To be fair though I'm not sure whether Ohio can compare to Switzerland as far as anything finance related is concerned. If money were a country it'd be Switzerland.

It seems to be theoretically possible, but may lead to data corruption as it's not a use case that has been accounted for.

Here's a related discussion from 2016.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1340309.0

Here's a guy on reddit discussing how they approached the matter:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4r48oa/running_a_node_with_the_database_on_a/d4yolwm/

There's always malware making its rounds, hence the importance of cold storage and hardware wallets. Interesting that the email attachment attack vector still works though, I would have expected for people to get smarter by now.

Well technically you can always hit one of the crypto casinos, but you're more likely to lose $10 than to gain $90. Trading without prior knowledge is just as bad, maybe worse. But I doubt even experienced traders are able to reliably yield 10x their stake per month.

A list about earning crypto always has a great start if gambling is at the top of the list

Just work for it, like you would for any other form of money. Difference being that with crypto looking for jobs and earning money globally has become easier than ever.

Well, the ones that the nodes of those block explorers see. I'm not sure how many nodes your typical block explorers have running but some stale blocks are bound to be left unnoticed.

Ah, let me paraphrase:

Always cite the source, but be it depends on whether your quote falls under fair use whether you are in breach of copyright. That is, citing the source is not a free pass for copy / pasting content.

Now here on these forums, in practice, you should be fine with merely citing the source (not citing the source will get you permanently banned).

When posting someone elses content on a blog of your own, or for example as part of an article you write for another news outlet, citing the source may not be enough.

Depends.

At minimum you'll have to cite the source.

Strictly speaking, copy / pasting major parts or even a whole article without permission from the rights holder could still be a breach of copyright even while linking the source. Google "Fair Use" in relation to copyright to see what's okay to do without permission from the original author and what isn't.

Unfortunately declaring a wallet "official" is not going to change that. Someone just heading towards the first site that looks appealing won't bother looking for an "official" label either.

At least in my Google search results Bitcoin.org tops the other sites, so at least that's something. Also Bitcoin's wikipedia page only references Bitcoin.org and not that other site, presumably because as far as Bitcoin is concerned there's nothing noteworthy about Bitcoin.com to begin with.

I do wonder what a good value for the reorganization limit X would be. In their example OP puts the limit rather high -- limiting the reorg depth to 100 blocks would still leave a lot of leeway for double-spend attacks, rendering the measure ineffective in practice. Even assuming OP is aiming towards alts with higher confirmation counts than Bitcoin which usually are still at 12 - 30 confirmations max.

On the other hand I'm not sure what the implications of introducing a reorg limit that's low enough to fall within the most commonly used confirmation counts would be. It feels a bit like a rule change that could potentially be gamed some other way.

Interesting subject nonetheless, is anyone aware of similar discussions in the past? Introducing a reorg depth limit seems to simple and straightforward a change to not have been proposed before.

An "official" wallet would be a single point of failure. A healthy ecosystem of various alternative wallets is important to avoid relying too much on a single dev team.

Also it would go kinda against the openness of the project. Having an official Bitcoin wallet would strike me just as strange as having an official Linux distro.

Depending on the total amount, for new clients usually 50% upfront, 50% upon completion. Recurring clients 100% upon completion for the most part, unless it makes sense to split the project into milestones. Almost never had any troubles, but I pretty much work with vetted clients only which makes trust much less of an issue.

I don't do business on Bitcointalk, but I'm not sure if I'd personally use an escrow. If requested by the client, sure. But if I personally don't trust a client enough to go without escrow, I rather go without the client.

Oxens are castrated bulls tho

Also: The opportunity cost of spending bitcoin rather than fiat.

Of course one can always spend and refill, but that can be (1) relatively cumbersome and (2) come with unwanted tax implications. While your mileage may vary, depending on the available services and tax rules in your country of residence, this will still hold true for most people to some extend.

How to fix this? Wait until Bitcoin reaches a price level where volatility becomes negligible, I guess.

Despite my love for crypto I still think reaching USD 500k is a pipe dream unless the USD gets heavily devaluated. However I felt similarly when the Winklevii predicted a USD 30k Bitcoin in 2013(ish) so maybe I'm just relatively bearish for a Bitcoiner.

Interesting read, overall. I also like that gold's proneness to counterfeit work is mentioned. It may not seem especially noteworthy, but with Bitcoin you can easily verify that what you receive is the real thing. With gold you have to highly trust your counterparty. And if it turns out that you've been duped, good luck proving that your counterparty was the one defrauding you.

The checksum is only validated by the wallet software and not the Bitcoin network. So if for some reason your client doesn't validate the (malformed) address before submitting it to the network those coins would be gone. I'm not aware of any cases of people accidentally burning bitcoin due to missing address validation on the client side though.

As for what would happen to those coins -- they'd still be visible on the blockchain but just not spendable.

Either 5 or 6 should be extended with a warning about clipboard malware. It's more likely that you lose coins due to clipboard malware changing the target address on the fly than due to a typo.


Another rule to add, even if it's not about security:

Rule X: Don't try to evangelize the unwilling - But help whenever someone shows genuine interest.

Depends on the context I guess. Definitely a no-go for most boards, but the gambling section for example would just not be the same without it in my opinion 🚀 🎰 💰⭐

Ich würd einfach mal empfehlen den thread "LoyceVs Legendary 10 Month 10 Person 10 Altcoin Investment Roller Coaster#2" anzuschauen:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4597341.0

Daraus solltest du ca. ableiten können wie (1) zuverlässig alts performen und (2) wie gut Leute beim picken der richtigen coins sind


Davon abgesehen -- klar, moonshots gibt's immer, aber risk / reward ist bei alts halt echt fragwürdig.

Looks definitely more approachable and easier to digest than Miniscript, at least from my perspective. Actually Minsc looks like I'd imagine a language called Miniscript to look like and vice versa (especially vice versa)

With Minsc compiling to an end result that is logically the same to using Miniscript / Bitcoin Script I don't see any downsides either.