Do you think that google and other main search engines know who searched for "Byzantine" before the bitcoin genesis block? Yes. Would the creator of bitcoin search for: "Byzantine" without using Tor browser and/or VPN?
Probably no. I'd expect him to be extremely cautious with his privacy. Tails didn't exist in 2008, but he must have had different user in his computer for this kind of activity. For example, anything related with the "Satoshi" identity would occur there. Coding, forum posting, emails, domain name registration etc. None of our business, though. With the presumption that Satoshi is one individual, not a group of individuals, it's not merely probable - it's an assurance.  Although it's just a suspicion, there are people in the community who believe that Satoshi changed his coding style, posting style/habits in the forum, and probably leaving an anti-red-herring by not citing Nick Szabo in the white paper, which Satoshi probably knew that people will be inclined to point to Nick as Satoshi - but maybe Satoshi was actually Dr. Adam Back. He's diverting us. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Plus Satoshi coded in Windows? Not in a Unix-based system? That's a give-away that he was very careful. |
|
|
|
|
Currently, there's a pattern. A person makes a new account in BitcoinTalk, makes a topic/accuses a casino of scamming him/her, and because some users need to bump up their post count for their signature campaigns, the topic gets more attention than it should be during a normal situation.
OK, it's understandable that users need to bump up their post count, but we should also be responsible to find the truth, and merely not believing an accusation from a person who literally made a brand new account, nor discussing it with the person like something wrong actually happened. Because actual scammers themselves will take advantage of us.
|
|
|
|
I am working to get my bitcoin off of exchanges and into cold storage but I had a question regarding transaction prices. As more adopt Bitcoin, transaction prices are going to increase as there is more demand for blockspace. Is there any documentation or research into what transaction fees may look like in a world where Bitcoin is more widely accepted?
None. I believe during the very early days of Bitcoin, no one wanted to talk that this might be a problem.
I am worried that from an individual level the blockspace may become so valuable that moving Bitcoin on and off a personal cold wallet may be unfeasibly costly for the average user.
I believe that it will be the same as the current situation. You worry about constant demand, but economically, how could that be if fees are very high? The users who can't afford it won't make an on-chain transaction, the users who can would slowly lose coins until they can't. If the price of a good or a service is too high, then naturally the demand for that good or service will down. |
|
|
|
I say it sincerely that that's the list that everyone needed to have, especially during the criticism in the topic about zkSNACKS' decision to filter inputs. Haha. On the ridiculous petition topic, I repeated over and over that Nostr is the decentralized discovery layer for coordinators. It's been this way the whole time. Hahaha, I remember that. But we already know that Cobra would do no such thing unless the app/wallet is truly damaging on what Bitcoin stands for. Accepting the trade-offs and different models should be OK. I believe any of those coordinators are not "working with" on-chain analysts, no? Ginger Wallet is marketing themselves as actively blocking criminal activity:  Plus were those coordinators already online before zkSNACKS' decision to stop their own coordinator?
Yes, there were several people who had coordinators running prior to this. Personally, I don't have a problem with coordinators that decide to filter what goes through them. But - I have posted about it before - the problem is how accurate are those filters, and how do we dispute their findings if they got it wrong? |
|
|
|
I say it sincerely that that's the list that everyone needed to have, especially during the criticism in the topic about zkSNACKS' decision to filter inputs. Haha. I believe any of those coordinators are not "working with" on-chain analysts, no? Thank you for posting. Plus were those coordinators already online before zkSNACKS' decision to stop their own coordinator? |
|
|
|
Bump. I discovered a project called Mercury Layer, https://mercurylayer.com/Pardon me if everyone already knew and posted about it in the topic, but I have done a quick read/browse on their website, and it suggests that Mercury Layer is like the Lighting Network, which utilizes payment channels, but with the hub-and-spoke model? Perhaps I haven't heard of it, but I browsed too to find out more of it. from what I have read it's only increasing the privacy of the statechain, according to the site, it's majorly blinding the operators from viewing the contents of what is being transferred like transaction IDs, etc. Although, I don't know much about tech but I'm privacy oriented so the improvement is good from my perspective because everything will be done off chain just the like lighting network but this time the operator is only allowed to know how many times transactions has been signed but not the contents of the transact not even the pub keys.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/mercury-layer-a-massive-improvement-on-statechainsQuoted from the same article, Statechains are essentially analogous to payment channels in many ways, i.e. they are a collaboratively shared UTXO with a pre-signed transaction as a mechanism of last resort for people to enforce their ownership. The major difference between a Lightning channel and a statechain is the parties involved in collaboratively sharing the UTXO, and how ownership of an enforceable claim against it is transferred to other parties[/b].
Unlike a Lightning channel, which is created and shared between two static participants, a statechain is opened with a facilitator/operator, and can be freely transferred in its entirety between any two participants who are willing to trust the operator to be honest, completely off-chain.
I believe operating as a "state-chain facilitator" to make some profit in fees will pay more than operating a Lighting node because the UTXOs/liquidity in the system is pooled within hubs which users can transfer freely with other users who probably are connected to the same pool or to another high liquidity pool? |
|
|
|
The service might assure the users that they are getting the assistance that they need, making them more patient, and it would not make them go to different topics posting that he/she is being scammed, when in fact that he/she is truly not being scammed.
Man read the issue and respond from ndumm here. There's no scam happened here. He is clearly here with different motive. ndumm confirmed that nothing has been leaked as he is claiming. I know. I'm merely talking about those with actual issues in the general context because it's currently starting to become common that users start disrupting topics made for discussing the service with "scam accusations" - fake or real, when the best option for those with real issues is to be more patient and to wait for the admins to fix the problem. |
|
|
|
But Russia should probably start using some of their Oil output to fuel industrial mining farms and mine Bitcoin. If they can't export and/or smuggle it all, then they should find more "experimental" ways to "export" them. The censorship-resistant path is through Proof Of Work through Bitcoin. they still can sell their oil to different countries though. particularly to India which countries from the West are buying from India. making Inida the middleman. they are earning money through the oil and gas coming from Russia. Russia's economy isn't as bad as the rest of the world. I'm merely making a point that Bitcoin's Proof Of Work is a mechanism for burning something physical, such as Russian Oil, to produce something digital - An asset that's censorship-resistant, which is absolutely useful for a sanctioned country. Russia, Iran, Venezuela are countries that should mine Bitcoin with their Oil outputs.
they might not need BTC anymore but if they are going to be mining, they'd probably trust developers that are from Russia such as Vitalik. which means mining ETH will make sense for them
Ethereum is Proof Of Stake.
as well besides BTC.
👍 |
|
|
|
But Russia should probably start using some of their Oil output to fuel industrial mining farms and mine Bitcoin. If they can't export and/or smuggle it all, then they should find more "experimental" ways to "export" them. The censorship-resistant path is through Proof Of Work through Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Here we go: Hey - Shuffle takes the privacy of our users extremely seriously, and there has never been a breach of that. Please send through proof of these details being shared by Shuffle staff, because I can guarantee that this has never happened. It seems like you have a separate issue with Shuffle (the fact that you self-excluded and we didn't reenable your account, which is a regulatory and responsible-gambling obligation that we have, which comes before any other preference you/we may have), and as a result you're attempting to bring us down by suggesting that we had some involvement in your personal details being leaked.
This user you screenshotted was banned from chat for attempting to dox you. I would recommend you consider your personal opsec and try and think where you may have shared these details externally, because I can assure you that this user did not attain these details through Shuffle or our staff.
@Little Mouse, is there anything wrong on Shuffle? Perhaps, there is an imposter inside the Shuffle team member who is trying to bring down it's reputation.
I'll share this with the team. Also I sent an email to support@shuffle.com and I didn't even get an answer. I'm very worried I believe a reputable casino information service like BTCGosu could become a sort of go-between between the casino and the community in settling issues such as yours, and others like withdrawal issues. Although I'm not sure if they're willing to start something like that. But a model for it could be to give the "go-between" service to individuals who have registered in their site, who have used their referral links, and who have played with enough volume to deserve the service. The service might assure the users that they are getting the assistance that they need, making them more patient, and it would not make them go to different topics posting that he/she is being scammed, when in fact that he/she is truly not being scammed. |
|
|
|
"Bitcoins" in a sidechain are tokens issued, the Bitcoins in Lightning are actual UTXOs that have not been settled in the Bitcoin blockchain yet.
You don't have to "issue" a different token. You can just reuse, what is already there. In the same way, you don't have to invent new signed transactions to peg coins in. You can reuse existing output, produced for example by LN (but it is not limited to this case). And then, if you reuse existing signed transactions, then there are two options: both networks are IOU, or none of them are IOU. Because you can use exactly the same bytes in both, point at the same UTXOs, broadcast the same transactions, and so on. But the point of the matter is, the tokens backed by Bitcoins in a sidechain are issued, and they can be anything in the sidechain, depending on what the consensus is for that sidechain. It could be 1 minute blocks, private transactions, smart-contracts, anything. Whether you call it an IOU or not, I don't care. I'm merely posting about the differences, and why sidechains will never be in the same category with a payment channels network. |
|
|
|
If there is a list that may make you feel lucky or you want to be lucky, you probably want to know which casino has the most jackpot winners before jumping ahead and depositing to certain casinos. Maybe a list of casinos like statistics of which casinos and the number of users who got paid when they hit the jackpot or does any of this list exist even just the casino's luck percentage?
I'm curious if this kind of data will encourage gamblers to pick the top number one.
And don't you think casinos will allow users to hit the jackpot now and then so they rank up on the list of the luckiest casinos?
If such a list existed, you can be sure that the casinos at the top will be the ones that have the most customers already, this is because most casinos offer games with very similar odds, so over the long term the number of winners and losers on percentage terms should be roughly the same, however if a casino has 10x more customers than a competitor, you can be sure they are going to have 10x the winners as well, making this exercise nowhere near as informative as you think it could be. Or the casinos at the top of the list will have NO customer because they would already be bankrupt from most of their own customers "luck and all that winning". Whoever claims that some casinos are luckier for users than others are merely fooled by RNGesus, or if you play in an actual physical casino, fooled by the RNG of life. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
PCE lower month-on-month - which indicates that inflation might be going lower, caused a surge in legacy markets and liquidated the short-sellers. 👍 But PMI was also lower month-on-month - which creates fear that a contraction in the economy will probably happen, caused traders to sell and liquidated the long-buyers.  |
|
|
|
If casinos published such list then it will be a promotional purposes and it will only be for the winners list and not the losers list. And if they publish the two, they will make sure that the winners list will very much higher than the losers list. So that people would think that the casino has a low record of losers and people are winning very well there. And there is no casino that is best in term of winning, and you can win in all. If you luck is good that day then you can win well or even hit the jackpot that day. All what you have to did is to look for legit casino and play there.
Basically, in any game, there are fewer winners than losers, and even if you win it is just a matter of luck, because there is no definite analysis. So, whatever casino and type of game you play, play only for fun, and not to seek abundant wealth, because we know that casinos are made to seek pleasure by winning, so keep limiting yourself in playing and don't be greedy. It's a matter of luck, but it's also a matter of math. House edge, even though it's small, assures that everyone who plays in the casino will be long term losers. If you want to win and profit consistently in the casino, avoid slots, dice, roulette/other such games, and learn how to play BlackJack and Poker properly. BlackJack, Poker, and Sports Gambling are games that give more opportunities for Individuals to have the edge over the House. |
|
|
|
Bump. I discovered a project called Mercury Layer, https://mercurylayer.com/Pardon me if everyone already knew and posted about it in the topic, but I have done a quick read/browse on their website, and it suggests that Mercury Layer is like the Lighting Network, which utilizes payment channels, but with the hub-and-spoke model? |
|
|
|
Liquid Sidechain can't be placed in the same category with the Lightning Network, no? Of course, because current sidechains like Liquid are centralized. But I think it is possible to make a decentralized one. Decentralized sidechain or not, it still won't belong in the same category as the Lightning Network. They're fundamentally two different networks with different trade-off, and different security models. "Bitcoins" in a sidechain are tokens issued, the Bitcoins in Lightning are actual UTXOs that have not been settled in the Bitcoin blockchain yet. |
|
|
|
Old smartphones have the necessary hardware and storage capacity to run a Bitcoin node
Old smartphones barely have 100 GB in storage. If your goal is to help the network in terms of bandwidth, it's required to store and transfer the entire blockchain, which is far bigger in size than that. Locally, storage might not be the problem because pruning, and it's cheap. But for old smartphones, processing power - probably yes. During IBD, the smartphone might start slowing down when it starts validating data from that time when there was more network usage. It probably can't keep up with the network. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't that mean one is technically an "IOU", and the other are actual Bitcoins in a "suspended state", like in a mempool?
I think both are in a similar category, just different ends are off-chain or on-chain. In the first case, you have off-chain channel opening transaction (signed coins to peg them in), and on-chain channel closing transaction (moved coins to peg them out). In the second case, you have on-chain channel opening transaction (moved coins to form a channel), and off-chain channel closing transaction (constantly replaced "signed coins", and published only the latest one). In the former, you can "cheat" by convincing someone to accept your signature, which could be already shared with someone else. In the latter, you can "cheat" by publishing some earlier state of the channel. In both networks, it is possible to set up some penalty transactions. In the latter, you have to be online to execute this penalty transaction. In the former, you have to just share it in encrypted form with the majority of the "honest" nodes, and it will be automatically broadcasted by some random node. I believe not because they have different trade-offs, different pros and cons, different security models, and they're just fundamentally different. Liquid Sidechain can't be placed in the same category with the Lightning Network, no? Plus I don't think either is bad, or that the one should be used over the other one. It merely depends on what the person needs/wants, and whether he/she accepts the trade-off. |
|
|
|
I believe the answer to "If it's Bitcoin?", that's where everything starts to be more complicated The basic rules are simple: you sign your coins to peg them in, and move them to peg them out. And of course, it is Bitcoin, because every signature is compatible with Bitcoin. And if you have something new, then it is expressed as a combination of existing rules. If you think that it is not Bitcoin, then it applies to LN as well (because the main difference is that you don't have to open a channel, if you already have some shared output, and you can reuse existing LN transactions on such sidechain). Going back to this discussion, and to make things absolutely clear - "Bitcoin" in sidechains are locked in a multisig, then with tokens issued in the sidechain representing the locked Bitcoins. But "Bitcoin" in the Lightning Network are locked in a multisig, but with the actual UTXOs being sent back back and forth between two people in the channel, correct? Wouldn't that mean one is technically an "IOU", and the other are actual Bitcoins in a "suspended state", like in a mempool? |
|
|
|
The best "cure" to the problem is to educate people that buying this crap is a waste of money and a con.
At best, you can reach a very small percentage of them. If gullible people wouldn't fall for scams, there wouldn't be any scammers left. A large percentage of them might actually NOT be gullible, but merely people who want to gamble on the next narrative, OR who has found there new usage for Bitcoin - a on-chain casino for dick pics and fart sounds. But depending on their timing, probably there will be some community members who might actually get it right/buy low then sell high. Although the larger percentage of them, usually 90% according to some study, will lose because of holding too long. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
