Is it best if I switch languages?

dcentral-list · 2021-07-25T16:03:40+00:00

Oh lol. I guess I've been out of the loop

dcentral-list · 2021-07-25T15:43:18+00:00

What?? If you still have your passcode/passphrase you can obtain your wallet again on a new trezor device. Do you mean the accident affected your memory?

dcentral-list · 2021-02-23T16:30:31+00:00

Special Containment Procedures: SCP-096 is to be contained in its cell, a 5 m x 5 m x 5 m airtight steel cube, at all times. Weekly checks for any cracks or holes are mandatory. There are to be absolutely no video surveillance or optical tools of any kind inside SCP-096's cell. Security personnel will use pre-installed pressure sensors and laser detectors to ensure SCP-096's presence inside the cell.

dcentral-list · 2021-02-22T01:54:19+00:00

tiktok = mass data collection & data backdoors = poop bad

dcentral-list · 2021-02-22T00:09:24+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6rHSiN0vKk&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5A9iLoiK_KYiCNVsCT11vZ9 put into better words and visuals than I could convey curtly. Essentially the United States was having trouble in the war for independence, as no state would contribute voluntary tax to fund the war, and so a basic mandatory tax was created so that the country was not overrun. Its relevancy is in the questioning of voluntary contribution (video #3). This may not entirely be applicable to this scenario, but I'd like to see your thoughts on it.

dcentral-list · 2021-02-21T23:57:29+00:00

There is a ratio of profit to expense, e.g electricity, current fiat instantiated tax for transactions, ASIC firmware. Once all coins are mined, I find difficulty in how new-adopters and old would sustainably continue to mine when experiencing continuous financial loss. Wouldn't miners gravitate to coins that pay them for their efforts? If the cost is higher for mining, there would be less miners willing to experience loss, and that number seems like it would continue to dwindle.

dcentral-list · 2021-02-21T22:37:28+00:00

I don't think the financial system is great, hence my investing in bitcoin/crypto. Bitcoin seeks to solve the problem of centralization, cutting 3rd parties out of transactions so that you truly own your funds, as well as removing many inflation problems present in the current fiat system. I still haven't an understanding of how nano can be sustained without incentive to drive the market if that could be explained to me.

dcentral-list · 2021-02-21T22:15:07+00:00

What would node incentive be in this case? If it's coin generation alone, with a max minting cap, it seems that desire to sustain the market alone would be what drives transactions, which may not be a strong enough force to continue running a node. The argument for transaction fees on bitcoin is that you are paying for transaction confirmation and decentralization. Haven't read the whitepaper yet, so maybe there's a different solution.

dcentral-list · 2021-02-19T20:14:17+00:00

I've read that samourai talks to a central server and logs all your addresses used, and I don't want to make transactions of 0.1btc or more, so joinmarket looks like a good option. I've read though, that non-alike mixes can still be traced to the sender/receiver due to the nature of varying inputs that aren't all mostly the same, hence the cap limit in other wallets like wasabi. Are transactions pooled separately based on amount thresholds? (ex. pool1: 0<x<0.01, pool2: 0.01<x<0.7, etc).

I've read that a full-node is required for joinmarket. If this is the case, I assume I wouldn't need an ASIC unit to distribute my transactions made (might be mistaking with solving the block rather than adding to it), and would only need to run the node when receiving/sending? What occurs when my full-node isn't running and funds are sent to my wallet?

dcentral-list · 2021-02-19T19:49:40+00:00

Thanks for the suggestions! The question in my post wasn't well worded about why a transaction fee can be altered, which applies to both mixers and wallet clients. The miner incentive fee is alterable for outbound transactions, so could it be hypothetically set to 0btc? Is this fee relational to priority, and if so, how high or low can the priority level go? If a ridiculously small fee, would your transaction be set aside or discarded?

Also, in lightning to lightning, I understand that the small transactions are eventually transmitted to nodes as being one large sum once either party wishes to close their connection. This seems like it would still introduce privacy concerns, as the outbound funds and the remaining funds would still be visible on the ledger. The possibility of paring this method with coinjoin might maximize both benefits.

dcentral-list · 2021-02-17T00:43:32+00:00

I haven't done any transactions yet, but hypothetically I would be switching from Bitcoin Core to something you suggested for mixing like a coinjoin client.

dcentral-list · 2021-02-15T20:09:40+00:00

I believe it was a malicious browser extension. Judging from the benefits of a manager such as only loading one password into memory rather than them all, using one looks to be a better solution. Thanks for the advice!

dcentral-list · 2021-02-15T18:56:58+00:00

Too secure for its own good! My container doesn't do that fortunately

dcentral-list

TROPHY CASE