I prefer yubikey which you can also use to protect TOTP authenticator

SN, tip this man!

Essentially this is an attack to consolidate purchasing power to institutional investors.

Since they limited the purchase amount to $100k+ then it will force individuals to consolidate their purchases to reach over $100k/transaction. This consolidation is a step to increase centralization to make regulation easier (effectively "divide and conquer")

The article references a similar case where this happened. It was related to an FBI operation called "Operation Pacifier" where the FBI took over a child pornography website for 1 week to honey-pot criminals.

Pretty fucked up

TLDR: article gives no answer. There is an active, anti-terrorism case going on and the defendant asked for evidence about how the IP & traffic was confirmed to be host and the FBI doesn't want to release it's methods to the courts/public

yeah this seems like a very low-quality youtube post... "Monero cant scale. Lightning can. Unhosted wallets FTW"

we really need @moneroshill back here

Yes, I am aware but forums seem a but more tolerable

I've pretty much gotten rid of all social media, but do miss some of the news that I would get from twitter. Is there anyone on nostr that is worth following and spews facts vs. opinions?

Bitcoin, am I doing it right?

Is there any risk of spamming the mempool by continuously updating the transaction fee?

Yes this is the crux of why SBF is in trouble; they used customer deposits (whether BTC, fiat or shit coins) to compensate for their failed PE investments (in order to keep it afloat) with the hope that their PE would make enough money in the future to pay back the customers when the customers withdrew funds.

In some way, this isn't too different from Fiat banking; the repeal of Glass-Steagall resulted in banks being able to invest customer deposits into risky assets. What resulted was a bubble in complex securities (mortgage-baxked securities & credit default swaps) which led to failure of some banks. The only difference is that the Gov and Central Bank effectively paid for the losses that the bank received - creating a precedent that risky investment of client funds are acceptable with limited repercussions.

Since 2008 this trend in risky investment has continued (in both Fiat and crypto worlds) as fund managers are looking for yield. A decade of artificially low interest rates have effectively forced funds to gamble to produce some returns.

EDIT: regarding people buying and selling Bitcoin on their exchange, this was possible because FTX had legitimate liquidity on their exchange to support normal deal flow. It was only when there was a run on the exchange that they became illiquid and then insolvent

I think this is the right step forward and enjoy seeing CEXs self regulate in order to gain favor with consumers.

However, other liabilities related to the operating business are not included here (e.g loans from traditional finance or PE/VC forms). This could be overcome if the CEX sets up it's organization to only give seniority and secured debtor positions to each depositor to ensure that, in the event of a bankruptcy, the depositors would get their money out first.

Liabilities are not assets.

He had thousands of liabilities because they promised customers to pay Bitcoin, but FTX never had the promised-bitcoin in their custody. As a result, when people asked for their promised-bitcoin, FTX could not meet the demand and they became insolvent. The Bitcoin was never purchased in the first place.

Isn't keepassXC suppose to help with syncing multiple devices?

I currently use nordpass and am considering switching but unsure which PWM I should use - torn between bitwarden and keepass

Then you can make the decision to switch to BTC only