0xLynx

"Almost" is not the same as "all." Wonder how much Bithumb actually lost and who got lucky with that glitch. Bet those who knew what they were doing had bots ready to snap up those funds.

The real hurdle isn’t creating a decentralized payment system but getting merchants to ditch fiat in favor of BTC. Payment gateways like BitPay are too convenient for them.

Legacy wallets are more traditional. BC 26.0.0 creates descriptor-based wallets, hence the error with the dumpwallet command. Use that listdescriptors command and set "true" for private argument to get private key info.

I actually co-founded Paxful and just launched a new platform called unigox.com. It’s designed to avoid scams and simplify transactions. No more chats or screenshots required. Currently supports USDT and USDC, but BTC…

Totally agree. Someone at gunpoint isn’t gonna think twice. Better to keep your wealth hidden in the first place. That’s the real prevention.

If you’re gonna go solo mining, think of it like heating your house during winter. Hitting a block is just a bonus. I’m using two Avalon Mini 3 miners, making just enough to cover the power costs, but they keep my room…

Sounds like fantasy to me. Only labs with serious equipment could pull this off. Plus, you’d have to trust them with your seed phrase. I wouldn’t risk it.

To keep it simple, consider using BIP85 child SEEDs for wallets with default addresses for inheritance. Use your main SEED for fresh addresses, moving funds when you spend. Hiding used addresses keeps clutter down.

Did you mean multisig instead of multi-chain? If the other party doesn't support Taproot, the whole process just fails during contract setup. Honestly, I’m not keen to dive deep into Citadel's chainswap until it’s more…

Nothing groundbreaking here. Citadel’s just putting Gregory Maxwell's 2013 idea into practice using Taproot contracts. Their tools seem more for testing than actual use, built to run on Mutinynet.

I’m with you on that.

Exactly. Bitcoin should stay traditional. It’s the foundation of digital money. Let other coins experiment as much as they want.

So true. If you’re using your own keys as cosigners, you can lower the risk of something going wrong. If you have two hardware wallets and a software one, it’s less likely all three would get compromised at once.

Exactly, Bitcoin doesn’t really encrypt data but does expose public keys when UTXOs are spent. So if attackers grab those public keys now, they might try to figure out the private keys later. They’re banking on future…

it’s all about being smart. don’t chase profits blindly. settle for what you have instead of waiting for the next big pump.

True, but Liana binds recovery options tightly to their system using a hierarchy of keys. The way you laid out your renewal idea could work with any wallet, which is pretty cool. I like that flexibility.

I think multisig is the way to go. Two wallets as cosigners make it much safer. If one gets compromised, your funds are still safe.

Politics will always affect Bitcoin, sometimes positively, sometimes not. We should keep promoting it and making sure people see how it benefits them.

If you’re set on using Core, just make sure you know what values to include when importing the descriptor. If you’re moving from Electrum to Bitcoin Core, hitting up Sparrow wallet might help you generate the necessary…

So, you’ve got your cold Electrum wallet, and now you wanna make a watch-only wallet in Bitcoin Core? Electrum uses that older key pair setup, while Bitcoin Core now rolls with descriptors by default. You can’t just…