Which personally I'm quite surprised by the fact that campaigns don't do this. I'd like the think that the Bitcoin sections, are better for advertisers since its less saturated. Over in the Altcoin section, almost everyone there posting, from all kinds of different users that its very saturated, and you tend to ignore anyones signature over in that section.

You'd think that bounty owners, and campaigns owners would prefer paying in Bitcoin to try, and get into a new market. It rarely happens though.

Besides from what I've seen; Satoshi's code is decent enough. You don't need to be mind blowing to come up with a functional product. Plus, although your quotes seem to be a little unfounded, Bitcoin was a team effort. Originally, we don't really know, and there's only speculation out there, or as with your quotes plain accusations. However, Bitcoin has been developed by a number of people, and despite the original product being potentially coded by one person, it has become a team effort even if it wasn't originally so.

This is generally how things work, people usually become programmers because they have their own ideas, they develop their ideas, and then hire people or collaborate with others when they need too. Its why libraries exist, no one wants to reinvent the wheel, so they use preexisting code which has stood the test of time which increases their productivity.

If Satoshi ever makes a future statement, you can bet your buck it'll be through a verifiable way. Since, looking his creation, and his attitude that's the impression he gives off. Unfortunately, these days people love using other peoples names to instill a idea in others, and that's exactly what your quoting. Wherever you found it, its not Satoshi. At least, its not verifiable that it is Satoshi, therefore it is not a Satoshi quote. 

Yeah, I've noticed that sometimes its not actually the bank that's hostile to Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies for that matter, but the employee injecting their own beliefs, and threatening action based on their own miss skewed views. Of course, there are banks which are somewhat hostile to Bitcoin, and they tend to give the excuse of it being risky, but any bank which prevents you from sending money, despite the risk isn't a bank that you can trust.

Banks which warn you of the risk, but still allow the transaction if you wish, I can understand to a point.

Anything which stores money, or operates similar to a bank should be open sourced in my opinion. I couldn't recommend a wallet which is intended to store value, which is closed source. Yeah, its quite obvious that just being open source does not mean its secure or even trustworthy, but any software which offers the ability for you to check the code yourself, is always going to be infinitely better than one that doesn't.

There was some cons to open source software, where they might be easier to exploit. Malicious users might take a look at the code, and identify areas which they can exploit. However, on the contrary there's also those that will be able to improve the code by taking a look at it. So, there's a contrast there which can have negatives, and benefits. However, generally I believe that it has more benefits.

It may be still recoverable, but what your relying on is that the faucet website is still up, and running which is probably unlikely. So, a good idea would be to try, and crawl through the services section, service announcements, and micro earnings section (something that long ago may have not been moved to the correct section though) to see if you can find the faucet, and if its still running. It might not even be posted on this forum, but I would say there's a high chance that is was, considering this was pretty much one of the only advertising outlets around that time.

Worth considering, even if the faucet does still exist, they've likely probably had various different changes, and probably doesn't have the same interface. So, this might be a pretty difficult task. Your going to have to bruteforce it though if you can't remember the name. Hoping that you come across the website which triggers your memory. There's nothing else that can be done.

mk4 nailed it. As an example, take a privacy focused VPN as an example. They don't store personal data, instead they store connection data. So, they do store when a VPN was connected too, but they generally don't store in depth logs which could expose personal data. Therefore, if the authorities ever did want to take a look at their logs, they would still provide them, but because they aren't collecting the indepth logs that other companies do, the authorities won't find anything particularly useful. You can use some of the data, alongside other data to establish a connection, or link, but its very wishy washy.

So, privacy wallets tend to do the same. They don't store any personal data which can be used to link a wallet to an identity, and therefore if they were requested access from the authorities or through the freedom of information act, they would still provide it, but it doesn't have any sensitive data.

At the end of the day, most people won't have the skills to read most open source code, and this is particularly hard to do when the code is mash, and really isn't all that clear. It also, depends on where you intend on running the software, and what the software is going to do. Any, software which you are running on a machine with sensitive data or you are inputting sensitive data you should ideally check, or get someone you trust that understands it to check it.

However, if you are in the situation which you don't understand code, and you aren't familiar with any type of programming, I would still generally be more inclined to recommend open source software, as it generally should be vetted by more people. It should have more exposure, and therefore more chance of users finding anything malicious. This isn't always the case, and like I mentioned before there's a sort of complacency that creeps in when downloading open source software where we rely on others to have vetted it. This is why you should probably develop your own personal security levels or threat levels. So, if you are running sensitive data through the software or it has the potential to compromise sensitive data, then it should be vetted always.

Trust me, if there was a extinction level event our last concern would be money. Plus, at present moment an extinction level event would destroy all of us. First, as pointed out above we would need to become a interplanetary species, which is something we aren't all that close too, and also Bitcoin or money as we know it might not exist by the time we do that. Establishing a colony doesn't mean its successful. The harsh climate, and work that would be required to actually develop that colony would mean it would take a few lifetimes until its probably considered safe. Landing up there, and having enough provisions for doing work on the planet doesn't mean its sustainable. Provisions at first would need to be brought from Earth, and for that to be cost effective would likely be based on the movement of the planet, so the window for travel is limited.

This is getting into science fiction level of stuff, and the only reasonable way this would be established is through satellites rather than interplanetary as of right now, and that doesn't really offer that much benefits.


Moon really isn't that great of a place to have colonies unless its for strategic locations. Mars is the only really suitable location within scope, and we aren't even quite sure whether that would work out as we are theoretically planning. Terraforming a country, especially within our lifetimes is a daunting process, which might not be even possible, but would likely have to accelerated using over the top measures. I think Elon has suggested in the pass of dropping nuclear bombs to accelerate the process.

What are we thinking, with the Israel VS Whittaker fight? Surely, its the only logical fight to make, and personally I've always felt that Whittaker probably is the man to finally dethrone Israel. I'm a massive Adesanya fan though, and while I still don't want to see him lose it might just spice up the division more.

Some goods fights last night, and watching the Triller boxing production last night really did show me how much I don't miss the Boxing scene these days.

This just means we'll be subjected to more gimmicky social media infulencer type bullshit until someone actually derails this guy. The whole Triller event with the mini concerts inbetween fights really annoyed me. I'm sure it was popular among casuals, and those that are into that sort of gimmicky attitude, but it was really hard to stomach that for me. I actually just had a split screen going on, where I was watching the UFC, until the Ben Askren fight was due, and I still managed to fall asleep.

I was originally expecting the fight to kick off around 4am UK time, but it must have been around 6am? By the time it actually started. I remember it being 4:30 when Doja Cat, and all those were singing.

For someone who pays, and comes to see fights it was an absolute shitshow.

I can see Elon Musk doing something similar for cryptocurrencies that he's doing for his business "Starlink". If not, someone will eventually come along, and do the same. However, this really isn't a priority if your thinking this is a good idea for prolonging the life of Bitcoin, unless you plan on catering to undiscovered extraterrestrial beings, because currently not many humans are away from earth, and none at all are away from earth permanently.  

For this to become a priority you would probably need established colonies on another planet, and even then there's far more things that would need to be prioritized than establishing a currency that can't be destroyed or is unlikely to be destroyed.

I'm not exactly sure who holds jurisdiction in space, and whether there is any at all, and that's why I say that Elon Musk might consider this in the near future. It could be beneficial to establish nodes outside of jurisdiction of governments, and prying eyes. That would really be the only justifiable reason that this could become a priority, and even then that's a stretch. I do have a feeling though that to launch anything into space, it would require permission from some sort of governing board.

I understand the idea of it is cool, but its not exactly needed any time soon.

Generally, you know exactly who is handling your KYC information. Its the company you are directly dealing with, which is registered as a business, and therefore through the freedom of information act you can gather certain amounts of information about them. The issue is, the selling of data between companies. That's the real problem, I actually believe in the movement of not allowing companies to sell any customer data whatsoever. Obviously, this will never become a reality as advertising is such a big market these days.

So, although you do know who's handling the data directly, you don't know exactly who they might be selling this data too. Its worth checking their terms of service, and whether they explicitly state that they don't sell your data. However, that's not a guarantee in this day, and age where big companies are often caught breaking the rules in one way or another, and largely getting away with it.

Does anyone know the dimensions of the octagon used in the Jacksonville Florida stadium? I'm assuming its going to be bigger than the Apex one. I can't find any concrete information on this as of now.

As for the fight itself. Usman. Despite, probably going to have terrible odds I'd stick a bet down on him winning via TKO. I'm slightly bias in that I'm not a big fan of Masvidal.

Also, I'm actually not looking forward to having fans back in the stadiums. Over this whole pandemic I've grown accustomed to hearing the corners, and coaching during rounds, and have absolutely loved it. Also, hearing the shots connect each time is somewhat satisfying.

From a economic point of view, yeah that would likely have disastrous economic short term effects, but I'm not entirely sure that long term effects would be negative. If they were to be stolen, and we don't consider the morality in that right now, it would mean that there's more coins in circulation, which depending on what point of view your looking at might devalue the amount of coins, because as you know some people treat lost coins as "donations" to the network.

I'm still convinced, it will be a very long time until anyone with a motive to do it i.e common criminals, will be able to access quantum computers. I'm not convinced that the government, whatever that one might be would have any real motive. I think we like to think they're threatened by it, but I don't think in its current state it is.

I don't know the ideal solution, ideally we should never really assume coins that haven't been moved for a very long time, are "lost" so "burning" them without permission from its owner doesn't quite sit well with me. So, now to move onto the ethics of dealing with this scenario; is it better to burn the coins without permission in an attempt to better everyone else using the currency or is it better to allow those coins to be attacked, despite their owner having lost them, whether that's through choice, mistakes or not being around anymore. Its something which will need a decision, but quite frankly I'm not quite sure what's the correct way of going about it, obviously this has been brought up a lot over the years, and I think most would lean to the greater good, but I'm not a big fan of that viewpoint.

This is why I'm hoping people far brighter than me are in charge of this decision. I don't know the true economic damages that something like this would cause. If its just short term, which I believe short term would be the worse of the two, then that isn't so bad for a currency. If it has longer term effects, that could be detrimental to the survival of the currency (which I find implausible) then that's something that I imagine that needs to be taken into consideration. Even then though, burning coins that don't belong to you doesn't bode well with me. My question, and this might be more of a rhetorical question is; does anyone really know the true implications that it would have on Bitcoin?

Costa will likely be a gatekeeper. He has too many weaknesses currently, and his only game plan seems to use his muscle, and pressure to win fights. Adesanya made short work of him, and quite frankly I think Whittaker also takes him apart. The division is good, but Adesanya, and Whittaker I think are a step above everyone else on their day. Whittaker VS Adesanya next time out will be very entertaining, and I think it'll be interesting to see how Whittaker in particular adapts.

Okay, so this is probably the only legitimate counter argument that could be presented that's for quantum computers becoming a risk to cryptocurrencies, and I can't really argue that fact except for; By the time quantum computers come available which are capable of breaking the ECDSA, I'd expect us to have a solution via a quantum resistant algorithm already implemented. Of course, this would require a fork, and not everyone would be willing to move or some people aren't going to move. At that point, you'd probably expect that a lot of coins would be available to target, but if we have enough notice, and good enough reasons to fork then I would expect the majority of people would move their coins to the quantum resistant algorithms.  

So, this just leaves the coins which have been lost prior, those that didn't want to move, or those that didn't hear about the fork. These are risks, and unfortunately will happen when it comes to it. These coins could be targeted, however if they've been given good enough reason to move, and enough timeframe then they themselves are taking the risk of leaving their coins there. So, they accept the risk of losing them.

That being said, when this does happen the affordability still comes into consideration. If its only high profile companies, and governments that have access to quantum computers capable of breaking ECDSA, then they aren't likely to be interested in coins that have been left. First of all, there's no real motive. The issue is when quantum computers become accessible to your common criminal, those are the ones which would more than likely be interested in targeting these coins, but by the time that happens there will be enough notice, and will allow people to weigh up the pros, and cons.

I don't think in the grand scheme of things, its a major issue. There's multiple factors which have been mentioned above which will delay the threat of quantum computers, which should allow adequate time for planning, and implementing a solution, and having those that having doubts about moving to a different protocol, time to make up their minds.

We could burn them, given enough notice that does seem very extreme though, and I'm not sure that's the best decision. Undoubtedly, any coins that are left that can be exploited, will likely be exploited eventually, and that would likely have an effect on the short term value of Bitcoin.

Jake Paul might be a decent guy behind the scenes, and away from the cameras honestly, but his whole persona in front of the cameras annoy the hell out of me. However, you have to admit that this is exactly the reason why so many people will be watching this fight. They aren't interested in seeing Jake win, and if they were partial to Jake then they might not tune in at all. However, because he's built up such a reputation with his antics over the years, he's turned a lot of people against him, which means people want to see him lose, and he's taking advantage of that, and run away with the money. Whatever you say, you can't say the kid isn't smart, and a proper businessman.

However, his antics in the open workout the other day really annoyed me. As a fan, we like to look at how the fighters are looking leading up to their fight right? So he comes out with this warmup stretching routine, which offered nothing.

Jake Paul is a mastermind, I'm going for a Ben Askren TKO

Yeah, Vettori is up there I guess. Vettori is a pressure fighter, and unfortunately for him Israel is an exceptional striker which means he's likely to eat a lot of shots before actually getting close to a takedown. Israel comes from a kickboxing background which means its not only his hands that are a threat, but his legs are real weapons too. I don't think Vettori is that impress except that he just doesn't stop coming forward. Against Holland, I wasn't that impressed with him. He did what he needed, and got the win. However, he didn't exactly steal the show or show me anything that would compete against Israel.

I don't know, obviously on the day anything can happen, but I'm not truly convinced Vettori has what it takes to beat Adesanya.

Highly unlikely at least for a while. Its been discussed so many times its almost becoming tedious. Quantum computers which are actually designed to break algorithms don't only apply to Bitcoin, but apply to everything that implements those algorithms. That's including banks, Google, and whatever else you can think of. However, quantum computers aren't particularly good at everything, they are designed to be good at one thing in particular. Therefore, to own a quantum computer which needs to be stationed in a controlled environment isn't likely going to fall into the hands of criminals, unless of course you consider the government to be criminals.

The government, military, and potentially high profile companies are the only ones that would be able to afford quantum computers, and even then a smaller division of this number will actually have a need for quantum computers. I would say that the government, and military are the only ones which could justify the cost. Now, you could say that the government are hostile towards Bitcoin, but that entirely depends on the government your talking about. Many governments have actually successfully regulated Bitcoin, and therefore Bitcoin earns them more money than not having it. By breaking Bitcoin if that was even theoretically possible would actually reduce the amount of money they earn. Bitcoin, isn't likely to replace fiat currencies, at least not for a long time. In fact, Bitcoin is probably not something that would replace it, but a similar implementation of Bitcoin might. Therefore, Bitcoin in its current state is of limited threat, and actually benefits the governments that have successfully regulated it.

By the time, Bitcoin was to become a threat or quantum computers became affordable enough to own for others, Bitcoin as well as banks, and other big industries would have already implemented quantum resistant algorithms, effectively making it redundant.

Quantum computers aren't even particularly good for hacking, they are good at breaking a specific type of algorithm, and wouldn't be able to be used for anything other than that. The biggest benefit of a quantum computer is using it in the military for obvious reasons.

Which just to be clear;

1. We are fair bit off a quantum computer being able to achieve the level of qbits required.
2. Barely anyone would be able to afford it.
3. Even if they could afford the quantum computer, and be able to run it highly unlikely they wouldn't be able to justify the costs.

I've recommend keeping this thread handy whenever you run into an issue or aren't quite sure on something. Other than that, you can send a message to me if you truly are stuck on something, as long as its not a obvious question, which has already been answered in the above thread I'll likely get back to you.

Although, do try to use a search engine or the built in forum search function to find anything you aren't up to scratch on. I wouldn't say the forum is highly moderated though, a lot of things that get posted here would likely be deleted elsewhere. We focus on filtering out the spam, but we tend to keep to the principles of allowing free speech etc.