True but aren't miners mostly using water cooling? I didnt realize how much ambient temp could affect this!

fair point. Mr Supreme would have seen this coming and had probably been waiting for it.

the intention was to show how ridiculous it is to say it was smart/necessary, especially if the angle is that they shouldn't have nukes (i'm not saying this necessarily.)

before the attacks began a few weeks ago, there wasn't really any justified reason to believe they were trying to weaponize their enriched uranium given the strict oversight they've been allowing from the IAEA. also given the deterrent of other non-treaty countries and their allies that are within striking distance. maybe that's naive, but its the official narrative.

if you've seen any of their rhetoric since trump brokered 'peace,' I'd say now they are much, much more likely to pursue this.

if the goal was really to MIGA, then great work, Trump!

Iran have willingly entered into agreements over the last decades where they agreed not to enrich past what is needed for industrial use. I guess the argument is to MIGA by jettisoning the US from their deal so they can..... 'obliterate' their nuclear program?

art of the deal, right?

Certainly. The funny thing about war, and my reason for taking this poll, is how quickly it seems to cause intelligent people to unthinkingly throw their weight behind "bad guys" they once hated because there are other "badder guys."

It's never black and white, and usually, as I believe is the case here, the only real victims are the common people.

edit: so far this doesn't seem to be happening among stackers, at least not according to the poll

Interesting! I'm not a historian of the m.e. but they're not the first country that comes to mind when talking about bad actors "in the region"

I don't think any state can take a moral high ground.

You're talking about Iran?

I suspect it will be mostly ignored--i hope they surprise me!

Can't find link to source article

why not? bitcoin is arguably as strategic for a country as nukes and the energy infrastructure would be directly related

of course, if bitcoin were their m.o., it would be to everyone's advantage to downplay this and serve the same lie that's clearly been working for them

So what you're saying is that it should get some traction, right

Hash rate:

This makes sense. 8% seems like a lot in comparison when you put it that way.

Then you're just spending sats or p2p trading for fiat if needed.

Still I don't like the coerced identification that central exchange require.

Hm. Food for thought. Chances of these scenarios seems less likely than an central exchange getting hacked, but definitelt not negligible.

Last I checked coinjoins had fees too.

So effectively,

Looks like it could be close to 4% or 5% with more leg work when its all said and done.

I guess with some inbound liquidity you can send directly from the exchange to your node and swap to cold storage with reasonable privacy. That's probably ideal, again, only if you're okay with exchanges having your coordinates

Are you in the market?

I've seen these fees on robosats but then you're getting bigger chunks, and not particularly mitigating volatility.

So I guess there's the trade off.

So would you be ok with kycing to buy on a central exchange to do this?

Just asking because my concern is the threat of my data leaking and then getting wrenched, not so much whether a particular utxo can be traced to me, but that my id be connected to a data honeypot.

Boltz charge around 4-5% to get it back on chain, no?