Thanks for the response - is there an obvious place to see where this is possible to do? I am sending from blockchain.com wallet

you can but you have to be the highest payer in the fee lineup. So its not necessarily feasible for small value transactions. But for the highest value transactions the fees are negligible and obviously competitive in regard to cost, speed, and efficiency. And there is no ceiling in this regard.

if it was available, it would be obvious. so, it might not be.

i dont recommend blockchain.com wallet. if you have your seed words, use another wallet on your phone like BRD https://brd.com/. reload the wallet using the words and go from there. keep the word safe.

Of course it can, but will it? I am asking about how you see the path to that being a reality.

why not

This is a remarkably efficient collection of words... just for the exact opposite reason you think it is.

If there were a contest to see who could demonstrate the most ignorance about cryptography and also do the worst job of explaining why cryptocurrency exchanges have failed using the fewest characters possible, this would be impossible to beat.

Big fat yawn. What I wrote is correct. You just wrote a remarkably efficient collection of words to show that you have nothing at all concrete to say.

No its not correct. Try to get someone that understands what a node is to agree with you that the exchanges can get hacked via a string. Its you asserting and re-asserting you are correct and nobody that has an understand of the technical aspect of the system agreeing with you.

Million dollar transfers and settlement is already trivial. Its just a matter of maturity, shaking out those that want to cash out at certain levels and reintroducing bigger players that can hold until a level that suits higher level transactors. Just a natural process we have been watching.

Replacing the idea that bitcoin needs to be cheap and easy for individuals with the understanding that even if its expensive and cumbersome for individuals its a dream for high value settlement.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...eague-1748029/


If any of you bitcoin ballers are interested, our BTC fantasy football league with buyin of 0.1 btc has a spot available this year. Been a great league for multiple years, see details in link.

Ok, here’s something more concrete. SHA-256 encryption would take 10*3.92*10^56 minutes to brute force crack a private key if all of the computing power on the entire bitcoin network was trying at the same time. That’s longer than humans will exist and maybe longer than the universe will exist. So when you say the blockchain is insecure and that you merely need to “know a string of numbers” to steal all the bitcoin, it sounds like you don’t understand math.

No exchange has ever been hacked because the security of the blockchain has been jeopardized. That isn’t my opinion, it is just the truth.

So that is a more concrete reply. But my first reply was funnier and makes you look more clownish, so I prefer that one.

What the actual ****. Neither of you actually understood the point. Go back and reread it.

This is why you need to reply in concrete terms rather than invective - how can I correct your comical ignorance otherwise? The point:

None of this basic security flaw in bitcoin has anything to do with the encryption or the blockchain or nodes being hackable. If has to do with the fact that bitcoin is by design one-factor security: something you know. That is in fact the only security layer to irreversibly owning bitcoin. It's fundamental glaring security weakness for high value storage and transfers that other system don't have.

Also, you're both clown-level ignorant on how private keys can actually be hacked. In a nutshell: security is hard, very hard, even unknowably hard and there can be flaws in how keys are generated that make them obtainable. That doesn't matter unless it's one-factor security like bitcoin. That's not to say that theoretically they can't be secure, but the history of "secure" keys relying on flawed generation and hence being obtainable isn't a pretty one.

Again this is all in the context of why banks and governments would never want anything to do with bitcoin as a high value transfer and storage system. And it's the tip of the iceberg of that discussion, there are 10+ strong reasons why they never would.

Tooth meet multisig. Multisig meet Tooth.

Tooth meet whitelists. Whitelists meet Tooth.

Tooth meet 2FA. 2FA meet Tooth.

Tooth meet cold storage. Cold storage meet Tooth.

I wasn't referring to the ability of nodes to be hacked (which is gibberish btw) I was saying anyone with a basic understanding of bitcoin on a technical basis (ie what is the role and function of a node) understands what you are asserting is untrue. The history of exhange hacks is not a proper gauge as 1) there has been great strides in the security tech in this regard and 2) many of those "hacks" were the exchanges themselves stealing from their customers, not actual hacks

No there isn't. Ur just saying that to make it sound like you have an argument to make.

These are bandaids over a core security problem. None of this changes the fact that the only thing you need to irretrievably own billions is a string of digits. A string of digits that need to be moved in and out of digital memory at some point. It's fundamentally insecure with no recourse. I think you guys don't actually grasp how huge this is for security of high value assets (as a settlement layer between banks or governments for example). No other system is this insecure/flawed.

no they are solutions.

That is if billions in bitcoin were stored with a single private key (also with no other security) which is a silly assumption.

no it doesn't.

an assertion with nothing backing it

banks are already starting to hold bitcoin in custody and you are still arguing they won't.

"no u"
"no it doesn't"
"your assertions have nothing backing them"

Thanks for proving you have zero interest in an actual discussion. You're just an empty headed cheerleader for bitcoin. You will defend to the death against anyone who destroys your cherished notion that bitcoin will become a high value settlement layer between banks and governments, because you know there is zero bull case if that doesn't happen (which it won't for 10 different reasons I already outlined).
Name a single US bank that holds bitcoin in custody?

This was only sanctioned less than a month ago https://www.coindesk.com/banks-in-us...regulator-says

Coinbase and Gemini both bank with JP morgan which has its own cryptocoin/blockchain project.

Coinbase is now going to be offering bitcoin backed loans: https://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-to...o-us-customers

And you want to argue that banks aren't going to hold and use bitcoin?
This is all strange for a ponzi that governments are simply going to ban

These are valid responses to both opinion statements and incorrect statements by TS, each missing only the requisite LOL.

The attractiveness of redundancy in the security of a system is proportional to its vulnerability. A ledger secured by a distributed nodal system utilizing 32-bit single hash algorithm encryption is robust. Exactly how robust it would be was more debatable in 2009. But now, after over ten years of secure functioning, the mathematical and practical vulnerabilities of such a system are sufficiently small as to justify securing over $100 billion in value with it.

When you suggest that no other system is this insecure/flawed, I would point to the solar system as a counter example. It is secured only by gravity, without any redundant mechanisms for keeping our planets in orbit in case of a gravitational failure. Fortunately, gravity is a robust and reliable force. This is not an analogy, it is a similitude. Just as gravity is strong enough to reliably keep the planets of our solar system in orbit, the blockchain is secure enough to hold $100 billion of digital assets. With each passing day our confidence grows in both of these single point-of-failure systems.

We trust gravity more, of course, but the blockchain doesn’t need to secure the mass of a planet. It need only secure the mass of 21 million bitcoin. And for that it is sufficiently robust. If it weren’t, we would know by now.

Unfortunately for your platform, Craig Wright is not Satoshi and the blockchain is secure. That is what the scoreboard shows right now and your arguments to the contrary are flimsy and ill-informed.

Does TS think Craig Wright is Satoshi? This clears up a lot if he does believe that.

Exchanges are becoming banks, we don't even need traditional banks to hold bitcoin, but guess what, they see the $$$$, so they want in.

The whole world is tricked, right TS, the whole world is wrong, and you are right, btc is obv a ponzi!!!

At what point do you throw in the towel???

He doesnt. He just will get v quiet during teh next supercycle and once btc crashed back to 40k ish in 2022 hell be back in full force doubling down on his amusing statements

Yes he does.

TS is here for our amusement and does a superb job!

no cpfp txs is one example. its been around a while, so i think its ok. but its had a few bad bugs along the way, doesn't keep up with new tech quickly, and seems more of an training wheel kind of wallet. maybe its improved but maybe not. there are better more user friendly options imo.