Shit don't get me started on Harbor Freight, during my time there Corporate was breathing down everyones neck to gather as much personal information as they could from customers.
Last I remember, 80% name "capture" and email "capture" was demanded, no ifs and or buts.
Interesting fact, the CMOS sensors actually pick up more than the human eye does, including infrared and some ultraviolets, so camera manufactures actually include light filters to correct for this discrepancy.
You can actually see older TV remotes that use infrared LEDS flash if you use the selfie camera on a lot of phones.
Ok? I'm not sure what you mean by "It was a trap", it was just an honest question of why there was no flash of light like in this atomic test video, ~1:40 rough timestamp.
With the Yemen video, where is the heavy light output that is typical for nuclear reactions? You have lasting incandescense of the debris cloud typical of large explosions, but no ultra-bright flash associated with really any nuclear reaction useful for bomb making.
If you can't even get your anatomy right, don't be lecturing about how XYZ is the devil.
Devils advocate though, news companies have no obilgation to give people a platform to speak, so it could be as simple as never getting another chance to speak on the topic. It was 1990 too, social media and self publishing wasn't existant like what we see today too.
are you a gold/silver maximalist?
While my biggest investment would be such, I have been mining Monero for approximately 3 years, and do think Monero's technology is much better suited currently for widespread adoption compared to Bitcoin.
There are no rules being changed though. All I'm saying is that merely creating a new, longest chain without a specific transaction is possible given current paradigms, and given sufficient incentive, may happen under current global regimes.
Bitcoin is purely based on longest-chain-wins, with 0 other considering factors. If a longer competing chain without a transaction is created, there is no consideration for the transaction, and is treated as never happened in favor of the new longest chain. A sufficently large/organized, censorious, pool(s) can abuse this to erase transactions in a deliberately censorious manner. The only question is feasibility (How concentrated is mining power currently?), and incentive (Could say, a Harris regime bully miner pools to deliberately exclude Russian transactions under threat of legal action, hypothetically?)
Read not, comprehend not, know not.
If someone had 51% of the hashpower of the network, on average would they not outmine the remaining 49%. If that's the case, would not a 51% attack, not for a double-spend, but a no-spend be achievable? This is not some crazy leap of logic here, the refusal to comprehend is astounding.
You need only be faster than the chain you are trying to supplant, to cause a reorganization. If that means the current mining establishment creating a new chain without a transaction, that's only 51% of hash power, not an additional 100%.
We have been talking about established miners rejecting transactions, stop strawmanning it as a outsider attack.
Again, your willful misinterpreting does not negate the fact that miners can, and do, ignore transactions that are not in their best interest. Quite simply, if that best interest is ignoring certain transactions from choice addresses, it only needs 51% of the hashing power to actually keep you off the blockchain. At current times, if Antpool and Foundry USA felt the need to keep you from using Bitcoin, they can.
51% attacks are not hypothetical, and can easily achieve this goal. It does not hurt their revenue, because again, there is no canonical chain asides from the longest chain, which can just as easily exist without your transaction.
Additionally, 51% attacks are easier now than ever, with the proliferation of ASIC farms, it is easier than ever for a well funded state actor IE USA, China, etc to subsume mining companies and execute a 51% attack. This is not a new concern, nor is it a small one.
Just because your transaction is in the mempool it doesn’t mean a miner has to pick it up and confirm it. And if it isn’t picked up for a long time it can get canceled and returned to you from the mempool
Simple as that, they choose transactions from mempool, and then build a valid block. There is no globally broadcasted "valid template", to build canonical blocks, empty blocks are literally just as valid as full 2MB blocks, assuming proper hash was made.
They don't just throw their hands up and say "Welp, I just don't wanna mine anything because the mempool is full of baaaaad transactions." That premise you put forth is pants-on-head levels of retarded.
Come on dude, did you even read the article?
meaning the company has started excluding transactions from entities
Marathon spokesman Jason Assad confirmed that the firm's first OFAC pool block censored some transactions
By excluding transactions between nefarious actors
And in your edit example, how would one go about funding a clean wallet without linking it back to oneself? Additionally, what if a hypothetical miner-governmental cartel made it a whitelisted type system, where one would need preapproval to transact, instead of disapproval.
The main point of it is, they cannot do anything to stop you from using your wallet.
They can’t halt only your wallet on the network.
They cannot prevent you from accessing your wallet either, unless they physically arrest you.
Please don't be dishonest, miners need only not include your transactions to ban you from the network, and if 51% of miners agree, you really have no recourse asides from trying to out-mine the 51%
TBH though, most of the world's tapped energy supplies are already defacto government monopolies via licensing schemes, so positing needing to control energy supplies as a requirement to undermine Bitcoin ain't exactly a strong point.