Because, according to you, unless every transaction is private by the protocol, nobody should try to enhance their privacy as that would "leave the unknowing recipient take the fall for their privacy". Which, needless to say, is a ridiculous idea.

Because... facilitating money laundering on the protocol is completely legal. Lol.

I already told you. Merchants cannot expect from their clients to do blockchain analysis, and nor should they as it is evidently inaccurate. Instead, merchants should expect that the bitcoin can come from any kind of activity, just as with cash.

If you believe that there should be no privacy in the world unless there is a universal consensus and enforcement, then you are the one indulging in fantasy.

Σωστά θα τρέχει, απλά δε θα τρέχει γρήγορα. Εγώ Raspberry Pi 4 έχω, με μνήμη 4 GB. Πήρε μια βδομάδα περίπου να φτάσει chain tip.

Συνολικά δεν είχα δώσει πάνω από 150 ευρώ για Pi 4, case, φορτιστή και 1 TB HDD. Από skroutz μπορείς να το βρεις με 70. Δεν τρέχει γρήγορα, αλλά για σπιτική χρήση είναι ό,τι πρέπει. (Σηκώνει και c-lightning)

Αν πάλι το θεωρείς δύσκολο, μπορείς να τρέχεις full node στο background όσο χρησιμοποιείς το desktop. Τη νύχτα π.χ., το κλείνεις και το ανοίγεις τη μέρα.

Δεν χρειάζεται να τρέχει 24/7, εκτός κι αν θέλεις κάτι πέρα από σπιτική χρήση (π.χ., lightning node για το κατάστημά σου). Όταν θέλεις να κάνεις συναλλαγή θα το ανοίγεις, και όταν τελειώνεις θα το κλείνεις. Τα σημερινά desktop "σκίζουν" στο verification των μόνον 4 MB blocks.

Καλησπέρα αλάνι και καλά Χριστούγεννα.

Ποιο είναι το πρόβλημα; Το Raspberry Pi (ή και ένα παλιό λάπτοπ) είναι πάνφθηνο να το έχεις να τρέχει όλη μέρα. Ένας 1 TB SSD / HDD είναι επίσης φθηνός (γύρω στα 80 ευρώ;). Αν τρέχεις pruned δε χρειάζεσαι καν σκληρό δίσκο, αρκεί ένα 64 GB στικάκι. Με βάση αυτό το thread, η κατανάλωση ενέργειας του Pi είναι μηδαμινή. Τα requirements του Bitcoin Core είναι επίσης ελάχιστα.

Είτε επιλέξεις cloud, είτε desktop που τρέχει όλη μέρα θα σου έρθει πολύ πιο ακριβά.

It doesn't surprise me that I'll have to repeat myself:

- Segwit was a softfork. Not a policy. The math Core applies to the client for legacy transactions might or might not be local policy, but that's because a softfork has preceded.
- For this measure to be effective, the ordinal byte must take more space than a regular transaction byte, as a legacy takes 4 times the space a segwit does. This could happen by re-writing a new block size policy which treats every non-tapscript transaction as the respective to segwit, but again, that's softfork.

I want a non-fork way that cannot be bypassed.

It is not forbidden, but it seems like I'm chatting with GPT. (Also, don't bold entire sentences, it is not readable)

But reward doesn't halve. Subsidy does. There is no correlation between the block size and the subsidy. The reward decreases on the long term, but that's because of the mere assumption that the transaction fees will be less than the current subsidy. The current wave of Ordinal transactions shows that the network can pretty much survive by transaction fees alone, and we're years before it is adopted in a mass scale.

To be honest, I'm really confused about this whole private key thing. On one hand, they did display the following text in their FAQ:

Which, as I interpret it, it reads: "We don't delete private keys". And everything else related to the session like amount sent, amount donated, time the mixing started etc., were said to be deleted after 7 days:

But, on the other hand they did claim private key chips are deleted once the session is destroyed:

Going from "keeping the private keys" to "working closely with the government by doing blockchain analysis" is quite of wild jump, don't you think?

And I'm telling you: this won't work. Let me give you an example. Let's say that if a transaction contains tapscript, it needs to pay double of what a non-tapscript transaction of the same size does.

Ordinal users start broadcasting transactions ignoring this arbitrary rule. The pool's option are:
- either to ignore the transactions.
- include them with this "unfair" fee.

Another way to put it is: if you double tapscript transactions' fee, the tapscript users will simply choose half the fee they were choosing previously.

Terabytes.

Yeah, we have no idea what was there. The blockchain is not even 10% of that. Logs don't take up more than a couple of megabytes.

Love you too.

Before writing, take a minute to read the entire post. I said without softforking or hardforking. Legacy pays more than Segwit, because of softfork.

That is not going to work just as with non-standardness. The Ordinal user will not use a client which charges them more, and the miner will absolutely not ignore a non-policy-compliant transaction unless they don't want profit.

I get your point, and it is truly sad, but if we are to trade this for the survival of this place, it is definitely worth it. I see it as a compromise for the best, and also as an incentive to push people into superior, decentralized alternatives like coinjoins and Monero.

Remember that this place is a central point of failure, just as mixers.

We know that it kept private keys and 7 TB of data in total, but that's all we know. I don't remember the feds bragging about logs, can you give me evidence of "absolutely everything"? (Vouchers were pretty reasonably kept in their database)

I very much like the sarcasm of that guy.

Because, we are all upset. I mean, who could have predicted that a wave of dumbasses would flow the mempool with gigabytes of crap images, deeming the on-chain transactions useless? I'm pretty confident we all expected Ordinals to have ended months now, but hey; it's close to a year and people still buy that nonsense. Unbelievable.

Rising the block size in a regulated manner to make this "confiscation" of block space more expensive sounds like a valid argument, but you were here in 2015-2017. Wanna repeat the era that gave birth to every failed fork of Bitcoin? I would rather not.

Welcome to marketing.

I checked it out. It is absolutely essential to have the respective SeedSigner to Monero, but as far as I can see, it's under development. I wouldn't use it to store important amounts there. Instead, I would rather dedicate a spared laptop (which costs less than a RPi zero), airgap it, and install the officially supported Monero GUI wallet from getmonero.org.

I partially agree, but consider this: comprehending everything a computer executes during operation is an immensely time-consuming task. It involves delving into intricate details, ranging from understanding your computer's architecture and the functions of each hardware component to grasping concepts like elliptic curve cryptography. Disabling the components that enable network connectivity is as straightforward as flipping a coin and ensuring it generates unbiased entropy.

Not into games, but this one looks sick. They say the graphics are improved as much as they were from GTA V to Red Dead Redemption 2. Definitely going to try it out.

The fact that people want to completely ignore taproot for the sake of shutting down Ordinals clearly signs there's something wrong in the Bitcoin community.

Hey franky, could you please explain to me how to punish someone without softforking (or hardforking)? Not that I agree with it, but I simply want to know how to impose such a policy to a miner. The way I see it is: the network is peer-to-peer, the Ordinal user can send their transaction to the miner, completely bypassing everyone supporting this "fee punishment policy".

If it was 2021, I'd right as well vote in favor of limiting what you can inject in a tapscript (in terms of standardness). But, right now, there's no way the miners install and run a Bitcoin client that ignores millions of dollars worth of fees.

Eh, I'd argue it'd do more harm than good. I like running a piece of software that can accurately predict the low, medium and high priority fee. If my node completely ignored Ordinals, predicting the best fee would be completely inaccurate.

May I suggest something that has probably been suggested before? Wouldn't it be a better idea to switch to monthly payments instead? I don't think Jambler can't handle the current mempool situation financially, but it'll come cheaper for both them and the participants by about 4 times.

We used to be paid weekly at a time when 1 sat/vb was confirmed in 10 minutes. I personally don't mind being paid at the end of the month.

(This is a general feedback to all campaigns, especially those that pay less than Jambler)

To sum up:

- No guarantee that you'll be active.
- Full member.
- Merits earned in the last 120 days: 8.
- And the advertiser needs to include a discord invitation link in your signature.

In which Universe is this premium?

I think that we either treat each coin equally or this whole concept falls apart. Every coin is potentially originating from criminal activity. Merchants cannot expect from their customers to hire a (provably inaccurate) blockchain analysis firm to tell them if their coins are "clean".

So? Does that mean that until all transactions are private on a protocol level, everyone's forced to use bitcoin with ridiculous levels of privacy? Lol. As I said, I'll never understand your perspective.

Eh, depending on the mixer. For all we know, ChipMixer wasn't keeping logs. What's the point of keeping logs if you are not a honeypot?

I had used ChipMixer to not reveal to my merchants that the funds come from signature campaigns. It costed zero, and it was fast. I'm pretty sure lots of other clients thought it this way.

But decentralized solutions will solve the "shady and criminal activity" problem... I'll never understand your perspective.

Oh. I thought he changed twice. My bad, thanks.