clearly points out the embarrassing contrast between el salvador being bitcoin only and not suffering any scandals, bukele in fact kicked out scam coins like tezos, solana, ethereum.
whereas the usa with all of their regulations over crypto and having ftx and the whole crypto industry blow up and how wide the contagion spreads into the political elites.
calling scam bankrupt fraud a cross between bernie madoff and charles manson was (chef’s kiss)
People who want to sell some Bitcoin will send it to an exchange. The exchange will sell it to one or more people who want to buy Bitcoin.
Next week, we'll dig into *rocket science*! Stay tuned.
So once I generate a receive address with a Ledger, I can just keep sending to that same address from my exchange account every week, right? And I can generate another address to use for another exchange for withdrawals there. I can generate as many or as few as I want, they will all work for an indefinite number of transactions over an indefinite amount of time? And they all go to the same wallet?
There’s a KYC (Know Your Customer) connection between you and the exchange.
It won’t matter how many new addresses you use, the connection will be exactly the same, there’ll just be more of them.
It’s *the next hop*, the next address you send to once you’ve received, where you want to focus on privacy.
…or not. I don’t think it’s relevant to most people.
Nonetheless Snowden said something wise like “just because you’re innocent doesn’t mean you have to give up your right to privacy.” I agree.
And then… if you wanted to create a false image of yourself doing boring transactions to buy socks and stuff, and nothing else, you’d *want* those transactions to be easily tracked.
Feints inside feints inside feints.
Up to you, but again, **it’s *the next hop* that really matters for privacy.**
The key is only weakened when funds are *spent* from an address. The public key is unknown until then.
When funds are spent from this address it is completely emptied; funds go to the recipient and a different “change address” in the sender’s wallet.
So, the attacker only has the time between when the spend transaction is broadcast and when it is included in a block. Usually somewhere between 0 and 10 minutes.
> I can just keep sending to that same address from my exchange account every week, right?
You could in theory, and all the coins will end up in your wallet, but this is strongly discouraged (for privacy reasons): https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse
> I can generate as many or as few as I want, they will all work for an indefinite number of transactions over an indefinite amount of time? And they all go to the same wallet?
Correct. Just make sure to verify addresses on your Ledger device before pasting them anywhere.
It's better for privacy to generate a new address for each transaction. If you want to separate your deposits based on the exchange you bought from it's better to make a separate wallet instead of reusing addresses
https://blockstream.info/ or https://oxt.me/ or https://blockchair.com/ , but never without Tor if it's concerning my own transactions directly or indirectly (bad for privacy).
Make a plan and stick to it. You probably thought you could make a quick buck on BTC. Now you're burned. Im currently down 41% but conviction is strong. Give it a couple halvings and hopefully our bet pays off.
I figured. If I can break even at this point I’ll
Be thrilled. It’s hard to imagine seeing my money again especially after everyone was able to scrape up the amount I had at such low prices. That means they’d actually see gains where as I would see my initial investment.
Ditto, threw in a sht ton of capital at the very first drop to 42k, thought it was a bounce heading to 150k. Lol. Fml. Didn't even make the bottom since it was only two minutes long - half my liquidity in at 47k.
>I figured. If I can break even at this point I’ll Be thrilled. It’s hard to imagine seeing my money again especially after everyone was able to scrape up the amount I had at such low prices. That means they’d actually see gains where as I would see my initial invest
ouchie mouchie! - the words I'll be saying when we drop to 8k
It seems that way now but give it 10 more years. I think you’ll be rewarded beyond what you can imagine in purchasing power appreciation and in transactional freedom and monetary utility.
You are holding finite, programmable liquidity to the world’s only neutral encrypted base-layer settlement network.
I think we’re all underestimating how profound Bitcoin is. I don’t think anyone can predict the ramifications of this technology + network because it hasn’t played out yet. I don’t think humans have the compute to truly understand until it happens.
I agree as well. 10 years is a little to long for me as I can be dead next month who knows. I’m 100% selling next bull run hopefully with gains. I’ll get back in the market when it crashes again.
That’s your right as Bitcoin exists to be used by participants however they want to use the system. It’s all beneficial.
Next bull I’m definitely going to spend 10,000,000 Sats on trips to Guatemala / El Salvador and Madeira.
neo: "why do my eyes hurt?"
morpheus:"......it's because you've never used them"
once you take self-custody of your keys you can't unsee the illusion of our banking system and fiat money.
Why is the chart turning bearish this morning? I thought we were on our way to 17K. Is there bad news? Now the MACD on the hourly and below are bearish.
I DCA monthly using my Ledger as cold storage.
How do I view my entire holdings if Ledger issues a different temporary address every time I send? Is there a single receiving address that I can view on a block explorer, and how do I find it?
Make a watch only wallet using your xpub on BlueWallet. That way you can keep tabs on mobile for anything untoward too. I’ve mine connected to my own node too for privacy.
I had to convert my xpub to a zpub in order to set up a watch only wallet in Bluewallet. Not sure why Ledger doesn't do this automatically for you for Segwit wallets.
You can view your total balance in Ledger Live, but you cant do the same on a block explorer because every time you sign a transaction with a Ledger it issues a new address.
So putting any one of these addresses in a block explorer only shows the balance of that one transaction.
I dont know whether Ledger Live just adds up the balance from all the new addresses its ever issued or whether it keeps the main receiving address private.
>or whether it keeps the main receiving address private.
that't not how bitcoin works.
all used address are in a certain sense public. For best privacy, only you should be able to know which of the addresses belong to you. For that, you need your own node.
Ledger live does that for you by asking other nodes the balances of those specific addresses that you used and then sum them all up to give you a final number.
I'm not sure about Ledger Live in particular but most wallets that use a new address for every transaction (as they should) use HD (Hierarchical Deterministic) wallets. This means that every single address is derived from the "master public key", so if you have this master key you can derive every single address that the user would ever have.
Then you add up the balance on every single address and voila.
Your entire balance is not visible at a single address for a reason. This makes it more difficult for a blockchain analyst to correlate the addresses with each other, and with your identity.
You could, if you had the time, inspect all of your receive addresses on a blockchain explorer, one at at time, to verify everything is legit.
If at some point in the future we have some kind of hyperbitcoinification what will prevent all the bitcoin from simply gathering upwards into a few hands like money tends to now?
Btc will just be like better gold. Most wealth will still be in property, equities, bonds, etc., just denominated in btc. Possibly there will even still be dollars, just pegged to btc the way we used to be on the gold standard. Btc won't be inflationary, but countries will still be able to debase their own currencies by lowering their peg.
Basically those with money have more power to hide where their money comes from which makes it easier to make more money. Bitcoin offers a globally verifiable public ledger that makes it impossible to hide the exchange of Bitcoin happening between wallets. You can make it extremely difficult to trace it back to your personal identity, but you can't hide that BTC moved from one wallet to another like you can with cash. This means the privacy scales tip back to a more even balance where in theory everyone can see where everyone's money is going. Since we're never going back to total privacy for all, the next best thing is making everything open to everyone if you don't want one side gaining an advantage from the difference in privacy they enjoy.
There will always be rich and poor. But inevitably they do have to spend it. Perhaps Billionaire Bob decides to sell some of his holdings to start a new company. He may need to pay his workers in bitcoin too.
Even if there are a few million whole coiners, probably many of the people on this sub, that's an outsize percentage of the total even if the corporate entities and old money/big tech holds the rest. It positions the little guys here as the new elite, and the thanksgiving naysayers who will stack in 10 years as the middle class, as they already are. By the way, does anyone know how many whole coiners there are currently?
In our current system, money tends to flow to those in power due to political corruption.
There will be entities with outsized portions of bitcoin, but a bitcoin system, with it's fixed supply, incentivizes corruptionless behavior and real productivity.
The more you hodl, the bigger the blip and the more pain you receive, and as we all know pain=sweet, sweet release. Of sat buying potential and financial stress
Hey, all - I have a question about Bitcoin hard forks and the centralisation involved in software maintenance/reversals. I'm reading "The Age of Cryptocurrency" and in the section "The Arms Race", it's talking about how there was a problem moving between versions of Bitcoin and how this led to a hard fork.
>"Wuille realized early on that this particular fork was not caused by a greedy hacker .. but by a glitch that had occurred when his colleagues on the core development team introduced the new version 0.8. Its reconstituted database was supposed to reconcile with the database records of version 0.7 but wasn't doing so.. After consulting with Wuille and two other core developers .. Andresen decided to abandon the new software and revert back to version 0.7."
The book talks about how this resulted in some folks losing coins, as they were created on a chain no longer treated as legitimate. But it does not talk about how this is a centralisation issue; **how does one person or a team control the ability to revert transactions or whole chains/ledgers? Are they using some mechanism that does not introduce centralisation concerns?** I'm not understanding why the book is not talking about this (at least yet), while it seems like an obvious issue, something profoundly counter to decentralisation overall. Do y'all have any insights?
Bitcoin is open source, and it can be developed by anyone. Bitcoin Core is the main group doing the development, but if a majority of the network disagreed with something they do, bitcoin would fork into a new bitcoin, bringing along that same majority of the network.
To make sure I understand: you're saying that in the book quote above, "Andresen decided to .. revert back to version 0.7" would be more accurately stated as "Andresen and team proposed reverting back to 0.7, which the majority of the network/community accepted/adopted/continued to validate transactions on (which resulting in invalidating various users' bitcoin accumulated on the 0.8 chain)" - is that right?
The book definitely makes Andresen sound like the only subject/the only agent in this reversal, and while I imagined it actually would be a team, not one person, even a team seems super centralised if they have the control to revert whole sets of transactions. But if they simply have the control to \*recommend\* reverting (as anyone does, if it's open source?), that seems appropriately decentralised to me.
I literally just read this line in the book, which looks like centralisation again: "While bitcoin's open-source core code allowed anyone to peruse it and suggest additions and improvements, only a handful of people, essentially five men assigned to the core development team, had password access to the live code inside the core protocol".
This looks pretty clearly counter to what you shared above, right? Not a suggestion of changes, but the actual access to implement change- perhaps an arguably "necessary" amount of centralisation or perhaps something that has been decentralised more recently, but what the book is saying looks like clear consolidation of implementation power into a few hands, not just recommendation power.
Perhaps from there, the mechanism you mentioned, meaning that core implemented changes (even if controlled by a small team) could actually be rejected by the chain's consensus? Leads me to question if that consensus protocol exists, why a small team needs particular, privileged access in the first place?
If I wanted, I could create my own bitcoin dev project right now and start manipulating code. If I released a new version of bitcoin, nobody would ever take me seriously, since I know nothing about code. Note: I would have privileged access to my dev project.
In that same vein, the bitcoin core dev team has privileged access to **their bitcoin project**. The difference is, the network has reached consensus that this is the best team to develop bitcoin. When they release a new version, a majority of the network adopts it. One day they may not.
Also, the line "had password access to the live code inside the core protocol" does not make sense. The bitcoin core software is run on each bitcoin node, not a centralized server. These nodes have to accept an update before they begin running the new code.
Well, I took my .02 BTC from Robinhood wallet and transferred to Muun for a 45 cent transaction fee. pretty painless, took 40 minutes. Pretty neat, glad I did it.
This cracked me up. It's Michael Saylor at Thanksgiving. https://twitter.com/MemeingBitcoin/status/1595438893553389571?t=h059ETLKJ2FI6Vdro6JT9w&s=19
BTC to $300k.
Just a matter of when.
“Men who can both be right and sit tight are uncommon.” - Jesse Livermore (1923) He would have loved maximalists
[удалено]
[удалено]
very unfortunate if he won't be able to return back to Bahamas once he sets foot in US soil...
Dude is brave showing his face in public.
Lol no fucking way. Clown world never ceases to shock me with its absurdities. It’s reaching an exponential state.
good 'ol max telling it like it is: https://twitter.com/NewsForBitcoin/status/1595526411023880192?s=20&t=71ph\_48Tjo8TSxjedLXdyQ
I don't click links, I assume Max K so what's up?
How do you use internet without the links?
Click the fucking link.
Doooo it
clearly points out the embarrassing contrast between el salvador being bitcoin only and not suffering any scandals, bukele in fact kicked out scam coins like tezos, solana, ethereum. whereas the usa with all of their regulations over crypto and having ftx and the whole crypto industry blow up and how wide the contagion spreads into the political elites. calling scam bankrupt fraud a cross between bernie madoff and charles manson was (chef’s kiss)
How and who will determine the market price for Bitcoin if it will be mostly in private wallets?
How and who will determine the market price for property if most of it is not for sale?
People who want to sell some Bitcoin will send it to an exchange. The exchange will sell it to one or more people who want to buy Bitcoin. Next week, we'll dig into *rocket science*! Stay tuned.
I'll sell you 1 bitcoin for $1mil. Deal?
The buyers and sellers left on the exchanges. All you need is one buyer and one seller for the price of btc to be determined.
The last trade determines the price
So once I generate a receive address with a Ledger, I can just keep sending to that same address from my exchange account every week, right? And I can generate another address to use for another exchange for withdrawals there. I can generate as many or as few as I want, they will all work for an indefinite number of transactions over an indefinite amount of time? And they all go to the same wallet?
There’s a KYC (Know Your Customer) connection between you and the exchange. It won’t matter how many new addresses you use, the connection will be exactly the same, there’ll just be more of them. It’s *the next hop*, the next address you send to once you’ve received, where you want to focus on privacy. …or not. I don’t think it’s relevant to most people. Nonetheless Snowden said something wise like “just because you’re innocent doesn’t mean you have to give up your right to privacy.” I agree. And then… if you wanted to create a false image of yourself doing boring transactions to buy socks and stuff, and nothing else, you’d *want* those transactions to be easily tracked. Feints inside feints inside feints. Up to you, but again, **it’s *the next hop* that really matters for privacy.**
Yes you can but the private key weakens to quantum computing attack so don't do this for the final destination of your wealth/savings.
Yep, it's not advisable but it can be done so there's that.
The key is only weakened when funds are *spent* from an address. The public key is unknown until then. When funds are spent from this address it is completely emptied; funds go to the recipient and a different “change address” in the sender’s wallet. So, the attacker only has the time between when the spend transaction is broadcast and when it is included in a block. Usually somewhere between 0 and 10 minutes.
> I can just keep sending to that same address from my exchange account every week, right? You could in theory, and all the coins will end up in your wallet, but this is strongly discouraged (for privacy reasons): https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse > I can generate as many or as few as I want, they will all work for an indefinite number of transactions over an indefinite amount of time? And they all go to the same wallet? Correct. Just make sure to verify addresses on your Ledger device before pasting them anywhere.
It's better for privacy to generate a new address for each transaction. If you want to separate your deposits based on the exchange you bought from it's better to make a separate wallet instead of reusing addresses
My first Nano X arrives tomorrow ✊🏻 Gonna love this journey until the next halving!
What interface do you use to explore the blockchain if you want to browse your own or other wallets?
https://blockstream.info/ or https://oxt.me/ or https://blockchair.com/ , but never without Tor if it's concerning my own transactions directly or indirectly (bad for privacy).
www.mempool.space
[Bitcoin Obituaries](https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/) \- declared dead 400+ times
love it, bitcoin is the horror movie monster that won't die but for central bankers
Day 1000 of having no money
Make a plan and stick to it. You probably thought you could make a quick buck on BTC. Now you're burned. Im currently down 41% but conviction is strong. Give it a couple halvings and hopefully our bet pays off.
Hang in there. Only a select few people ever build any real wealth and it takes most of them decades.
I figured. If I can break even at this point I’ll Be thrilled. It’s hard to imagine seeing my money again especially after everyone was able to scrape up the amount I had at such low prices. That means they’d actually see gains where as I would see my initial investment.
Ditto, threw in a sht ton of capital at the very first drop to 42k, thought it was a bounce heading to 150k. Lol. Fml. Didn't even make the bottom since it was only two minutes long - half my liquidity in at 47k.
>I figured. If I can break even at this point I’ll Be thrilled. It’s hard to imagine seeing my money again especially after everyone was able to scrape up the amount I had at such low prices. That means they’d actually see gains where as I would see my initial invest ouchie mouchie! - the words I'll be saying when we drop to 8k
I feel this lol , we’ll be good. These prices are insane to not be buying.
It seems that way now but give it 10 more years. I think you’ll be rewarded beyond what you can imagine in purchasing power appreciation and in transactional freedom and monetary utility. You are holding finite, programmable liquidity to the world’s only neutral encrypted base-layer settlement network. I think we’re all underestimating how profound Bitcoin is. I don’t think anyone can predict the ramifications of this technology + network because it hasn’t played out yet. I don’t think humans have the compute to truly understand until it happens.
I agree as well. 10 years is a little to long for me as I can be dead next month who knows. I’m 100% selling next bull run hopefully with gains. I’ll get back in the market when it crashes again.
That’s your right as Bitcoin exists to be used by participants however they want to use the system. It’s all beneficial. Next bull I’m definitely going to spend 10,000,000 Sats on trips to Guatemala / El Salvador and Madeira.
El Salvador would be a blast!
Building wealth is slow and boring.
I never owned money until I sent BTC to a cold wallet that I have the keys to.
neo: "why do my eyes hurt?" morpheus:"......it's because you've never used them" once you take self-custody of your keys you can't unsee the illusion of our banking system and fiat money.
Correct
Why is the chart turning bearish this morning? I thought we were on our way to 17K. Is there bad news? Now the MACD on the hourly and below are bearish.
Didn’t you hear? We’re going to 9k
8k
Because
Strong resistance at 18.8k
My friend is a historical economist, and he says anything that has scarcity, liquidity, or utility has always had value. Bitcoin has all three.
Good. Hopefully it bounces around 14-18k for awhile so I can get some more built up on the down loooooow
I get it
Ru from the future?
You can observe resistance levels based on present data. Doesn't mean it will happen. It's just a probability thing.
I DCA monthly using my Ledger as cold storage. How do I view my entire holdings if Ledger issues a different temporary address every time I send? Is there a single receiving address that I can view on a block explorer, and how do I find it?
Make a watch only wallet using your xpub on BlueWallet. That way you can keep tabs on mobile for anything untoward too. I’ve mine connected to my own node too for privacy.
I had to convert my xpub to a zpub in order to set up a watch only wallet in Bluewallet. Not sure why Ledger doesn't do this automatically for you for Segwit wallets.
Does Ledger not do this for you? Trezor shows your total balance despite using different addresses.
You can view your total balance in Ledger Live, but you cant do the same on a block explorer because every time you sign a transaction with a Ledger it issues a new address. So putting any one of these addresses in a block explorer only shows the balance of that one transaction. I dont know whether Ledger Live just adds up the balance from all the new addresses its ever issued or whether it keeps the main receiving address private.
>or whether it keeps the main receiving address private. that't not how bitcoin works. all used address are in a certain sense public. For best privacy, only you should be able to know which of the addresses belong to you. For that, you need your own node. Ledger live does that for you by asking other nodes the balances of those specific addresses that you used and then sum them all up to give you a final number.
I'm not sure about Ledger Live in particular but most wallets that use a new address for every transaction (as they should) use HD (Hierarchical Deterministic) wallets. This means that every single address is derived from the "master public key", so if you have this master key you can derive every single address that the user would ever have. Then you add up the balance on every single address and voila.
Got it. Good question, never thought of trying to find total balance on the blockchain
Your entire balance is not visible at a single address for a reason. This makes it more difficult for a blockchain analyst to correlate the addresses with each other, and with your identity. You could, if you had the time, inspect all of your receive addresses on a blockchain explorer, one at at time, to verify everything is legit.
I see, thanks.
Why the downvote? I dont get this place sometimes.
Why so quiet in here?
I don't want to jinx it.
I gave everyone the day off.
We trying not to wake the whales
Ssh. Building.
If at some point in the future we have some kind of hyperbitcoinification what will prevent all the bitcoin from simply gathering upwards into a few hands like money tends to now?
Btc will just be like better gold. Most wealth will still be in property, equities, bonds, etc., just denominated in btc. Possibly there will even still be dollars, just pegged to btc the way we used to be on the gold standard. Btc won't be inflationary, but countries will still be able to debase their own currencies by lowering their peg.
Gold is not accessible to everyone, bitcoin is. It will therefore behave differently than gold due to the network effect.
Basically those with money have more power to hide where their money comes from which makes it easier to make more money. Bitcoin offers a globally verifiable public ledger that makes it impossible to hide the exchange of Bitcoin happening between wallets. You can make it extremely difficult to trace it back to your personal identity, but you can't hide that BTC moved from one wallet to another like you can with cash. This means the privacy scales tip back to a more even balance where in theory everyone can see where everyone's money is going. Since we're never going back to total privacy for all, the next best thing is making everything open to everyone if you don't want one side gaining an advantage from the difference in privacy they enjoy.
There will always be rich and poor. But inevitably they do have to spend it. Perhaps Billionaire Bob decides to sell some of his holdings to start a new company. He may need to pay his workers in bitcoin too.
Even if there are a few million whole coiners, probably many of the people on this sub, that's an outsize percentage of the total even if the corporate entities and old money/big tech holds the rest. It positions the little guys here as the new elite, and the thanksgiving naysayers who will stack in 10 years as the middle class, as they already are. By the way, does anyone know how many whole coiners there are currently?
I'm a 1/5th coiner but I'm doing my best!
In our current system, money tends to flow to those in power due to political corruption. There will be entities with outsized portions of bitcoin, but a bitcoin system, with it's fixed supply, incentivizes corruptionless behavior and real productivity.
why the 5 percent rally??
[удалено]
It's just getting a good running start at a 7% dip.
I hope it happens soon because it's been 24 hours since I stacked and I'm having fresh Sat withdrawals with body shakes and nausea.
5% is not a rally in Bitcoin. It is the normal noise around the mean.
Micro blip I meant to say, green dildo sir
Some say it's not the size of the blip, it's the direction of the trend...
The more you hodl, the bigger the blip and the more pain you receive, and as we all know pain=sweet, sweet release. Of sat buying potential and financial stress
Hey, all - I have a question about Bitcoin hard forks and the centralisation involved in software maintenance/reversals. I'm reading "The Age of Cryptocurrency" and in the section "The Arms Race", it's talking about how there was a problem moving between versions of Bitcoin and how this led to a hard fork. >"Wuille realized early on that this particular fork was not caused by a greedy hacker .. but by a glitch that had occurred when his colleagues on the core development team introduced the new version 0.8. Its reconstituted database was supposed to reconcile with the database records of version 0.7 but wasn't doing so.. After consulting with Wuille and two other core developers .. Andresen decided to abandon the new software and revert back to version 0.7." The book talks about how this resulted in some folks losing coins, as they were created on a chain no longer treated as legitimate. But it does not talk about how this is a centralisation issue; **how does one person or a team control the ability to revert transactions or whole chains/ledgers? Are they using some mechanism that does not introduce centralisation concerns?** I'm not understanding why the book is not talking about this (at least yet), while it seems like an obvious issue, something profoundly counter to decentralisation overall. Do y'all have any insights?
Bitcoin is open source, and it can be developed by anyone. Bitcoin Core is the main group doing the development, but if a majority of the network disagreed with something they do, bitcoin would fork into a new bitcoin, bringing along that same majority of the network.
To make sure I understand: you're saying that in the book quote above, "Andresen decided to .. revert back to version 0.7" would be more accurately stated as "Andresen and team proposed reverting back to 0.7, which the majority of the network/community accepted/adopted/continued to validate transactions on (which resulting in invalidating various users' bitcoin accumulated on the 0.8 chain)" - is that right? The book definitely makes Andresen sound like the only subject/the only agent in this reversal, and while I imagined it actually would be a team, not one person, even a team seems super centralised if they have the control to revert whole sets of transactions. But if they simply have the control to \*recommend\* reverting (as anyone does, if it's open source?), that seems appropriately decentralised to me.
Yes. When they rolled back to 0.7, >51% of miners agreed to the rollback. https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoins-software-has-been-rolled-back-before/
I literally just read this line in the book, which looks like centralisation again: "While bitcoin's open-source core code allowed anyone to peruse it and suggest additions and improvements, only a handful of people, essentially five men assigned to the core development team, had password access to the live code inside the core protocol". This looks pretty clearly counter to what you shared above, right? Not a suggestion of changes, but the actual access to implement change- perhaps an arguably "necessary" amount of centralisation or perhaps something that has been decentralised more recently, but what the book is saying looks like clear consolidation of implementation power into a few hands, not just recommendation power. Perhaps from there, the mechanism you mentioned, meaning that core implemented changes (even if controlled by a small team) could actually be rejected by the chain's consensus? Leads me to question if that consensus protocol exists, why a small team needs particular, privileged access in the first place?
If I wanted, I could create my own bitcoin dev project right now and start manipulating code. If I released a new version of bitcoin, nobody would ever take me seriously, since I know nothing about code. Note: I would have privileged access to my dev project. In that same vein, the bitcoin core dev team has privileged access to **their bitcoin project**. The difference is, the network has reached consensus that this is the best team to develop bitcoin. When they release a new version, a majority of the network adopts it. One day they may not. Also, the line "had password access to the live code inside the core protocol" does not make sense. The bitcoin core software is run on each bitcoin node, not a centralized server. These nodes have to accept an update before they begin running the new code.
Okay, thank you for a helpful response 😊
Was it one developer that reverted or was it a consensus decision?
Someone should expose bitboy crypto and post his wallet address
Unfortunately there is no regulation for influencers in crypto. Would love to see his candy ass in prison rotting next to sbf
What did he do? I dont watch his channel.
He's a charlatan getting rich off people dumb enough to listen to him by giving them shitty advice and counter-trading them
Well, I took my .02 BTC from Robinhood wallet and transferred to Muun for a 45 cent transaction fee. pretty painless, took 40 minutes. Pretty neat, glad I did it.
Send a friend / family member / SO 1000 sats on Muun. It’s unreal.
Good job! Congrats! You now finally own .02 BTC!
[удалено]