The 'i' before "Junior" is what makes the vanity search take extremely long time. That's because a legacy address starting with lower-case character is very rare, due to the way legacy addresses work. Read more about this in here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5326556.msg56650990#msg56650990. If you could replace it with an upper-case character, or just searched for "1JuniorTV", I believe it'd be feasible if you were willing to pay someone to search it for you. Just to clear up the confusion: it's possible to pay someone to do this job, without them knowing the private key. |
|
|
|
Why would it be an issue? If you don't like things like standard rules, then you can opt-in to Bitcoin Knots which comes with optimal expert control, and which allows you to change local settings such as these. If you don't like using Bitcoin Core as a wallet, then simply pick one of the many wallet software like Sparrow and use that to connect directly to your Bitcoin node. |
|
|
|
I think it was more about blurring out the exact time a user is/has been online, thereby creating some level of pseudonymity - I may be wrong, but if it goes your own way, everyone knows you haven't been on - That doesn't really differ from what we had. That is entirely different from what we had. Having your last time active "hidden" indefinitely is the exact opposite of having it displayed. Hidden means it is not displayed at all, I don't know the purpose of recently. "(Recently)" obfuscates when you're online. "(Hidden)" obfuscates when you were active. Your own posts would only then betray that. Too bad he only gets merits, and not tens of thousands of bitcoins. :/
Tens of thousands of bitcoins is a lot but we don't know what price we are paying. Obviously it looks like there are some selfless contribution so far from PowerGlove. Voluntary contribution is very respectable, but it wouldn't hurt if theymos opened up that dusty cold storage for the most dedicated contributor.  |
|
|
|
|
Second prediction: $70,000
|
|
|
|
Instead they see it as "Bitcoin is money for criminals". This might also be controversial, but when a critically thinking person hears that Bitcoin is money for criminals, it raises some important questions about its utility. "Why is it for criminals?" Because criminals need privacy. "Well, I want privacy too". "What other reasons?" Because criminals distrust money issued and controlled by the state. "Why is that?" The way fiat currency works has poisoned societies and corrupted free markets for decades. I expect a reasonable person to ask themselves these kinds of questions before eventually drawing a conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
Nice! Just went invisible.
I may be asking for much, but wouldn't it be more appropriate if the user had the option to choose not to display any activity at all? For example, if you were inactive for 73 hours, display "(Not recently)" instead of "June 09, 2024, 08:40:33 PM". Or just "(Hidden)" regardless.
Someone might want to take a break without letting anyone know about it.
|
|
|
|
It would be nice if someone has some input here because I can't tell whether a block reward penalty would really solve the problem at scale. It doesn't solve the problem. Block reward penalty applies to the block subsidy, and it is really negligible with only 0.6 XMR as subsidy. With Monero transactions sized at at least a few kilobytes, it only takes a few hundred transactions to incentivize the miner to burn the subsidy; it only takes 600 transactions paying 0.001 XMR each (which is essentially nothing). In an envisioned global adoption, the system should be able to handle more than 600,000 per 2.5 minutes, let alone 600. Your Monero client would need to verify 4000 transactions per second, which is infeasible. The difference with Ordinals is that someone can spam the network and others can't use it. Others can use it; they simply pay a higher price. This distinction is significant. Bitcoin relies on the assumption that there will always people who will compete for an on-chain price. The solution is not to censor your fellow users, but to work on scaling. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's future is bright. It's freedom flourishing. I'm convinced that a second layer solution will thrive within this decade. Lightning was practically not a favorable option for the most part. It will still have usage, but it's not what will drive the global adoption. Global adoption will eventually emerge when these four aspects will be simultaneously provided by one piece of software: - Self-custody
- Nearly zero transaction fees
- Nearly instant payments
- Privacy
Will it make everyone free? Will it be regulated and become government controlled? It won't make everyone free, because not everyone wants to be free when it comes to financial sovereignty. |
|
|
|
|
Because Bitcoin has a UTXO model. A coin is an output, and each output comes with a value. When you spend an input, it cannot be partially spent. It has to be spent entirely, which means to create two outputs; one for the receiving address, and another for the change.
"Why does Bitcoin have a UTXO model?". Because it's more private and scalable. With proper coin control, you gain some privacy, and with enabling parallelism, you can spend coins before your receiving transactions become confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Then adaptive block size is the answer. To be honest, I think that Monero is what many Bitcoin enthusiasts and supporters want Bitcoin to be. Maybe it's time to migrate to Monero? Since privacy is one of the most important principles of the ancestors of Bitcoin, I'd have to say yes. Monero does better what Bitcoin was envisioned to become; peer-to-peer cash. Unfortunately, the dynamical block size is neither the answer. It's just another temporary solution. It can render the system dysfunctional. See what happened last March in Monero: https://monero.observer/monero-daily-transaction-new-ath-100k/. A single spam attack might not seem of significant matter right now, but if you're running a node (as you should), it takes a decent time to verify those 100k transactions. And consider that if more people join, it no longer becomes "spam". It's regular transactions that slow down verification. And since there's a dynamical block size, imagine what can happen if an attacker with a decent amount of money (dynamical size -> cheap fees), actually executes a spam attack for many months. The aim of Satoshi was to create a non-reversible transactions without a trusted party. The main idea of Bitcoin also was to keep low transaction costs. I am quoting the whitepaper. Which part of the whitepaper talks about "low fees"? Yes, freedom is good and there is nothing wrong with it but Ordinals clearly abuse Bitcoin and use it for purposes that were never meant. Centralized exchanges abuse Bitcoin, as it was meant to be peer-to-peer cash without trusted third parties. So, let's ban centralized exchanges. Do you get it now? |
|
|
|
Which upcoming soft fork, exactly?
Covenants (when proposed). |
|
|
|
|
Really bad decision to use TrustWallet. The red flag is in the name.
Sorry for your loss.
|
|
|
|
If the coinbase transaction decreases further, obviously the incentive to raise fees artificially is getting stronger and stronger, thereby reducing the potential use base in return. There is nobody raising the fees apart from the natural law of demand and supply. A mining pool can decide to not mine any transaction paying less than 10 sat/vb as a policy of theirs, but these transactions will eventually be mined by other mining pools that don't like throwing their income to their competitors. Is this a dilemma that may not be reasonably solvable? The problem is simple: You need to ensure those securing the chain will always have the incentive to do so, and the only ways to practically accomplish it is either by relying on transaction fees, or by subsidies. Bitcoin is capped at 21 million, therefore it has to rely on transaction fees. This means that being congested should be embraced, not criticized. |
|
|
|
|
Έτσι όπως πάει καλύτερα να πάρεις ένα φθηνό Thinkpad από Ebay παρά RPi. Βέβαια αν θες οικονομία ρεύματος δε το συζητάμε, Raspberry.
|
|
|
|
One year after, let's see what has changed. If and when implemented via a softfork, covenants will enable non-interactive use of Ark, meaning users do not need to be online constantly to send and receive satoshis. However, Ark can also be implemented without covenants ( cl-Ark), although it will require interactivity as an disadvantage, so we better support the upcoming softfork. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
