Quote from: cAPSLOCK on November 08, 2022, 02:46:38 PM

Quote from: nutildah on November 08, 2022, 01:11:35 PM

[edited out]

About this... here's the thing.

Assuming the IRS-CI folks actually took custody of the BTC, How in THE HELL did Zhong justify storing ~50k BTC in a way so insecure that this could even happen? Maybe they only have the addresses, and the private keys are somehow secure (like maybe a simple BIP39 passphrase???).

I am all for keeping your setup simple so you don't lose the coins via complication. But there is either more to this story, or our dear "Loaded" was incredibly ill prepared.

PS. Wonder if our little dump has anything to do with this? Nah, right?

For sure we have to consider the various ways that our bitcoin could be vulnerable, and preparing for a raid could be one of those things in which too many coins are held in one location or that it is too easy to figure out how to get at the keys.

We do not know yet, but I am with you in terms of hoping that the "authorities" are exaggerating that they actually have gotten access to the keys. Just think how they got Ross's keys.. by supposedly getting him while his computer was on. .and the same with the Alpha bay guy when they crashed the gate and his computer was on..

There are a lot of ways in which some of us normies could screw up, and maybe having our stash separated into various locations can sometimes become too complicated, too? because there is ONLY the necessity to have one vulnerability.. and likely there might even be times in which we are UPdating our backup system in which we are vulnerable on a short-term basis, and they something happens during that vulnerable period?

For me, personally, there are times in which I have my various keys separate, but then when I am testing them out and going through them to make sure that everything is working, during those times, my stash could become vulnerable if something were to happen. Of course, there could be ways to do the updates in a more secure way, yet sometimes we might not even realize ways that we might be making ourselves overly vulnerable to something happening.

There are some other "dumb" things that I have done sometimes in which part of the vulnerability comes from being too lazy.. such as going to another location.. or leaving something out for several weeks before stashing it away properly.. and even getting confused by my own system, and thinking that maybe I should change this because it is too complicated.. even though it seems easy when I am setting it up and it is all fresh in my mind.

Quote from: philipma1957 on Today at 04:45:06 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 04:02:41 AM

[edited out]

Dude dont say only blockchain counts as real btc

Did you even attempt to read any kind of proper context, or are you merely wanting to spread misinformation?

You should have abilities to adequately understand what I am talking about. No?

Quote from: philipma1957 on Today at 04:45:06 AM

not your keys does mean not you coins

Are you changing the topic?

We are not talking about that you dweeb.

If we are attempting to figure out how many people are using bitcoin, then we count people who hold their own keys and we count people who have left their keys with third parties in a variety of ways.

What the fuck do you want to do? Do you want to count third parties as if they were just one person/entity?

Don't get caught up in nonsense, Phil... Try to treat this matter seriously rather than getting into some dumb arguments.

How many bitcoiners are there, and how do we count them?

Quote from: philipma1957 on Today at 04:45:06 AM

But if paypal says you have .5 btc it is legally real.

Is anyone saying that the third parties have the coins that they claim to have? We are not talking about that. You are getting distracted, it seems.

Let's say for example, Paypal has 100k worth of bitcoin, and they have 1 million account holders who have an average of 0.5BTC each. Yeah, they do not have enough BTC to cover all the claims,,, so how are you proposing to treat those 1 million account holders who believe that that they have an average of 0.5 BTC, but they really ONLY have an average of 0.1 BTC? How you going to count them? They are supposed to have 500k bitcoin to cover all of the claims, but they ONLY have 100k BTC. so they have 1/5th the quantity of BTC.

I am saying that they still count.. even though they do not have as many bitcoins as they think they have... and so the reality of the matter could be that the one who believes that he is holding 0.001 BTC really ONLY has the ability to claim 0.0001 BTC.. but who cares? That is a bit of a tangential issue, no? Yeah, we have to draw the line at some point, but I am not going to count all of them as zero or even count them as 1/5th of their total number of bitcoiners merely because it cannot be determined if they are going to get their BTC prior to the exchange rug pulling them.

Quote from: philipma1957 on Today at 04:45:06 AM

and likely they have 1000 btc in a wallet spread across a million people.

So one funded address would legally cover a million adopters.

so yeah 43 million address can easily cover 200 million people.

and they legally have rights to btc.

which a custodian holds.

Ok. We are coming to the same conclusion. There is still hope. Tongue

Quote from: philipma1957 on Today at 04:45:06 AM

Btw after today keep more of your coins in your own wallets.

That's a bit of a side issue, in regards to what we are trying to discuss.. Focus Philip.. Focus.