In the last year, I have noticed the following situation repeatedly in the Bitcoin community:

- Ordinal users broadcast their transactions.
- Suddenly, users panic and deem Bitcoin as non-usable (which is partly true).
- Users propose solutions, most of which include the censorship of Ordinals.
- Nobody does a thing in response.
- A new wave of Ordinals is broadcasted.

Somehow, people believe that complaining on Internet boards about this will magically fix it. If you cannot propose a viable solution, or implement it, then chances are, it won't fix itself. Censoring Ordinals, at least at this point, is not a solution. Maybe you disagree with me, but I don't find it appropriate for a censorship resistant network to censor transactions that don't pass the "monetary transaction" check of some.

Here you go. That is absolutely acceptable. The thing is: will it find support? Financially and in terms of development. Because as far as history is concerned, Bitcoin forks don't go well.

A better suggestion would be to opt out to a reputable altcoin, like Monero. At least for small amount of transactions. It already has support and a dynamical block size limit.

Not the currency. The network in general. Nobody can censor me from sending and receiving bitcoin.

In cash? None. Via the Internet? They have to pass through a financial institution which imposes their own rules, all of which can censor transactions.

Nobody can prohibit you from setting up a Bitcoin wallet. Nobody grants you permission to access Bitcoin.

But, again. I'm not arguing for the benefit of the consumer. I'm arguing for the fundamentals that maintain this network's integrity. A Bitcoin standard would promote reduced state intervention and cater to individual preferences. It essentially embodies the ideal vision of every libertarian intellectual from the 20th century.

It hasn't failed being censorship resistant. It hasn't failed being permissionless. It remains denationalized, and resistant to arbitrary monetary policy from the state.

And frankly, that's all we have in our disposal. The moment Bitcoin stops being resistant and permissionless is the very moment it has turned into fiat. It probably will not, because it is designed to not require extensive effort to work. But that does not mean we should completely ignore every potential threat.

Yes, but we don't care about the profit as much as the crypto-anarchist virtues. Do we? 'Cause I thought this whole reinvention of money had to do with replacing the current fiat system with something superior, less prone to corruption.

Profit gains are without doubt good news, but if we don't think about these virtues and act accordingly, then we're no different from just another financial scheme.

Google is literally the privacy nightmare of Web2. You can probably keep your documents private from a family member or a friend, but in general? Google lives off your data.

You're allowed. Discussion around mixers is allowed, and so is suggestion (e.g., I suggest you to look on that mixer from Jambler or BitMixList). What is not allowed is to promote them in signature space, avatar and personal text, or to post their URL using obfuscation techniques that would bypass their word filter measure.

You're allowed to say "foomixer". You're not allowed to direct people to "https://foomixer.com". Probably just as you're allowed to say "Pirate bay", but prohibited from linking to their dark web URL.

Disclaimer that I'm not a mod, but this is what I understand from my jurisdiction.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but there is no official regulation that makes it blatantly clear the EU is hostile to Monero (AKA, the only truly private coin). It's just centralized exchanges voluntarily de-listing it, similar as to how theymos prohibited the promotion of mixers. But, again; I may be wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I very much believe the EU will try to hunt it down as much as possible (even if censorship in Monero isn't possible), but at the moment I just observe exchanges de-listing it as precaution.

I disagree. Legislation can bypass it. Currently, they're trying to control bitcoin via legislation (e.g., KYC). If it ever becomes illegal to transact peer-to-peer, and you need to hold everything on a fully regulated KYC-ed exchange, it won't matter if the cryptocurrency is private.

I hate to say this, but the only way to fight back legislation is by itself. That means, voting for politicians that are against this crypto dystopia.

"The paradox of cryptocurrencies: Coins are scarce, but currencies abundant."-- Naval.

I very much doubt we will ever have another Bitcoin. The technology is here. People are building on top of it. Instead of trying to find the next killer-shitcoin which will "bring the revolution" (AKA, the sweet profits), stack some sats. The only other cryptocurrency I can confidently sell my sats for, is Monero.

That was a DeFi exchange, not a decentralized. No truly decentralized exchange offers farming rewards, staking pools, referral programs and a shit-token called SARP. And as already said, if an exchange is decentralized, it does not take custody.

Similar thoughts as well. Anonymity, or even just privacy, being optional is good, depending on how you look at it. Sure, I'd rather have protocol privacy by default, but if to accomplish that I'd have to turn Bitcoin in an "underground" currency, then we better split into separate networks (Bitcoin, Monero) and freely choose what fits us best afterwards.

Then they weren't truly decentralized. If you're referring to the well-known DeFi, 99.9% of it is not decentralized; it is not even exchange. It is just a manner to use blockchain, so you can call your activity "decentralized", where it's just you who makes up the rules.

If you want to make use of a truly decentralized exchange, check out Bisq. It runs for years and is as decentralized as it gets with the operation of a DAO: https://bisq.wiki/Main_Page.

At that point, we didn't have tested, decentralized privacy tools in our disposal. Using a mixer was the easiest and sort of most reputable manner to receive fungible coins. It no longer is. Decentralized tools like Bisq, Monero, or self-custodial coinjoin software like whirlpool, are developed and used every day.

If you really need to go through a CEX, you can still retain your privacy without buying taint. Just convert them to XMR (via Bisq) and sell the XMR.

From my experience, when using a mixer, just as with coinjoining, you want from the observers to know you're mixing. Swapping BTC for XMR and XMR for BTC obviously provides better levels of privacy if used properly, but the outputs do not look as if they're private (from a blockchain perspective).

The next level of a fungible currency is for the coins to look the same, not only from the users to treat it likewise. For example, in whirlpool you cannot distinguish which coins comes from which user. Or, you can simply swap BTC for XMR and just stay there, which is completely fungible for obvious reasons.

Give that man the merit source, please. He is more than established and competent for that position.

They did offer their computational work, but this is not how it works. To receive reward, you need to work on the longest chain (difficulty-wise). The whole premise of Bitcoin is that you are incentivized to mine on the longest chain, and are disincentivized to work on the rest. If we were to follow this line of reasoning, then every time the chain reorged, we'd split into two separate currencies.

Full nodes make a full verification against consensus rules. Pruned nodes, for example, are full nodes. I don't know where you've got this "strict" definition. I use the bitcoin wiki.

Also, non-incoming accepting full nodes do relay everything normally.

Another difference is that by allowing incoming connections, you get to establish up to 125 connections by default, whereas with listen=0, up to 11.

We don't know. I'm not aware of a centralized exchange with a back-end code audit. If we are to measure security by instances of victims by such attack, then it is most likely safe; I have never heard of such a case, mostly because it doesn't make any sense. If an exchange is compromised, the attacker will empty their wallet; they will not try to convert it into their own phishing site.

You should be downloading blocks, yes. Do you use Bitcoin-QT (the GUI of Bitcoin Core) or bitcoind (the daemon)? If it's the former, does it seem like synchronizing? If it's the latter, does the terminal contain progress, cache, UpdateTip, new best etc.?

"Full" refers to verification, and both incoming accepting and outgoing only nodes verify everything. Nodes that allow incoming connections are just more helpful in terms of bandwidth.

This is the dumb part of these puzzles. They were created to incentivize collision findings etc., but nobody thought of the disincentive of broadcasting the solution to the public.

To mitigate the risk of working out the private key, you should choose a pool which takes the least time to mine a block. But, on the other hand, -ck is considered very trustworthy, and is running it since 2011.

Sounds like a privacy nightmare. If you want to generate QR coded addresses, use the internal function of a wallet software, like Electrum.

And you should verify that the QR code actually corresponds to your address and not to theirs.

What prevents someone from tampering your QR coded address?

---

In summary, it provides no extra security, introduces more complexity, and is worse privacy-wise.

(source)

Could it be some sort of Ordinal rarity nonsense? Like issuing Ordinals which fund Satoshi, and have a leaderboard with high scores, I don't know. Honestly, sending 26 bitcoin to Satoshi seems too stupid to have happened deliberately.

Technically, it is not burned. Satoshi (or whoever owns the address) can spend that output.

You can verify that no block was mined in June, 25th 2009 09:44, by looking at a block explorer. The closest to that date are blocks 18021 (09:28) and 18022 (09:53), both of which have block rewards spent.

It also seems weird that your transaction's total size is 107 bytes, given that a P2PK coinbase reward was 135 bytes.