Goosebumps and thrill in this thread  

OP, don't mind this too much, maybe I am just a dirty minded person who likes to over think, I don't know why my mind thinks that you may not be the owner of that wallet?

Maybe you need the owner has some bitcoin and the only that belongs to the owner was this phone? Hope that's not the case? Because first thing after creating a bitcoin wallet comes the recovery seed, you can't even go the next page without verifying those words first.

So anyone, either newbie or not, who opens. A new bitcoin wallet will have to understand the importance of recovery seed at the moment, I don't know about others but something keeps telling me that this doesn't belong to you.

Hello, ******

Your bounty for mining with the BTCMine service has exceeded threshold of 1.00 BTC.

1.01000000 BTC has been sent to your address 1CASsBYhRAFrJkQXzw8E2di7vP6FhQyEpC  at 07/04/2011 18:00:05 UTC

Payment transaction id: eee5962bf0580bd8eac6b9edaf1fc35e7db531401bd8fc2cf629c45a045c042c

If you have problems with payout please contact our support at support@btcmine.com
or use contact form on the site http://btcmine.com/contactform/

All the best,
BTCMine Robot

Which type of Samsung phone is this exactly?

Because I know when it comes to iPhones, somewhere around the iPhone 4S-5 era it was impossible to recover anything because of the way the data was stored on the device. It was basically encrypted and if you wiped it the key was destroyed and backup was not possible. It’s been years since I looked into this but this I am sure of. It’s because I wanted to sell an old iPhone and wanted to make sure my data was completely safe from the new user.

Find this out first before you spend money on a data recovery service.

The i7 has always been a multi-core processor.

You didn't understand what I wrote? I talked about magnetic tape and paper records, not Bitcoin. And the topic is central bank mining... I'm saying if we want efficient tech adopters, banks won't be that.


People need to stop looking at this blindly, ignoring cost-benefit. That is insane, I agree, to accept banks are doing what they're doing and we can't get better.

You have clearly demonstrated to the contrary.  Your posts essentially amount to a grab bag of common newbie misconceptions.

My kindliest suggestion to you:  Go to Beginners & Help, and start learning.  If you make an effort to ask smart questions and you are lucky, then someone with expertise may have the patience to explain to you the basic concept of Byzantine fault tolerance, the respective rôles of miners and non-mining validating nodes, and other key points that you have shown you do not understand.  If you are very lucky, then an expert in distributed systems architecture may explain to you in detail why Satoshi didn’t just use Paxos.

(If the nodes that create the ledger can be trusted to order transactions, then I myself could easily design a Paxos-style consensus protocol with results authenticated by digital signatures.  It would use no proof-of-work—no hashrate at all!  Zero electricity spent grinding hashes!  It would be orders of magnitude more efficient than your Rube Goldberg scheme; and if the transaction-ordering nodes can really be trusted, then it would be just as secure.  Whereas if they can’t be trusted, then your scheme is totally insecure.  My design would be fault tolerant, but not Byzantine fault tolerant; of course, since you lack knowledge of this subject domain, what I just said may as well have been in Greek.  “μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ...”)

If you want for me to tutor you, my current consulting rate for educating arrogant dolts is 0.00875 BTC/hour.  To be clear, that is a discount quote and a time-limited offer.

HTH, HAND.

Bitcoin will never change into a centralized system controlled by governments or anyone else, forget about it. You are wasting time by making such proposals, there's already countless centralized projects without mining, and they aren't overtaking Bitcoin anytime soon.

And Bitcoin is not wasting energy, there's no other way to have a system with these properties. All this energy ensures that Bitcoin is secure.

Given that central banks are among those slowest to adopt new and efficient technology (magnetic tape and paper documentation is still how most banks globally operate), and are guilty of the most inefficient and bloated structures and wasteful practices, I'd be very surprised if they were able to provide the most efficient energy usage were they to go into mining.

So aside from the political reasons why "CBM" won't be a cure -- they have to accept they're not even viable for consideration.

The average energy consumption for one single Bitcoin transaction in 2020 was 741 kilowatt-hours.

So, my first question is, if you were going to implement your idea...
How do you stop me from running mining equipment in my house in the U.S.?
How do you stop someone else from running mining equipment in their house in Spain?
How do you enforce your idea so that the Central Banks are the only miners?

If central banks want to be miners, they can already do that.  Nothing is stopping them.  But your idea isn't adding Central Banks as miners, your idea is REMOVING all other miners from the world. What are you going to do, knock on doors and inspect households and shoot anyone that is found to be in possession of mining equipment?

My second question is... How does your idea solve anything? It's still an arms race.  Each central bank will want to have MORE hash power than the other countries. This will both bring in more revenue (to offset their mining costs) AND will ensure that the enemy countries can't collude to attack transactions from allies.  As such, total amount of equipment and electricity will continue to increase.  Only now, instead of the amount of mining being self-regulated by profitability, these countries can tax their citizens and engage in mining at a loss to increase their total influence.  The will result in even MORE electricity being used than the current system.

You must live under a glass bell where everything is ideal, there are no bribes, corruption, crime and bad intentions. Do you really think that central banks would play by the rules, who would set those rules at all, maybe you?

You must live under a glass bell where everything is ideal, there are no bribes, corruption, crime and bad intentions. Do you really think that central banks would play by the rules, who would set those rules at all, maybe you?

The belief that CBs would play fair and not change anything is naive to say the least, because it's like saying that all the world's major powers don't cooperate on key issues - and that their influence doesn't influence others to play by the rules they set.

If BTC mining were to be managed by the central banks of countries that are members of the G20, for example - how long do you think it would take them to agree on some changes that they could definitely implement given that they control the network? You live in total delusion if you think that there is no difference between the network being controlled by those who just want to make a profit and those who are interested in some completely different things, because they have as much money as they want anyway.

I share your sentiment about mining not really being as decentralized as some would want it to be. It needs a large investment and the people who afforded it are now big players themselves.

Even then, what you have to understand that those are essentially individuals or privately-owned entities that do not have to justify their actions for political motives. When it comes to governments, it is exclusively about gaining political mileage. They can go to any extent for that and also have the wherewithal to do what they want. Bitcoin as a philosophy tells the common man that "Here is your money, keep it safe and no institution or government, no matter how powerful, will part this from you".

That is empowering and something that we have never had. This is really an answer to all the faults of democracies. Giving common people the freedom to hold money which cannot be hurt by stupid governments. When it comes to governments, or anybody in power, they have almost always fucked up things that require agreements. Conflict resolution isn't really a forte of governments. They dilly-dally over issues for political reasons and use all kind of machinations to ensure that their side wins.

Central banks are inherently non-market-based or even anti-competitive institutions. Although some are nationalized, many central banks are not government agencies, and so are often touted as being politically independent. However, even if a central bank is not legally owned by the government, its privileges are established and protected by law.

Due to these reasons, it isn't really a good idea to have Bitcoin be controlled by a set of permissioned entities, no matter who they are or how many of them there are.

Bitcoin was invented to avoid centralization. Are you going to make it centralized? Sounds ironically.

Bitcoin was invented to avoid centralization.