I no longer have a node running, nor do i have an ubuntu machine to test things out... But looking at your output, there are a couple of things i see:

I see a lot of deprecation warnings. The developer of nomp should probably update his dependency list. I also see a timeout when a git fetch is executed. Was your network ok?
All in all, i guess you'll have to double check your network, and if it works fine open an issue on the nomp git repository.

When this guide was written 2,5 years ago, this walktrough worked fine... But in tech 2,5 years is forever... Things change really fast...

There are several... If i'm not mistaking binance and kraken allow you to withdraw to your lightning wallet... Never tested it myself tough.

The exchange in my signature also allows you to do this (untested aswell)

Bitcoin doesn't have a set FIAT price... It's supply and demand... There'll always be people willing to sell if the price is high enough, and people to buy when it's low enough.
If the ETF funds are hell-bent on buying 21.000.000 BTC, it would be impossible, since a big chunk is either lost or not yet mined as coinbase rewards. But even if they wanted to buy every available BTC, they'd probably have to pay billions of USD per BTC for the last satoshi's.

If the demand is bigger than the supply, the price will rise... And that's the situation you're describing. If an ETF fund is hell bent on buying up all the BTC on the exchanges, sellers will increase the price since there is a limited supply and ETF funds and "normal" investors have to outbid each other to get their hands on some BTC. At some point, long time holders will be enticed to exchange their holdings aswell.

Because you're answering to a thread that was initially created 2,5 years ago...
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
At that time, 18.04 was the most recent LTS release.

If you want to know if it works on a more recent release, just try it out and report back if you succeeded.

Changing that limit would be a hard fork... Especially if you'd also change the rules for the block reward (which you would HAVE to do to increase or remove the supply limit).
Nodes running the "old" fork (with a ~21.000.000 supply limit) will start to reject all blocks whose block reward does not conform to the "old" rules (block reward halving every 210.000 blocks, starting with 50 BTC), and since the "new" fork will need to adjust this logic to replace (or remove) the supply limit, they'll actually HAVE to change this rule.
The fork could probably do something like: wait untill the next halving when the "old" chain's block reward becomes 3,125 BTC, then change the client's sourcecode to keep this block reward forever (disable halving in the future), that way your new chain will be "compatible" with the old chain for another ~4 years, but as soon as the next halving happens, the old chain will start to reject blocks with a 3,125 BTC block reward.

In, the end, you'd have 2 bitcoins: Bitcoin_super_unlimited and Bitcoin. Everybody who controlled unspent outputs on Bitcoin by the time of the fork will have the same value on both chains, and one of them *might* die off (even tough some forks actually exist for a long time, albeit not as popular as bitcoin).

Personally, i don't think you'd have to worry about this as a "normal" user. I think the chances are very slim anybody would tamper with the supply limit and risk a hard fork for something that will probably do the community no good... There are more pressing matters TBH. I worry a lot more wether a solid, mature L2 network will exist by the time the block reward becomes so small we'd have to pay $80 per transaction in order to keep the miners interested in mining bitcoin... I also worry about people spamming the mempool with crap transactions pushing the fee waaaaay up... People that want to start meddeling with the controlled supply aren't even in the top 10 when it comes to worries about our network and our community.

I've sent you the new default value...
fd7df351655633821bb2c816f166a9a4f73c8f111f117f7df3b6e2ca43ac6c88

Thanks for the input guys... You are right, i should keep the collateral. I just felt bad for the guy, so i wanted to help him out.
I'll probably offer him the value of the coin he loaned back then, and leave it at that.

I'm closing the thread now, i basically got the answer i was looking for. If anybody has anything else meaningful to add: just pm me and i'll unlock the thread again!

I'm looking for some ethical advice about a loan i gave 3,5 years ago.
It was a free (as in 0% intrest) loan with collateral, under the conditions the loan HAD to be repayed within the year and the person taking the loan had to cover all fees. The collateral was sent to me, and i gave him the loan.

The person who took the loan went off the grid for 3,5 years untill about 30 minutes ago. He just sent me a message indicating he was "late" and if i would be willing to give him his collateral back if he repayed the loan (it was a non-btc loan). The collateral was in XMR (2 XMR). At the time he took the loan, 2 XMR was worth 120€, now it's worth 282€. I'm proposing to him to give him 60€ worth of BTC if he gives the principal back. I personally think that's fair since he was 2,5 years late repaying, and i had to sell of the collateral, and now i have to send BTC whilst the mempool is full and the tx fees are high.

I want to send the person who took the loan following reply, but i'm looking for some ethical input: is my offer fair or am i being overly harsh?

user PaulGuzman

Made 4 posts so far. One in a thread i was posting in. The style, wording and lenght made me suspicious, especially when seeing it with a users that made only 4 posts:

Post 1


Post 2


Post 3


Post 4

sent in transaction https://blockstream.info/testnet/tx/1c35ec85c77d18de21f3da3ebe9b3f5364aef45b523ad1c033c815159e90bbc6

Informational message from now on

From now on, i'll be giving enough tBTC to test out "normal" stuff on the testnet... Since the average fee is 1 sat/vbyte, you'll need about 150-300 sats to pay the fee for a transaction, that's 0.000003 tBTC. I figure normal tests require about 10 transactions, which equals 0.00003 tBTC in fees. This amount, plus some value to transact without running into the dust limit made me decide to give out 0.0005 tBTC to people asking for it when they only give a minimal explanation (from now on).

If you want more, make a clear case: what are you actually planning on doing, why do you need more than 0.0005 tBTC, why can't you use regtest. You don't need to harm your privacy, but i'll need more info than just the basics

I'll also be batching payments (if possible) and i will not give any guarantees... If i suspect you from abusing the tBTC i gave you, or if i suspect there's a high chance you'll spam, or if i'm just not @ the office for a couple of days/weeks, or i forget or overlook applications, no payments won't go out.

just to make it 100% clear: you don't get pgp keys from some "random" website... You create them yourself on your own device.

If you like a gui, on windows you can use kleopatra. On linux there are gui tools included in most distro's directly. Personally, i wouldn't generate keypairs on my cellphone (it's a matter of convenience and security. But i guess it might be ok if you used an open source, vetted smartphone app to help you out).

I usually just create them from the terminal... Just make sure you don't download keypairs from the internet... If you download keypair generated by a thirth party, said thirth party can sign and decrypt in your name!!!

Sure... How much do you need? If it's just a couple hundred transactions with a fee of 1 sat/vbyte and some value... 0.01 tBTC sufficient?

AFAIK, the most popular LN node implementations implemented a mitigation against this latest attack vector, but i think it's undeniable that the lightning network isn't as mature as the bitcoin network. I ran a full node + a lightning node (c-lightning) for years. I had to shut it down because the price for my dedicated server had increased exponentially. Even whilst running a full node + a regularly patched version of c-lightning, i only kept 'spending change' inside my open channels.

My philosophy vs lightning is that we need an L2 sollution, and if we don't start using it, it will never truly mature. That being said, i still think it's a bad idea to keep more funds than you're comfortable losing inside open channels. Lacking a full node, i now use a custodial lightning wallet (i should really look into using electrum), but i only keep the equivalent of a couple hundred dollars inside this wallet.

I've googled around and found this nice graph: https://bitcoinvisuals.com/chain-block-reward

At first glance, the numbers hereon seem to be plausible.

Miners are businesses, they have to pay employees, hardware, power, rackspace, taxes,... so i guess they'll think in FIAT terms.
At this moment, it seems like mining is still profitable, since the difficulty doesn't really make "big" jumps, indicating the global hashrate doesn't grow or drop very suddenly.
 
With the current preev rate of ~$43k /BTC, a miner makes $268.750 from the coinbase reward. https://bitcoinvisuals.com/chain-block-reward tells me the maximum income/block was around $400k at the end of 2021. Right now its ~$284k (so on average, the fees result in $16k/block).

The last 30 days, the average amount of transactions per block was ~3500 (https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/n-transactions-per-block)

Let's assume everything stays static from now on and see what kind of fees would be needed when the block reward goes close to 0 to keep our network "afloat" without a big outflux of miners... $284k (the amount needed to keep the miners interested) / 3500 transactions per block = $81/tx.

So, in order to keep the network "healthy" if everything stays status quo, we'd need a fee of ~$81/tx. That's the current equivalent of 0.00190 BTC.

Now, that's when we speak about a status quo...

• It's very possible technological advances make it interesting for some miners to mine way below the $284k/block income. At this point we might lose miners in countries with high power prices, and maybe the "gap" isn't completely filled by miners from low power price countries... We might be fine with that (the current diff is actually really high. It might be ok if it dropped a little bit).
• it's also possible the btc price rises (or drops). So the fiat value of $81/tx might be way less (or more) in BTC in the future
• protocol changes are also always possible. We had the segwit softfork a while ago that allowed us to move the witness data in the last 3Mb of a block. This increased the amount of transactions in a block. It's always possible something similar might happen in the future

Bottom line: if everything but the block reward stays the same, in a couple of halving we'll need to pay ~0.0019 as fee if we want the same level of network security. If the miners either use new tech, or we're willing to have a little less security, the fee will be lower. If the price rises, the fee will be lower (in BTC terms, not in FIAT terms offcourse).

Anyhow, if we're talking about FIAT, i would not be comfortable paying more than ~5% of the value of my transaction as a fee, so yeah, transactions with a value under 0.04 BTC ($1700 at current rate) would kind of defeat the purpose (at least, for me, and only if everything stays status quo).

So, yeah... I guess in the future we should rely on sidechains and altcoins a bit more than we did in the past... Use bitcoin for "larger" transactions (like opening or closing sidechains, or converting to altcoins, or making "big" transactions). But that's just if everything stays status-quo, and it's just my personal opinion

Eventough i wouldn't need such a function, so it doesn't really matter to me, it looks like it's on a per-address basis?
I have >10 wallets, some of them have hundreds of addresses... I guess the solution might not be all that elegant if applied to such a situation? Maybe a solution based on an xpub instead of an address might be more suitable (at least, if you don't mind giving up your privacy to the company providing those statements)?

I've heared this idear many times before... IIRC, previous times the mempool was completely full and a fee bidding "war" was plaguing the community, fingers were also pointed towards the miners... I guess they might try to do this, but it also comes at a risk (and a cost) to them...

What if a big miner decides to drop 1 Gb of transaction data (excluding witness data) into the mempool... They want to start a bidding war and profit big time, so they add 50 sat/byte tx data to these unconfirmed transactions... That's 1.073.741.824 bytes * 50 sat/byte =~ 537 bitcoin (at a current preev rate of $45k/btc, that's little over $24 million).

Offcourse, we (the users) have to outbid the transactions in the mempool, and we have to use a fee of >50 sat/byte to get our transaction into a block... Great profit for the miners... However, if on average we (the community) create less than 1 Mb of transaction data (excluding witness data) per 10 minutes over a prolonged amount of time, OTHER miners will start to add the transactions broadcasted by the miner that dropped the 1 Gb of transactions on the mempool... OTHER miners will start to confirm those transactions and claim the fee. In the end, the miner dropping the 1 Gb of unconfirmed spam transactions will be out of a big chunk of his $24.000.000. He'll only be able to recuperate the fees of the transactions he himself puts into a block which he succesfully solves.

Bottom line is that it would be a big risk for him (at least, that's my point of view). IF the community keeps on broadcasting more than 1 Mb of transaction data (excluding witness data) per 10 minutes for a very long time, he'll be able to push all our fees upwards and he might be able to make a nice profit... If we broadcast less that 1 Mb of tx data per 10 minutes, he might be at a (big) loss.

Who says there are 4 billion people that want to play games and 100 that want to buy coffee? As it stands now, it's possible there are 100 that want to play games and outbid 4 billion people that want to buy coffee, making the blockchain an ideal playground for those 100 whilst driving 4 billion people away causing long term damage to the ecosystem... What i'm saying is that IF a change was proposed, at least you'd know what the people want... Maybe a proposition would gain majority support, maybe it wouldn't... Maybe it would be dropped, maybe a fork would occur... Maybe 2 forks would live next to eachother, maybe one of the forks would dissapear. As it stands right now, nobody knows the ratio, we only know the "game players" have more money than the "coffee drinkers".

As for the miners: you do have a point... Nobody did care when they went out of business but when they're making a lot of money suddenly there's drama... Truth be told, i don't care either way (i don't care if they get rich or if they are forced to close their business), i just want to be able to be part of the ecosystem, and that includes not having to spend $30 to make a $100 purchase. I would be fine with paying more than i used to pay in the past in order to keep a reasonable amount of miners "in the green" so the blockchain remains safe, i would also think it would be ok if some miners decided to leave the ecosystem because they could not add 3000 transactions with an average fee of $30 to their blocks aswell.

The thing is that i've used bitcoin mostly as a form of payment, and not a store of value (i'm not saying i don't hold a little bit and hope the price rises). At the moment, it is completely impossible for me (and with me a lot of users) to use the main chain as a payment method for anything under the value of ~$250, since the fiat value of the average fee has been between $10 and $30 the last couple of weeks.

When you talk about a free market, i personally think this market would also need an alternative... Even if this means a fork... If you agree with the fact ordinals are abusing a vulnerabilty, use the "bitcoin" fork, mine on the bitcoin fork, have bitcoin fork wallet,... If you want to keep on pushing ordinal crap and nintendo games, by all means, switch to the bitcoin-ordinal fork, mine on said fork, have a bitcoin-ordinal wallet... I'm pretty sure the fork with the majority of the community behind it would be the fork that would make it big. It's all about freedom and choice.

Well there ARE rules, there is a protocol... It has been there since the start and it has changed in the past due to vulnerability's... I'm not saying it would be easy to change the protocol, but, IMHO with what's happening now it would be ok if the developers proposed a protocol change and see if there's a majority that would agree on this.

It would be tough to convince miners to give up part of their short term profits for the long term goal of keeping bitcoin attractive to new users tough... There probably would be (a lot of) drama... Short term it wouldn't do us any good... But for me, it's clear the blockchain's usecase wasn't to host nintento sourcecode or keep those ordinal guys happy... It was designed as an immutable ledger to store transaction data.

Just a heads up, importing your keys into a wallet that also has lightning support won't do you any good.

If you had moved your funds to a wallet supporting the lightning protocol BEFORE those ordinal guys started spamming, and you had opened some channels back then, you could have used your open lightning channels to send and receive funds right now... But since that's all hindsight, it won't do you any good now... The fact the fees are so high is probably due to the fact you're trying to consolidate a ton of very small valued unspent outputs, if you'd use those funds to open a lightning channel, the fee would probably be about the same...

I personally think that those ordinals guys are abusing the blockchain... Sure, there's no central authority and the current protocol allows them to do what they're doing, it still doesn't mean that they're not abusing the blockchain.
The miners make some nice profit from the fact "real" users have to outbid those ordinal folks, but i've heared new users actually giving up on bitcoin due to the large fees and the unpredictability those ordinal guys are bringing in the average confirmation time. I think nobody realises this abuse might have negative results in the end.

Now they're thinking about using the blockchain to store this kind of data? I think that's preposterous...  Why would thousands of nodes want to use their disk capacity to store this kind of crap?

I personally hope the devs and the miners start to show at least a little bit of concern and close this "attack vector" (yes, i see this ordinal crap as an attack on the community)