Thanks for noting. I have edited my vote.

Out of curiosity, but how does one change his name? I mean, what stops him from renaming again to Symtrick, or whatever? I had read that it costs 50 BTC to change your username (for VIP), but even that is once. Has it lowered since then, or maybe even completely free after you reach theymos?

Doesn't that mean that the attacker has to frequently pay high fees to sustain this attack? Moreover, why does "wasting time on dummy transactions" centralizes the network, and why do we call it "wasted time" since they are regular transactions, just like any other honest nodes would either way verify.

That is probably answering my second question. May I suppose that this particular attack influences the network by orders of magnitude more when the block size limit is dynamical?

(Also, am I talking to a chat bot?)

"Bitcoins" in Binance chain hold the same water as "IOU bitcoins" in a bank's spreadsheet. There is peg as long as the bank doesn't go bankrupt. Which reminds me of why we have Bitcoin in the first place.

Look. If he's into cryptocurrencies just to make profit using Binance, then buying and selling real bitcoin and being required to pay high fees etc., is reasonably an inferior solution comparably to just buying and selling IOUs.

In my opinion, nobody should even get in that trouble. Smartphones are the exact opposite of an airgapped device. They are designed to connect to as many networks as possible. You'll have to remove modem, Wi-Fi chip(s), antennas, bluetooth module(s), NFC, GPS I think, and even radio chip? I lost count, maybe there are even more.

Alternatively, if you don't know what you're doing, buy yourself a signing device like SeedSigner. It requires minimum technical knowledge to setup, and is completely airgapped.

Since when do you report the specific forum topic that acted as the announcement page of the product you advertised? This sounds similar to filling "cpuminer" when reporting your mining profit.

I guess it varies from countries to countries, but in my place there isn't even a tax framework where you can report bitcoin, let alone the place where you got your job, or the product you advertised and got paid in bitcoin. Please address to an expert (lawyer or accountant) if you haven't already, because it doesn't seem right to reporting everything related to your forum pseudonym.

Big respect to the family member that preferred to use the money for a contest. I didn't know we lost a forum member, may God bless his soul.

---

Disclaimer: I'm a terrible predictor.

In last year, we moved from $16k to $20k, which was a nice ride; people forgot about FTX and moved on. In January 2022, we fell from $47k to $43k, and then we plummeted. Things were bearish for a whole year at least. In the last few months we have experienced very good levels, from $20k to $40k. I personally don't mind if it drops by a 10%, so I'll just say that with fingers crossed.

You'll have to be a little more explanatory. Where is this code from? Is it yours? What's the library you're using? Judging by the fact that it's C#, may I suppose it's NBitcoin?

That particular address is the exception to the rule, because it was rewarded with the 50 non-spendable bitcoins of the genesis block. The correct amount of spendable coins is 22.73242908.

Judging by the code, it gets the total balance by summing the UTXOs. Since the block reward of genesis isn't UTXO, it doesn't count it.

It's mostly the restrictions which come with Tor browser such as fingerprinting protection, no permanent cookies, and the shared IP addresses of the exit nodes.

I'm standing strong. Thanks for the interest.  

When using Tails, there are a lot of stuff that can go wrong, and your machine might stop booting into it. That's regardless of the quality of the USB stick, it is simply common in Tails. So, never store anything important in the persistent storage, or back it up. Be sure that you'll have re-burn the image multiple times in the stick.

I like the idea of using von Neumann's method and not some sketchy method you just invented. Use what is tested and reviewed.

There are lots of ways. One simple way is to hash the dice result record, e.g. sha256("262351..."); this one might decrease the entropy by a little (here's why). Another simple way is to count bits according to this array:

That's faster than counting {1, 2, 3} as 0 and {4, 5, 6} as 1, because it adds 1.66 bits on every dice roll, on average.

Well.. no. That's the case only if the dice is completely unbiased (which is never the case). If, say, {1, 2, 3} have 20% each, then {4, 5, 6} have 13.3% each. This will produce the same result as a coin that is 60% heads and 40% tails.

It doesn't make sense to roll a dice as if you're tossing a coin; toss the coin in the first place using von Neumann's method. It will eliminate any bias and produce theoretically complete randomness.

It is said that casino dice is the most fair piece of dice.

As I have showed in here, a dice that produces near 1 bit of entropy is understandably insecure from the human eye. You can check out how frequent '1's I have got with 75% frequency, it makes a splash. And that's 1.29, with 1 bit it's even more clear that you shouldn't use that dice.

It is not censorship to fix an exploit in the protocol, but the way I view this is, you hate being forced to pay high fees and Ordinals is the main cause of this rise in fees.

I'm in favor of fixing this on a standardness level, but please don't hope that this will disappear. There are millions of dollars paid in fees alone, in the last few days. Making them non-standard is not going to censor them. There's already enough demand to bypass this on a standardness level.

The only way to stop it is with a softfork.

It is faster, and most likely sufficient if rolled enough.

Yes, if you roll it 100 times, then even if it seems completely biased towards 1, it will generate enough entropy. That's the Shannon equation for measuring uncertainty.

I have demonstrated it in here. The probability of a number being 50%, and the rest 5 being 10% each, still gives 2.16 bits of entropy on each roll, which is 0.42 less than in a completely unbiased dice, but enough nevertheless if you simply roll it a few times more.

It simply takes time to verify that the dice won't fare worse than that. In contrast, coin flipping using von Neumann's method necessitates no precautionary measures.

I don't believe you can stop this without messing with consensus rules. Standardness isn't going to help. Binance essentially funds this, and Binance is literally mining. Newbies can buy and sell this nonsense using third parties, and maybe at this time it'll be worse, because we will have an inaccurate mempool.

It is the minimum standard UTXO size allowed in P2PKH outputs. But, this one is P2TR, where the dust threshold is 330.

It could be a miner payment, which saves space for another output. But, to me it seems more like someone testing taproot.

To me, it rather seems like someone's attacking their own pocket.

Why is this particular transaction considered spam? I see a multi-sig paying another multi-sig and a miner. Sure, the dust output is weird, but how's that harmful?

No. Based on their logic, we should absolutely warn them about scams, but if they nonetheless want to visit the phishing site, we shouldn't deprive their right.

All I can see is people playing around with another greater fool theory financial instrument. The fact that miners get paid along the way doesn't mean they invented it in secret.

All I'm saying is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I didn't claim that miners did this in secret, you did. So, it is you who needs to back this up.

I get your concern, let me break the situation down for you.

Humans make mistakes, like really often. It applies everywhere, including software engineering and designing. If a software is exploited in an Internet connected device, the attacker can steal your keys. Being airgapped grants you this invaluable property that even if things get really fucked up, it is physically incapable of sending anything anywhere.

Trezor is not airgapped. Even if we assume they are coding with the best intentions, there's this chance of an attacker exploiting their software and taking advantage of the fact that the device can communicate with the Internet. And we know they don't have the best intentions when it comes to privacy as they're cooperating with Wasabi (references on why that's a red flag can be found on dozens of topics in this board) and had enforced a dystopian Address Ownership Proof Protocol in the past.

Nobody claimed Trezor is insecure. What is being said is that Trezor has the ability to surveil you, and is definitely less trustworthy than an airgapped device.

It depends on which sites you visit. Is it just bitcointalk? You don't need to submit a captcha more than once. Is it a couple of news sites? Maybe you encounter one or two everyday. Is it social media? Probably tons, if it even allows you to pass with Tor.

Tails runs on memory. You can save a few files on your persistent storage, but everything else will be wiped up every time your machine shuts down. If disk usage is an important part of your job, then use another OS. But, generally, it is very convenient and portable.

To me it seems like a coincidence. The theory that Ordinals were invented to fill the miners' pockets is nothing more than conspiracy, unless you have tangible evidence.

---

Do we have any statistics about Ordinal profitability? I mean, the medium priority fee right now is 154 sat/vb, and an Ordinal transaction is way above the median size. If it takes 10 bucks to have a median sized transaction confirmed, then how much does one pay to create an Ordinal? A thousand? And another thousand to sell it? How's this profitable?