Download icq hacking tool

Want more off? Those are stackable, so go to b. This is a premium Bitcoin analysis led by Dylan LeClair and his team of analysts. They break down in easy divestible way what is happening on-chain, in the derivatives markets and in the greater macro backdrop context for Bitcoin. These loosely returns volatility into a joke. Hit up members.

Divorce your pay group and learn why Bitcoin is the strongest asset by Dylan LeClair and his team. Please, address the question the panel. Then after that, make it succinct, because I will be letting you down after that. Thank you, guys very much. Hey Dr. Back, I would like to ask you, what do you consider that is the most promising technology besides Lightning and Liquid? It seems to me that it's actually remarkably hard to improve Bitcoin.

I say that in a sense that it seems to surprise a lot of people. I'll come back to your topic at the end of this comment. It seems to surprise a lot of people. You get a new technology and people would think, it's like the first car.

Obviously, you can radically improve it, [inaudible ]. They assume that it would be the case with Bitcoin's design. If you're into distributed systems and applied cryptography and networking and stuff, and you take a shot at it, and I spent three or four months trying to figure out if there's any way to improve anything about it in , and pretty much concluded that while there's almost nothing you can do, this design exists in a really narrow pocket of design space, where it works, but almost every variant you could think of to improve one aspect of it makes other aspects worse.

It makes it more complicated, or it makes it more expensive. It's really hard to optimize. I think, the only really promising new technology that could change something fairly dramatically is the signatures of execution technology, which is newer than Bitcoin. Takes us back in a few years now.

People will know that under snarks, stocks, bulletproofs. Basically, the idea that you can make a signature that can be verified by other people that proves to everybody that a given program was run on a data and returned true, or something like that. You can verify zero-knowledge proof and the data doesn't even have to be disclosed as well. It has some quite interesting possibilities for privacy and scalability.

The technology is rapidly evolving. They are CPU heavy, sometimes expensive to verify, or involve experimental crypto. I think, the bulletproof security assumptions are very good, like dependable, similar to Bitcoin. You can rely on. That one is not as scalable. It's more CPU intensive to make proofs and to verify the proofs and they're not fixed size. They're long-scaled. It's still very impressive technology. If that crosses over, so that the reliable security assumption signatures of execution gets to a very scalable and efficiently verifiable stage, which it might do in the following years, that could be a very interesting and useful golden block.

And, potentially solve some scaling problems. Will move privacy forward. Thank you for inviting me in. I would like to ask Adam regarding the fee environment that we're in, considering that we are in all-time highs. Prices and fees are still really low, or in empty blocks, considering that we will have to transition to a fee record model within the next 10 to 15 years, where do you see the demand coming?

Will we just either the increases in number of people, or will we have to somehow find another way to get a sustained high-fee environments to support the network? They want to clear the transaction, so that they can do the trade.

They might lose money. Some of those activities have moved to key management systems, so that funds can move between exchanges without going on the main chain increasingly. That's taken some of those out. Then on the other end, retail transactions are increasing.

You're using Lightning. Lightning adoption has grown rapidly. That takes a lot of traffic for retail and micropayments off the main chain. In terms of the security budget for Bitcoin into the far future, I think that personally, we have a long time. There is a minimum fee rate.

One Satoshi per [inaudible ] is at the network relay level. As price increases, that provides a floor minimum fee on the network. Just the price increases, making Bitcoin more expensive at base level. Let's put it that way. As you say, it's eventually at the top of the S-curve, when everybody that wants to use Bitcoin is using it, what happened, and there's less new coins being mined, what happens to the security budgets? I think, you could say that potentially, the security budget is a pain too much at the moment, possibly.

There are other things you can do to make the network immutable. Miners that don't go backwards, like enforced by the ASICs and the hardware. I think, the other thing is that if you look at other money systems in the world, the infrastructure of the banking world, it's far less secure and reliable than Bitcoin security model.

It's basically the weakest link in the chain and there are maybe 10, financial institutions, any one of which could have a database hacked and create a trillion dollars and it will take a while until anybody would discover it. I think, one answer is that money is a construct that humans need socially.

There's an enormous economic incentive to find a solution. That could include even that payment processes and exchanges and power users, each do a little bit of mining enough to be decentralized as a cost of doing business.

Even if there was breakeven economics on it, because society has a family for something, then it will find a way to do it. You can see that actually, in the way the Internet works. As a user of Internet in a home environment, you don't see it because you just pay your Internet bill. Out on the Internet, there's pairing arrangements where traffic has to route through different individual companies, infrastructure, and they work out agreements to translate each of those data, so let's say for tile or something.

There are ways for things to work if people need them to work. The permissionless global electronic cash is an extremely valuable things. I think, people will have an incentive to find ways to make it work, basically. My name right now, 37 Sats. That's the block reward in a hundred years.

I think, that's still going to be carrying its weight in terms of incentivizing the network. Get more bullish, is what I would say. Let's go over to BK. What's your question? Thank you Professor Back for explaining a lot of this. My question to you is, can you speak about the importance of running your own full node as a Bitcoin holder, as well as what it means to the network at large?

I think, it's important that it be possible for power users to run four nodes. I think, in a similar direction that running your own nodes, actually provides you with a lot more protection from a security perspective. It's a bit like having an anti-counterfeiting device. If you go into some stores, they put high denomination notes through a machine that tries to detect counterfeits. Having a node is a bit like that. It ensures that, I think, during the folk drummer, where there were different hard forks running in parallel, it got choppy.

However, if you run your own full node and you had your keys, there wasn't actually anything to worry about, because the miners couldn't change the rules, because your node would silently and automatically reject anything that doesn't follow the network rules. Think about it. I think, a phrase people use is that Bitcoin has a decentralized, impenetrable shield of verification or validation. The four nodes, form part of that. I think, it's also true that a node doesn't really do that much, unless the operator of it relies on it.

If you verify transactions you receive using it, then it is contributing value to the network, because if somebody sends you a coin and your node says, it's invalid, you're going to not accept it. That's going to cause the person that sent it to you to realize they've been fooled, or that they're on a different network. That flows back through the network and means that, even if some reasonable percentage of people and services and exchanges and wallets are relying on nodes that effectively, the whole network very rapidly rejects anything that's not following the protocol rules.

Yeah, thanks for this session. Learning a lot. Crypto in general is actually, and also [inaudible ], extended like finance, and the other on this. Is it possible to see the Nigerian government see a centralized exchange like Binance, to [inaudible ] in Nigeria, country by country distinguish this event, yes? What kind of division would it have to form [inaudible ]? Basically, the person asking the question is saying that in Nigeria, Bitcoin is banned and yet, people are using it anyway and trading on foreign exchanges.

To what extent could governments in a given country effectively ban Bitcoin? I think, Nigeria is interesting example, because the ban seems to be ineffective, or I don't know if it's the case in Nigeria, but certainly in some countries and cultures, when you ban things, they get more popular. Yeah, I think it's actually quite hard to ban things, because we can use them internationally.

The Internet is quite porous. There are VPNs. There's Tor. It's hard to practically stop people transacting with Bitcoin, as long as there's an Internet connection and people can install apps and things. I think, it's a very difficult to stop. It's build on that Blockstream stream, we deployed this Bitcoin satellite network to broadcast Bitcoin transactions and blocks and the Lightning cost of data and actually, the full history so that you can even sync a node with a satellite network.

Just basically, to provide some additional redundancy and make it easier and lower cost to directly participate in the Bitcoin network by running a node, without consuming a lot of bandwidth, because the bulk bandwidth to sync a node can get expensive.

That also makes it harder to censor, because you can then participate with Bitcoin on much lower bandwidth, which could be sending a transaction. Transactions very small. You could send them an SMS message. I think that, in a way, the footprint of Bitcoin being small, that it doesn't consume an enormous amount of resources and bandwidth means that it's harder to sensor into text. Then if you send a transaction, it's very small and much easier to hide in the noise.

We have about 15 minutes left, I think. Then, I'm going to start wrapping it up a little bit. I think, we can only take three or four more questions. I want to pass it to Tomer. I see you present a question and I'm going to start letting some people off stage, unfortunately.

I apologize for folks who didn't get to ask their question. Tomer go for it. One of the things I find so amazing is just your enormously calm demeanor as you've lived through the prehistory of Bitcoin, and then through the history of it as well. For so many of us who have only discovered, not the existence of this technology since Bitcoin, and we get blown away by these numbers that cryptographers deal with. The hash rate right now is a million trillion hashes every second.

It's such an unimaginable number, and it can consume so much energy and it skips along, without even being challenged, because that number that is bits is so big that you can be doing quintillions of calculations a second and not even putting any pressure on it.

Part of my question is so many of us are just blown away when we hear these numbers and our jaws black and we can't even fathoming them, let alone people inventing things with them as you have.

Part of the question that I have is just, are you blown away frequently by the inventions as you tumbled down the rabbit hole and you just — you're putting on a very calm face first? Or is it just that as you've come through this, you've always had the calm demeanor? Or as you've watched it grow, that just lets you see this without having your mind blown all the time?

It's a bit of a personal question, but does your mind get blown all the time? The combination of the economics of it and how it resists on want to change. I think, lots of people learn things about that at the time and about the system in general. I think, everybody is learning as we go. I think, it may be a factor about society that society learning about things actually takes decades.

We'll often look at historic things and think that that looks simple, or that seems obvious, or that doesn't work anymore. Actually, the conventions, or the companies organize with shares, or how society manages business and things like that are actually incrementally improved over hundreds of years and actually quite complex, elegant systems. I think, Bitcoin has had some of that going on that we're still really getting to grips with what it is and what it can do and how it can operate on its own as a organism, or a system with assistance of its own.

In terms of getting excited about things, I'm more of a mindset to not get mad, but get even. I just want to see things succeed, so I just keep optimizing and trying to solve problems.

I think it's easy, and you saw this on the Cypherpunks list, to get mad, it's so wrong what the government's doing. This is a policy abuse. They're depriving people of rights. What you want to do is build a system to change the balance of power and succeed that way. Something like that. The attitude that I have for you, and I know so many other people do is imaginable.

We're trying to go quick. Big love for Adam Back. Thank you so much for the time to, Adam. Yassin, why don't you go? Let's try to keep it brief. Then we're going to go Vivek, and then close it out with Log, and then want to give it back to Alex, he will maybe direct some closing words. This might be a silly question, but would it be possible for Blockstream to create a multi-signature hardware wallet that requires no third-party custodial?

My concern with the third-party custodials is that perhaps, the government can to their Bitcoin balances? Actually, coincidentally and probably it's not very well documented, the green wallet works on both Bitcoin and liquid.

On liquid, as there's confidential transactions, which hides the values. It's actually the case, which is mind-blowing if you start to think about it.

The green two-factor authentication server, which is providing security in a way, it doesn't actually know how much you're transferring, or even what type of asset is. You can get a third-party security service that doesn't have visibility into how much you're transacting, what asset you're transacting, and yet, can assist you in doing two-factor authentication security.

If you lose your two-factor authentication device, or after a time period, the small Bitcoin smart contract attached to the coin says that after 90 days, you can bypass that. If you lose the two-factor, you just wait for the contract time lock to expire, and then you can just spend it without it.

As long as you haven't lost your two-factor and you're continuing to authenticate, that means you can get some very interesting hybrids of privacy, security and self-custody, basically. Smart contracts are very flexible, interesting things. I think, there are probably many more such interesting things that can be built to come, the key management and ease of use and assisting people to avoid losing their funds. You have your own keys, but if you lose them, that's a big problem.

What I'm saying is, I think, there remain interesting ways that the safety of doing, avoiding key loss can be achieved to improve on it. I have a good segue, essentially. In bull runs, we increasingly hear the false statement that Bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts. I wanted to ask Adam, is there anything that excites him about a script, whether it's op codes, or other primitives? What's most promising, or what interests you?

I think, obviously, Bitcoin had a smart contracting system from the beginning. Because Bitcoin has added incremental improvements over time, the CSP site where it's some programmable lock times, and now taproot, and Schnorr signatures. There are more things that people are exploring to add. Another a more next generation smart contracting plan that may work its way into Bitcoin long-term is a smart contracting system called Simplicity.

It's actually conceived of by Russell O'Connor. I think, it was in and ILC discussions. Some people may have heard of Most.

Actually, the full story for Most is a language designed around that from scratch, which is called Simplicity. At one point, we're able to recruit Russell O'Connor to actually build that.

He's been working on that quite a few years now. We're expecting to have that in liquid early next year. Now, you can downloads developer releases of Bitcoin branches and liquid with Simplicity integrated.

It's a very interesting language, because it makes the Bitcoin scripting model self-extensible, so you can approximately add new op codes. If simplicity was in Bitcoin today, you would be able to implement Schnorr signatures as a small extension without needing a soft fork, for example. The other point about Simplicity is that it's based on a low-level mathematical formal logic assembly language level of the base. Everything about the extensions and scripts you use is mathematically defined and can be fed to a brief assistant to make formal proofs about the correctness of a program.

Actually, the simplicity interpreter is able to — you can make proofs about Simplicity interpreter itself. One very interesting proof is that the simplicity interpreter will correctly interpret all simplistic programs, which is a very strong guarantee, but you can prove many things about it.

The maximum runtime of a script, the maximum amount of memory scripts can use, or the only categorize and assure yourself that the only scenarios where money can be spent from the script is never a small list of intended outcomes and prove that is correct also.

I think, that is pretty interesting for the future. Another interesting crossover as we mentioned briefly, bulletproofs, which are a secure way to do the signature of execution with some very conservative security assumptions. Those are based on zero-knowledge proofs and circuits. It turns out to be possible to compile Simplicity assembly code into a bulletproof.

Then by compiling it into a bulletproof, you can get privacy, and a zero-knowledge proof that the program executed on some undisclosed there, so you can get privacy on top of it.

A usual problem with snarks and bulletproofs and things like that is you first have to design by hand a circuit that does what you want, and that's complicated and you could make a mistake with it. The fact that you could compile it is interesting, too, and an area for future development. I think, those security first approaches will be interesting to see, come to play.

I think, Bitcoin, it takes some time between the technology being developed and the thorough security review and quality assurance and peer review, until things make their way into Bitcoin. The Schnorr signature was first discussed in ILC discussions as a potentially interesting for Bitcoin. Over time, that became more concrete, and some developer started working on the details and implementing it in a library and cycle. Now, here we are today with Schnorr signatures in Bitcoin.

I'm not saying that something like Simplicity is going to come that soon, but it is a path that could potentially achieve the ossification objective of largely freezing the base layer of programmability, so that you could do more general things on top of a secure base without having to have further soft forks, I guess. Thank you very much. Alex, we're pretty much hitting end of time. How do you want to conclude this?

Do you want a last word, or —. I just wanted to thank you, Adam, so much for your time. It's been really illuminating. We'll just end with a reflection on the one piece that you were when you were initially designing Hashcash, this idea of the faster computers could always create more monetary supply.

This fixed through the difficulty algorithm in a way. One last reflection from you before we break. What was it like watching half the network, hash rate collapse, because there was, or just government essentially, almost attacked Bitcoin? Then, watching the network be so resilient that it could just soldier on and now, getting back close to all-time hash rates. What is your general summation of this difficulty algorithm and how important is it to Bitcoin?

I think, it's one of the innovations that enables Bitcoin in a way. Because without it, the economics don't look like they would converge.

It would lose integrity of the economic base or something. Yeah, the exodus of hash rate from China, we've seen a few situations where people get worried about dramatic changes. Some people thought the halving would create a death spiral, or too many transactions will clog up blocks, or blocks got slower, into a sudden drop in hash rate. In practice, the network is extremely robust. I think, the media doesn't help because they will amplify what ifs without fully understanding the economics and technical mechanisms that all dynamically cope with things.

It seems that Bitcoin is very robust. Of course, it's also meta-robust in the anti-fragility sense that if the real issues to arise, that there's a financial incentive for all of the very technically capable and a genius people working on it to solve, fix the problem, basically. Whether that is to do with the governance drama that was resolved by humans and the market, or a technical risk that materializes. I think, the combination of human ingenuity and the market and robust, elegant and simple base layer makes it an incredibly robust system.

CK, thanks for hosting. Thank you, Aaron. Thank you, P. Just massive, thanks to Adam, to Dr. Back, not just for his time today, but for all of his contributions to privacy and to freedom and to Bitcoin. Yeah, this was an amazing conversation. I can pay you all no higher compliment than I said absolutely nothing. Thank you all. Yeah, I think we're going to close this one out. Alex, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for writing for Bitcoin Magazine and writing the quest for digital cash. For everyone who listened to this entire conversation, I know many of you did, make sure to go click into the pin tweet up top. That'll take you to Alex's mega thread and a link to his full article, where you can dive into this history and the story of discovering digital cash and all the dynamics that are a part of that story.

I know that Mr. Look up both of their works as well on Bitcoin Magazine. Thank you to everyone who listened this entire time.

I got to show the Bitcoin Conference, Bitcoin , use a promo code — was it? Promo code —. Have fun staying poor. Get your ticket before prices — I believe, Adam is going to be speaking there, so don't miss him there. Supports SSL. Internet cleaning tool v.

Load Testing Tool Screensaver v. We will test your web application under real stress using an easy and powerful load testing tool.

Use performance monitors to pinpoint performance issues and bottlenecks. Application deployment services. Files Compare Tool v. It has a number of simple and convenient features that many users have been expecting for a long time from a comparison program. XPS Removal Tool v. Sim Card Information Reader Tool v. It is important that the password you are trying to recover is stored on Mail Password Decryptor v.

Paltalk Password Recovery v. The correct passwords are recovered automatically if they are saved on the local system and you are able SX Password Suite v. The passwords will then be cracked and decoded decrypted to display on the screen in a user-friendly format. Internet Explorer Passwords Recovery v. Password breaking utility shows password hidden behind asterisk characters inside any password protected text box.

Internet Explorer Passwords Recovery Tool v.