One of my friends said he understands that If you give away your private keys to someone, they can basically be used to drain your wallet of all its holdings. Which makes private keys so much so private and should always be stored securely and never shared. But something is not so clear about this keys as in the statement below:

"for Non-custodial wallets, it is required you to store your private keys, as it gives you sole responsibility over sensitive data."

First, are private keys for Non-custodial wallets to be looked out for and stored/saved just like the seed phrases? And

Secondly, what other times would a wallet owner need to personally use the private keys aside from its primary automated role of authorize transactions?

I've been studying more about bitcoin lately and the article I have now is about seed phrases and bitcoin addresses then I came across these two confusing terms.

i. Checksum
ii. Entropy

I've surfed the internet but handy explanations seem ambiguous, I would appreciate an Eli5 explanation.

"Just a bull trap"... Putting bitcoin in a possible "pump and dump" situation is quite unfair, a suitable guess for altcoins. Bitcoin is bigger and better.

I think institutional adoptions of bitcoin is quite a welcoming one unless in paths of proposals for regulation and attempts of market manipulation.

These adoptions would add recognition, as well as value via increase in liquidity in Bitcoin markets. However, response to Bitcoin ETFs proposals are idiosyncratic being largely interesting for bitcoin investors as it profer possible gains on investment while being quite disturbing for true bitcoiners.

Above is an excerpt from the first reply/link on this topic.

that and most of the replies here are impactive as well as frightening and as such having some aspects of red flag for me right now via my proposal.

I think I need to first get very advanced first in order to make this move. I would appreciate more leads through.

I've a single signature wallet but I heard recently that the  multi-signature wallet has more security and that interests me as my stored assets increases.

However, I want to know if I'd be needing to create a fresh wallet, getting new seed phases then move assets to the new wallet Or there's a way I could upgrade to multi-signature using the former wallet.

Heading right back to default is best.

But if you want to continue using other keyboards that you can trust maybe because of some added features I would suggest keyboards with digital keystroke encryption, such as Kika Keyboard, Fleksy Keyboards and SwiftKey. These are built to protect against hackers interrupting your keystrokes, to help keep your data safe as you write or copy.

The Bitcoin white paper shows Bitcoin to be widely a trustless form of cash use.

The understanding and workings of this means particular, instead of a whole to myself and assumably many others.
As being trustless is mainly visible in usage for us (learners) mainly in Bitcoin storage, and independence on spending. That is, trustless meaning and working to be that you don't have to trust a third party; a bank, a person, or an intermediary that operates between you and your transactions or holdings.

In light of the above, and for better understanding, how do i explain the use of Bitcoin's "trustless" feature to people to cover the part of the recipient in a business transactions, and as a medium of exchange from quite a distance?

I think an explanation to this hasn't been widespread enough thereby profiling Bitcoin more as a store of value than as a tender.

Having factual inputs are beautiful but at the same time your feelings should be in consideration too i.m.o. As it's through these personal feelings and opinions is self-reliance.

It's a pity. But the fact is that someone somewhere is happy and had made life changing profits from same. It's not a bad try for you but you could've traded within your range. Most victims of this are people who don't trade themselves but use strategies provided to them by their strategist whom they trust so much and of course having little knowledge on what it's all about!

In as much as Bitcoin is a store of value, it ain't limited to that!

Statements and assumptions as quoted are seen by many as the only and real shores of Bitcoin. But no, C'mon OP Bitcoin has all other attributes of the traditional fiat (aside from being centralized) to elevate in years to come.

I think the quotation about is right because even investments with fiat are equally liable to "risk" as that of the crypto counterpart. If an investor invests in real estate having used the Fiat currency for such investment, he has a projected gain to make in years to come but this projection is no more than an assumption because there are external and internal factors which can affect his investment; reducing or increasing the projected gains. The analogy therefore is same with cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) investment. Andrew Bailey has been skeptical about Bitcoin.


I don't agree with you on this one, as there are some cryptocurrency projects that can be classified as Ponzi. Therefore I don't see that assumption laughable. It could've been a lot better if you were more precised and particular with mention of "Bitcoin".

Great game!
I wish I was here in January; never too late though!
I can't believe I failed the question about the current state of Satoshi's account lol

In simple terms, Blockchain is like a book where a business man records all his transactions. The blockchain is the database containing a record of all Bitcoin transactions from the very first. Just like a business man would record each successful transaction to a ledger for accountability, is how Bitcoin transactions are recorded on the Blockchain. Such records help a business owner to know which stock is sold, when, and of what amount. So does the Blockchain technology keep the details of Bitcoin transactions in other to avert users from double-spending their funds since each transactions are well detailed on the Blockchain.

I don't consider any action that is against the tenets of a concept (Bitcoin) an expression of "freedom" in any way. Most of the activities you listed above are not in line with what/how Bitcoin is or should be. Of which would portray the whole idea faulty when loss of funds comes from any of such activities, and as such I suggest right be right and wrong, wrong.

In as much as the public key is formed from the private key. The
algebraic expressions used to form this cannot be reserved to make for the former. This is because the process goes through a hash before it creates public address. It is therefore not visible for any mathematical "trick" to perform such hack.

Funds are not only withdrawn, thankfully we might be going hand-in-hand with the exact ideology of the Bitcoin system being largely P2P. It is quite surprising that the CEXs since inception in 2010 has pulled a great wave in cryptocurrency such that it assumably appear to many as the only panacea to get cryptocurrencies. That makes me wonder how early bitcoiners embraced it to this prominence. The CEXs has over the years acted Like the traditional banks which only required to keep just 10% of customer's deposit, having 90% of it for use, which faults the ideology of Bitcoin, bringing limitations to the proposed breakout of alleged norms. The POR initiative, imo is still not enough to prove their conduct otherwise.

I think all efforts now should be geared towards broadcasting the need for personal wallets, improving the methods of P2P and providing more prominence to it, of which this forum has tried so much to do and could do more.

Trust when lost is generally difficult to get back, even between nations, marriages and mere friendship. The POR initiative is commendable for sure but it's actually not enough to savage the situation. Binance had a clear chance to remedy the whole outburst initially by going on to acquire FTX but backing out of the deal and letting them down suggests they actually cared more about their prominence in the domain than whatever.

Since the dollar-cost averaging strategy's main domain is an automated purchase. Does it mean that I'm required to leave some funds active to enable the automated action take place. Or I can also carry on the strategy manually; having a particular date I come for purchase irrespective of the price?

I believe It's time for a necessary transition from altcoin to Bitcoin. I've been trading and investing mostly on altcoins (Sol, Dot, Dodge, Shiba, etc) with little of BTC. But of the recent happenings on cryptocurrency which exposes the weaknesses of these lower currencies. I seek the best strategy to accumulate Bitcoin in my wallet as a long term investment, is it best to,
*Buy all  at once, as BTC is arguably at its lowest rate.
*Buy at intervals because of any possible variable.


However, in my last post I expressed my disappointment with centralized exchanges, my unwillingness to continue using them and thankfully I got suggestions mainly endorsing Bisq, of which I've taken time to look into Bisq and other decentralized exchanges and observable is the absence of a support team unlike their centralized counterpart. That be the case, what are:
1. The recurring mistakes that could lead to loss of funds?
2. How can these mistakes be avoided. Since it seems like the only remedy.