To be honest I haven't looked deep enough into blockchain sharding yet to give an educated opinion on aliashraf's proposal or any other sharding proposal for that matter. Additionally given the conservative nature of Bitcoin's development I have my doubts that Bitcoin will ever see a sharding implementation to begin with (for better or worse; except for hard forks by alternative dev teams, I suppose). In that regard I guess the closest that Bitcoin will ever come to a sharding-like approach is via sidechains.

In general I believe that 2nd layer solutions stand to scale way better than sharding. Main reason being that everything else being equal sharding only scales linearly with the amount of shards (ie. to increase transaction throughput tenfold you need 10 shards, to increase transaction throughput by n you need n shards) while in theory LN is only limited by the respective nodes' underlying internet connection and the laws of physics.

That being said, I also believe that on-chain transactions offer a better user experience than LN transactions due to the almost-always-online requirement of the latter. Whether on-chain transaction throughput can be sufficiently increased via sharding without significant sacrifices is a different matter however (and one where I still have a lot of reading to do).

Since sub-satoshi payments are probabilistic [1] I guess this depends on the size of the integer being returned by the random function. So using 64 bit integers like currently in use for on-chain input / output amounts the smallest sub-satoshi amount transactable would be 1 / 2^64 (= 5.42 * 10^-20) satoshis. You probably could go even smaller by chaining multiple random conditionals. That's in theory though, not sure how it would look like in practice.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network

I think the nice thing about LN is though that it improves scalability without making any sacrifices on the lower layer.

That is, it does leave room for alternative scalability approaches as well. So while there's a lot of focus on LN right now I don't think that in practice it detracts that much attention from possible alternatives. There will be dev teams dedicated to other approaches just like dev teams are dedicated to LN right now. Maybe these approaches will end up as part of Bitcoin, maybe they won't. Point being, while many people may see LN as the scaling solution to end all scaling problems, many people don't. And those will still keep working on other ways to improve crypto.

It kinda makes sense for a South Korean company such as Samsung to get in touch with South Korean cryptocurrency projects such as Enjin and Cosmo. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will release this function in Korea only.

You can find the balance on the upper right corner, just above the account menu (my Bitcoin.de). If you click on the + it will expand and you'll see a list of your balances. A more detailed view is available after clicking "my Bitcoin.de" and selecting "Overview - my Bitcoin.de".

If you use the site in German replace "balance" with "Guthaben", "my Bitcoin.de" with "mein Bitcoin.de" and "Overview" with "Übersicht"

From there you should be able to withdraw your coins to the wallet of your choice. Here's an overview of Bitcoin wallets:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1631151.0

For desktop I'd personally recommend Electrum. If you want to store larger amounts I'd recommend getting a hardware wallet such as the Trezor (available on trezor.io) and Ledger (available on ledger.com), bought directly from the respective manufacturer.



In addition to being more secure using Google Authenticator also rids you of the waiting time for the confirmation Email. Just make sure to make a paper backup of the displayed 2FA key as well, in case you lose your phone.

For any newcomers reading this: Avoid cloud mining services like the plague, the only ones making a profit off cloud mining are the service providers themselves. For everyone else it's a losing proposition as you get overcharged for hashpower that is extremely unlikely to break even, let alone be profitable.

Trezor also has an in-built exchange yet is fully open source, so having an in-built exchange does not necessitate being closed source But yes, I suppose the lines between being a wallet / being an exchange app are getting blurred in this case, especially with the use case of exchanging USDT for BTC in the background to allow for a cleaner user experience (ie. replacing the BTC mining fee with an USDT mining fee on the surface).

Trading risks aside, don't forget that 3rd party trading bots come with security risks as well. API keys are a powerful thing and if you're not careful you might end up like this guy:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108921

Nice find. Also there doesn't seem to be any source code available for this wallet, so I wouldn't touch this wallet with a ten foot pole.

Enjin wallet appears to be the official reference wallet for Enjin Coin as both are developed by the same team. The way I understand it ENJ strives to tokenize digital ingame-assets so I assume that's what the wallet enables -- ie. exchanging ingame-assets between players and maybe even across games. Which is also why it makes sense to target the mobile market in particular. It sounds nice in theory but I'm honestly not quite sure what to make of it.



Now that's the 21 million Bitcoin question, isn't it?

The market already reacted to this news, Enjin Coin just made a huge jump. Not bad for a vaguely known alt, if that's really happening it looks like they got a pretty good deal.



Which would put them at the security level of regular desktop and mobile wallets, but not hardware wallets. But yes, we'll see. Definitely worth keeping an eye on regardless.

Keep in mind that being able to back up private keys to cloud services implies that there's a way to access the stored private keys at the software level. Accordingly the private key storage may be exploitable regardless of whether a user opts-out of the cloud service backup or not. That's an attack vector that does not exist for the current generation of hardware wallets (at least the most popular ones).

Don't get me wrong, this is huge news for adoption. But assuming Samsung officially communicates a level of security akin to established hardware wallets we are looking at a potential security mess in the making.

But we'll see, I guess. For all we know this might all be a dud with them merely supporting their own Samsung-ERC20-token.

I kinda got excited by Samsung starting to provide secure hardware elements which would make for other interesting use cases outside of crypto-currencies as well (eg. 2FA), alas...


Dagnabbit!

Obviously you need some way to enable private key backups but cloud storage is one of the most unfortunate ways to do it and leads the whole idea of secure key storage at absurdum.

Heads up, capital gains tax exemption from long-term holding is not the same as income tax exemption from mining! The only country on this list that appears to allow for tax-free mining is Belarus.

I already see altcoiners complaining about censorship and bias on Bitcointalk but I also support this idea.

A lot of alts and ICOs are mere cashgrabs and many newcomers are not aware of the vast altcoin ecosystem and its perils (eg. "I've heard X will become the next Bitcoin" without being aware that there are literally thousands of coins and tokens aiming at the throne) so I believe a heads up would be appropiate. Sure it won't prevent people from getting scammed and people love to ignore warnings, but as long as it leads to some people reflecting on the matter before pulling the trigger on that shiny new lottery ticket alt coin it's imho worth it.

Yep, precisely. And the way I see it there's no need to have every single transaction publicly viewable on the network as long as no coins get lost or are generated out of thin air. To this extend using LN transactions also supports individual privacy.

Why should these records be lost? Sure, the individual transactions are not stored on the blockchain, but the history of lightning transactions is still available to each respective counterparty. It's not like clients "forget" their history of lightning transactions just because a channel has been closed.

The imported private key belong to your old address ABCD as generated by your old wallet is completely unrelated to the private keys of your new wallet. Your new wallet is unaffected by whatever happens to the private key of the old address ABCD. Just be aware that the regular caveats of using a desktop wallet still apply (ie. depending on the amount involved, consider switching to a cold storage or hardware wallet solution, as desktop wallets or only as secure as your system).

Note that an adversary that has compromised your system and has access to your wallet file (and managed to get ahold of your encryption passphrase using, say, a keylogger) will be able to access all coins within the wallet, regardless of them being held in different addresses.

If only a single private key is exposed (eg. because you exported it and moved it onto a different device) than your other keys are safe within the limitations that ETFbitcoin described.

Last time I gave it a whirl (a couple of weeks ago) it took about 3 hours in the best case and I gave up after 6 hours in the worst case. Maybe it's better now, but it seems like there's still a bit of a chicken-egg problem: The less people use it, the less convenient it is to use, the less likely people are to use it again. I think especially the relatively large minimum amount (compared to centralized mixers) makes it harder for people to join, leading to prolonged waiting times. I do hope this gets better in time and as awareness spreads.