qertoip

Because "token", because "blockchain technology", because "democratize", because "environment".

Yes, absolutely. With Bitcoin people protect their hard earned savings from rampant inflation present in many countries. With Monero people regain their right to financial privacy online.

This offer is currently only available in Switzerland and requires a Swiss phone number.

It's a standard KYC-based e-mail service.

Bitcoin aspires to survive global crackdown, hence laser focus on decentralization, reliability, security, monetary soundness etc.

Ethereum aspires to have fun.

Why Proof of Work and not Proof of Stake?

https://hugonguyen.medium.com/work-is-timeless-stake-is-not-...

We are talking about relative anonymity against specific service provider and not necessarily absolute anonymity when the government descends upon you.

VPN or proxy users are not really anonymous anyway and would certainly welcome an option to pay $0.1 in cryptocurrency instead of fighting infuriating CAPTCHA-s all the time.

The only long term solution is to request anonymous users to commit a tiny amount of cryptocurrency.

If you don't want to deal with cryptocurrency then this could be simply a provable burn - purely an IT thing with no accounting team involved.

Tor/VPN/proxy users are legit users, for fucks sake.

This article has been debunked multiple times. It misses the point entirely.

Use VPN to change your local ISP to foreign ISP. The foreign ISP is better precisely because it is foreign. The direction doesn't matter.

Ideally pick across poorly cooperating jurisdictions.

Privacy is a big reason to not use custodians even for small amounts.

Thanks so much! That helped a lot.

Exactly the point.

It is only politically correct to recognize blockchain / DLT potential when you need to bash cryptocurrencies.

Meanwhile, the reverse is true: decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Monero have potential to change the World. While "enterprise blockchain technology" is just pure BS - the needlessly over-distributed and over-complicated database that is inherently centrally controlled.

You are right regarding international politics and state level sanctions. Of course Iran would still be officially sanctioned.

It's just that individuals within the countries wouldn't care much because Bitcoin or Monero transactions always go through and are never reversed.

I am fine with Polish + Kazakh! The 2-of-2 would be required to censor any transaction. Thank you for enhancing my proposal.

Exchanges are not cryptocurrency.

(1) Are you sure you want Iranian, Russian, Venezuelan, and other 192 governments all be able to censor your transactions?

Or maybe you only meant a single benevolent government to have this power? In that case I propose the Polish government to censor world transactions (simply because I am a Pole and a patriot). I trust you don't mind!

The opposite is true: inflation takes away the hard earned value that could otherwise be invested.

Good to see they at least recognized legitimate uses of cryptocurrencies.

Have a nice day, DOJ.

This Sir is senior.

Time to move towards practical pubkey based payment systems like Monero. You can never run out of cryptographic key pairs.

Of course. This was probably my dumbest question in 2020.

9.5% x 4 = 38%

How exactly annualization works?

Self-hosted genome sequencing when?

You are correct about "standard valid" vs "non-standard valid" distinction in Bitcoin.

You are incorrect about what constitutes a standard.

The "smart contracts" by their own are standard - the whole Lightning Network is based on smart contracts - as well as many other protocols running live for years.

It sounds more like your specific transactions were non-standard due to excessive size, usage of non-standard opcodes, or other technical quirks.

Correct. There is no meaningful basis for censorship in a Monero transaction.

The sender, amount, receiver and IP address are all essentially hidden or unavailable.

Miner can still decide to censor all transactions, random transactions, transactions over certain KB size, etc - but that is probably not very useful, except maybe to attack the network as a whole.

Nice layout Sir.

Both are asynchronous messengers.

Signal: + protects metadata + protects the content (e2e encryption) - is not anonymous - is not resilient against regulations

Matrix: - does not protect metadata + protects the content (e2e encryption) + is anonymous + is maybe, potentially resilient against regulations (federated, not centralized architecture)

How is it possible that a single person, however vocal, can affect the morale and peer review process so much? I would say, ignore and happily move on with the implementation.