only problem I find with Pep is he experiments too much, especially when its key games. Although, I do respect the boldness from him, and well I guess he does have the depth. Although, I do find it annoying at times that Klopp sticks with the same tactics, and doesn't make changes to usually later on, I absolutely adore the man like any other Liverpool fan.

I do expect them to use that system again, I don't know if that'll help them overall or not, because I also expect them to drop points in the remaining games, although they probably expect the same from us considering our arguably harder fixture list. To be honest, I'm not too worried about our fixture list, I think there's a few which could be a problem, but the way we have been playing, I do expect us to win almost every single time. The City game was the only one I've really been nervous about this entire season, and I had to watch Brentford put three past us early in the season.

Exactly. it's not a matter of proving that Bitcoin isn't more resource heavy than several other arguably non essential industries, its the matter of preventing the propaganda that's being spread by the media. Which, I'll be quite honest I don't have a solution for. Convincing the masses, while they've already been fed this information through mainstream outlets, would probably be an impossible task, since it'll always stick in their mind, and its not exactly like the media is going to change their mind upon discovering the facts. I'm quite sure that a lot have a good idea that Bitcoin isn't as impactful as other industries, they just nitpick what they know will generate them money.

Also, I do think its fairly obvious that news have been bribed or pressured in the past to push a certain agenda, while I can't be sure that the governments of the world have done this, I'm rather suspicious the hostile attitude that every single news source seems to have.

Just because Dana disagrees with the judges doesn't mean there needs to be a change. That's the whole point of judges, they're there not to represent the organisation, but to judge the fight without bias. Obviously, there's going to be issues, I think boxing is even worse, but there are definitely some judges in the UFC which have questionable takes on the fights, although I completely disagree with Dana, I don't think it was called wrongly, and even if it was it was marginal, so really its down to interpretation on the night, in real time. That means without the official significant punches etc.

People like to absolutely trash judges, but its a hard job. I mean some of these fighters are so quick, I'm left wondering what happened sat here in front of the TV, and that's with the best angles possible. Something that the judges don't always have.

The thing is too, Dana has a bias for the UFC at a organisation level, he needs his hyped fighter to stay winning, and Aljo probably doesn't get the pull that Yan does, although to be honest I think I prefer Aljo.

Technically, any user can leave feedback for whatever reason they find justified. Doesn't mean that others on the forum will agree with them. That's the whole point of DefaultTrust (DT), if a DefaultTrust user starts leaving inaccurate feedback or feedback that others don't agree with, they aren't likely to be on DT much longer. That's the theory anyway.

If the user has been reported, and not banned there's probably a legitimate reason for that, maybe not known to the majority of users. Although, anyone who believes plagiarism is unethical, could potentially tag them. I personally like the idea of separating trust issues, and moderation, although plagiarism probably is slightly different, since there's a ethical question to raise. Something, which I personally do associate with trust. Though, honestly as far as I'm aware most plagiarists are banned, and there's only the occasional circumstance which leads to them not being banned.

I'd probably say very much depends, and therefore should only be considered on a case by case basis. Something which could be brought up in the Reputation section to see what others think. Plus, I'm quite conflicted using the trust system, if they've been reported, and haven't been banned as there's likely some mitigating circumstances, which I previously stated might not be obvious. I for example won't know why x was banned, unless I saw the report, and saw the evidence. However, if that's already been deleted, and they've been banned, I might not or perhaps  the mod handling it removed the post since they thought it was not suitable to be on the forum, but maybe there was mitigating circumstances that didn't justify the ban. From the outside, if you aren't dealing with the report itself, you might not know the circumstances, so going off of just that, might be a little too trigger happy in terms of leaving trust feedback. I don't know, like I said probably case by case.

Yeah, definitely. At the end of the day he went against number two, and proved himself capable. Although, I do think he had the wrong game plan, and that's why his corner was yelling at him so much. However, he got the win no matter how close it was. He will definitely learn from it, and is still very young. I think its almost inevitable he gets his hands on the title one day. Although, the only doubt I have is here is that the other fighters in the division now know how to go about it, that's if they can stay up right that is.

Honestly, I think Colby won't pose much of a threat to him. Although, Usman definitely will. To beat him you have to stay standing or have the threat of submissions yourself, which to be honest outside of Burns looks pretty bleak in comparison to Chimaev.

I'm still delusional quietly confident we'll do it despite the harder fixture list.

Although, we were absolutely awful for the first half, and could have, and probably should have conceded more. However, I'm using the fact that one of the goals we conceded had a massive deflection, while I think both of our goals were pretty well worked. So, yeah it was a bad day at the office, we didn't turn up until the second half, which was pretty balanced, and I thought we had the upper hand for the majority of it, but Man City turned up with one of the best performances I've seen of the season from them, so I take a little bit of comfort knowing while we didn't exactly turn up for the whole game, we still got something from it.

To be honest, I took a look back at the previous Sterling vs Yan fight, and although Sterling did get dominated, I do believe a lot of it was due to him gassing out. He went 100mph early on, and ultimately paid the price after that, at least before the illegal knee.

This time he came into the fight with a game plan, which he executed almost perfectly. There probably is a case for Yan, although personally I think Sterling won it. I'm also of the impression that if you want the belt you need to be pushing the champion more than that, even if you think he's a undeserving champion at that point.

I didn't like the way Yan was acting prior to the fight, and he didn't handle himself that well after the fight either. So, if he wants the belt back, he'll have to get it at a later date. Sterling did well, and in my mind just did enough to retain the belt. Plus, I was a critic before about being able to get a belt through disqualification, but this time he proved everyone wrong, made it competitive, and quite frankly had the most dangerous moments in the fight.

Chimaev on the other hand lost his composure, and didn't follow his game plan. He needs to learn from that, although the only defense I have for him for not looking for more takedowns is that Burns is for some unknown reason to me really underrated on the mat. He was a BJJ champion, and is one of the most defensively sound on the mat.

Nerves going to start kicking in soon. Will be interesting to see the starting line ups, I think Jota starts for us, alongside Mane, and Salah. I think Diaz playing midweek for the entire game tells us he's probably going to be on the bench. Anyone have any ideas how City will line up, particularly in the midfield?

Also, Manchester United's current position reminds me of what Liverpool were like before Klopp. Could take them a very long time until they get themselves out of the rut they are in judging by how long it took us.

3-1 mauling, you heard it here first. Seriously, this weekend has been brilliant, UFC last night with a stacked event, and now Liverpool going to absolutely put the sword to Manchester City .

I wouldn't go that far, quite clearly Khamzat was rocked multiple times in the fight, and was stumbling pretty bad at one point. Potentially saved by the end of the round. While he definitely took Burn's best shots, it wasn't without hurting from it. I'm impressed that he was able to take the shots, and survive mind. Especially, when he got the take down whilst rocked, that isn't easy against someone like Burns who is incredibly good at preventing take downs.

Burns also got buzzed a few times though so I do agree it was an absolute war. Honestly, on a different day both of them could have been knocked out multiple times over. I don't know who got hurt the most, the jab that hurt Burns seemed to be quite substantial at  first, but the he starts basically hammer fisting Chimaev from the bottom position, getting just as many substantial hits as Chimaev, which resulted in him relieving some of the pressure, and allowing Burns to get back up. Then at one point Chimaev pretty much got folded, it was a two punch combo, the second one from Burns was more of a looping drag, but you could clearly see Chimaev was out of it there, and was stumbling.

Honestly, that's probably as close as a  fight you're going to get whatever the decision was you couldn't really argue either way. Too close to call accurately.

Well, to be honest I'm quite happy for Sterling. I didn't like the way Yan was speaking in the build up, and he seemed way to aggressive loading up on his shots, not usually like him. While I  did think Yan would win, Sterling came in much smarter. He conserved his gas tank, and that pretty much set it up for him. He did lose some of it in the later rounds, and I think that's why he had something silly like 22/23 take down attempts, and only a few actually materialised. However, that round 2 I think it was I potentially had down as a 10-8 round, and ultimately I think that's why Sterling just stole it. He was dominated, and was threatening all round while Yan pretty much had to fight hands the entire round.

Really gutted for Korean Zombie, totally outclassed on the night. I don't think he's ever getting that belt. I must say though, the two fighters have the best walk out songs of any fight I've seen. I love the Cranberries, and the down under song is proper catchy.

I haven't seen the official strikes on the third round, but Chimaev probably did get the most landed, although by far Burns had the more significant strikes in that round. I mean it felt like there was like 5/6 massive ones in a row that backed up Chimaev from one side of the octagon to the other. So, I think there's an argument both ways.

The decision definitely wasn't a robbery, and it could have easily gone Burn's way it was that close of a fight.

I honestly thought Burns won that, although I'll admit bias in it. Either way, it could have gone to anyone. The third round was very close. First round was Khazat's, and the second was clearly Burns. I don't think the hype has been rerailed per say, but at least people can stop pretending like he's super human now. Burns very nearly knocked him out twice, one of them was particularly bad.

Khamzat also stopped shooting for takedowns, Burns was defending them well. Probably surprised by his strength as he has had it relatively easy in his last opponents. Awesome fight though, and I don't have any real complaints about the decision, it was super close could have gone either way.

Khamzat does have age in his benefit mind, Burns not so much being 35. So, Khamzat will definitely learn from this, and he probably will get the belt at some point. Still a very good performance against a really underrated Burns considering his rank.

Burns can hurt anyone in the division. He hasn't had a knockout win in a long time now, but he put it to Usman in that first round. Usman was definitely rocked at some point. Plus, Burns has enough energy, and volume to potentially get a decision victory. I'll openly admit that Chimaev is definitely the favourite going into it, but at odds of 5.00 it just makes sense to bet with Burns, since this is definitely a leap up for Chimaev in terms of quality of opponent.

Nice to see my betting picks didn't fail on the first one, as they usually do.