Just yesterday I needed to send, but I have an "exchange" hot wallet. Paid only 15k sats so still under a dollar. Bring high fees on!
For you unfortunately I have some bad news: 15,000 SATS = 6.57 USD Oops hehe I can't believe my math is so bad, all this while I'm thinking of mbtc and satoshi and for some reason I know mbtc = x40, but satoshi I forgot to x4. So I paid almost $7 for $300+ (7 mbtc yesterday). It's still ok though. I pay wire with my bank many issues: - fill in long form because foreign guy - Friday send only process Monday. Monday process only arrive Thursday (3 work days + timezone) - 3% flat fee - bank rate forex bad So yes even in high fee, I love sending BTC. and yet banks invented debit cards to save on filling in forms and excess fee's whenever i go abroad and use debit card i dont have your fiat experience.. and yet bitcoin is becoming worse than fiat. natively im british so my bank wire transfers of fiat are free. but now bitcoin has been the thing with huge fee's i remember the days when bitcoin was advertised as the remittance system for international currency exchange that was cheaper the using WU.. now western union is cheaper then bitcoin.. core devs love the fee mania and congestion. it helps advertise their corporate sponsors ROI via alternate payment networks that use middlemen |
|
|
|
|
BITCOIN never leaves the BITCOIN NETWORK
all subnetwork bridges are not the bitcoin network
anyone telling you to use other network is telling you to stop being a bitcoiner and accept insecure network stuff
the solution to bitcoin issues is not to push people off the network via letting junk continue whilst bitcoiners are being told to leave
thats just dumb
other networks offering you balance they want to pretend as bitcoin is not bitcoin settled to your keys
|
|
|
|
The miners are not to be blamed. The mempool is congested and that has been the reason. You can face the developers, not the miners. Either they should do something about Ordinals and BRC20 tokens or get a way the mempool will not be congested as this.
Hmm, Well that is not the perfect solution, or is it? Why don't they impose some kind of FCFS algorithm on the network, Why have some not tried to put the tier system on the transaction + FCFS on each tier with a synchronizing system between the tiers as well I know these are just some random fires but what you think about it, it can solve possibly maximum problems + ordinals shit as well. I have no idea what solutions have been proposed till now for this meme pool congestion. (Hehe don't mind just some inner feelings). FCFS removed due to RBF tier system removed when fee formulae removed years ago a new fee formulae can be implemented that punishes the junk spammers instead of punishing everyone. but core dont want to do that as its against their roadmap plan of offramping users to other networks the junk spammers avoid mempool by pushing transactions through mining pool adjacent nodes through things like accelerators, bitcoin fibre and other portals.. so that when junk gets a cheap ride it makes it seem like the blocks are getting filled with cheap transactions.. but the core node method of estimating fee's for normal people that are delayed in mempools, show people paying those same fee's get delayed. thus causing congestion and fee replacement bidding wars imagine it this way a train station. but with two queues to get into a train carriage. a queue for white people with all their animated clothing being accelerated onto a train paying a minimum of 0.001/kb (10sat/byte) then another queue of black people on a train mempool wait list. who may be paying the same minimum of 0.001/kb (10sat/byte). but left waiting even longer and being told to pay more or wait longer the train looks like it lets passengers on for min fee's, but only the white people with their animated clothing |
|
|
|
Are you a fan of censoring the blockchain? Use pro-censorship node software!
There I fixed it for you. This seems like a pretty slippery slope though. How long before more transactions you don't like are added to the exclusion list? When your coins are excluded from being transacted on the blockchain or your address is blacklisted, will you then think this is a bad idea? I'm just wondering if you think letting this cat out of the bag won't result in it biting you at some point. Personally, I think that letting certain transactions take advantage of the blockchain while censoring others that use the same method to accomplish a different goal is against what Bitcoin stands for.
what if i told you bitcoin WAS designed to reject transactions that dont meet a format standard... what if i told you bitcoin always did and has rejected certain transactions for a large variety of reasons what if i told you the reason bitcoin was not full of nonsense before this issue, is because bitcoins job is actually to verify and only include certain data that meets certain thresholds of rules compliance what if i told you numbskulls relaxed the rules to make their future lives easier, exploitable to not need consensus every time they brainfart an idea.., to soften consensus and want junk.. and they hate anyone trying to fix the "softening" to make their live harder again what if i told you these numbskulls hate people using bitcoin because they cant make money from them as ROI for sponsored projects what if i told you, you have been trapped into a narrative that promotes the destabilisation of bitcoin utility for the promotion of other network adoption |
|
|
|
I hope at some point that the Bitcoin core team decides to allow people to activate and deactivate various options on demand in their nodes (such as to be able to turn taproot on or off etc which appears to be what all the inscriptions are using nowadays) . That way we can get all the updates and decide whether or not we want to opt into the various types of transactions or features /behaviors that are present in our own mempools.
Since the inscriptions are still getting confirmed in blocks, rejecting them from your mempool is only delaying the inevitable. I don't know what problem you think you are solving exactly. user node assisted rejection pre-confirm wont help much these junk spammers use fibre(known nodes closely peered to mining pool manager nodes), accelerator(again peers partnered with mining pool nodes) and other portals directing traffic to pools if people actually looked at the topology of network nodes to see which are most influential they will soon see general user nodes are at the borders, not center of the network whats actually needed is either: to make certain opcodes be punished at a higher fee rate than other peoples normal transactions using a fee formulae where pools dont include junk unless the junk spammers pay a premium and blocks evading the formula get rejected thus makes pools comply to the formulae or opcodes with no content condition re-disabled again whereby the are only treated as 'isvalid' validation bypass if the block version is above version of current known ruleset. whereby block version only changes when network readiness shows is majority ready to understand new formats, so only a small underclass of minority nodes are using the bypass, but all new nodes have format/content conditions set |
|
|
|
I know what you're doing frankandbeans, but it's OK. I'm a mere pleb who's merely walking a path of my own Bitcoin journey.
you are not on your own path.. thats the issue.. so much so you cant even think up your own buzzwords, heck you cant even think up your own insults But if it isn't breaking the consensus rules, then technically, it isn't an "exploit". Perhaps in your opinion it is, but it's debatable.
It is an exploit when it is not the expected behavior and when it is using an oversight by the developers who left the validation rules loose. That's precisely the point, it's debatable. Because other developers/users, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, would consider it a "solution" to the problem "How do we bring NFTs and tokens in the Bitcoin blockchain". It might be an inefficient, inelegant "solution", but for them it's probably enough to build on. they are not even NFT.. thats how badly you have been indoctrinated into a certain agenda you dont even understand the things you talk about. you only support their continuance because someone else told you they should continue. even if its affecting you negatively you ignore how it affects you and instead want the junk to continue because someone else told you it benefits them.. your going against your own value security, your own risk measure, your own needs just to stay with a path that someone else has taught you to recite.. you really do sound brainwashed when you repeat certain things. try to find your own path and stop being a sheep/echo of other people. they are not helping you .. see how you have been trained wrongly by your forum daddy..he made you believe they are NFT as for my trust rating GUESS WHO INSTIGATED it.. yep the crowd your forum daddy adores and cries to each time he is proven wrong your like an idiot at school that asks the head teacher to talk to someone and then uses the teacher talking to them as an excuse as to why no one should listen to the truth because your crowd cry so much how about stop crying when proven wrong and instead just learn bitcoin and use blockdata and code .. instead of each others cries and hugs and ass kisses to back each other up GROW UP, essentially |
|
|
|
|
the junk on bitcoin are not even NFT
no one should pay you anything for you to 'fund buying them'
they are a scam in the first place and you cant claim ownership to then dismantle them
the initial junk creation is just publishing junk. there is no ownership transfer after that.
AND because the junk is in the immutable blockchain you cant delete the junk.
again no one should pay you anything and no one should pay the scammers pretending their junk is ownership transferable
the junk sits in "witness" (metadata) but does not assign itself to any particular output in said metadata. so its not real ownership claim/transfer.
what you pretend to offer is meaningless because to cannot remove the initial junk from the blockchain.. move on with your life. you wont get money
|
|
|
|
Two months might not be enough time to say that it will be permanent. Plus the Core Developers would probably be in a better position to do something if they study the issue more slowly/carefully. Bitcoin is currently valued at almost $1,000,000,000,000. That's ALMOST ONE TRILLION. The developers SHOULD be more careful and they shouldn't do anything too hastily. Because if the network breaks, there goes the evolution of money.
you are saying things without understanding what you are saying (you are on autopilot) you are reciting your forum daddy without knowing what you are saying its funny because, by closing the exploit of using unconditioned(validation bypass) opcodes, it would then require core to not be able to just throw any new format in when they want and instead need to actually propose stuff and get the network onboard before activating again.. your forum daddy hates that old version of consensus requiring network readiness before activation. your forum daddy prefers core to have absolute permissionless control to slide in changes at a whim without consent of the masses, he loves speedy implimentations. he adored the fact that core after 10 months of only achieving 45% willingness of old consensus(nov 2016-june2017), then pushing through a mandated change in 2 months(july2017 aug 2017) understand how your forum daddy tells you silly things but then cant back up what he tells you because he has a different agenda then the one he portrays like pretending he hates ordinals.. but secretly loves them because he doesnt want them to stop. even though he wants normal bitcoins to stop using bitcoin.. he loves high fee's. he wants the fee wars to continue.. read how many posts he literally jizzes at when he says the buzzword "freemarket" |
|
|
|
anyone tell me why this trans exists?
465935d1c04199ea07cb02a4e25dc97877dc8213adb2c0d9a29dd6ebfb348ff1
Output Value
0.00000500 BTC
$0.22
Fee
0.03932096 BTC
$1,715.45
someone paid $1.7k for a 34kb meme image to be published on the blockchain |
|
|
|
Lightning channels are a smart contract between two entities.
your saying buzzwords without understanding functionality.. those IOU's(weak contracts) are not as smart as buzzworded.. and thats the sham.. they pretend LN is better then it actually is If JJG and I both run lightning nodes and I open a channel to him in the traditional way where all the liquidity in the channel starts on my side, then we BOTH own that channel until it is closed. And I have given incoming liquidity to JJG. And when someone makes a payment to him and it uses our channel then some of that value is distributed to his side. At the same time in the background one of MY channels gained that same liquidity (plus a fee).
So in this example I have not changed my total balance (aside from the teeny fee) but just shifted it around a little cryptographically.
JJG on the other hand has GAINED BTC while the sender has reduced his own total balance.
THAT is all Breez is doing.
you have not "given" him btc. he has not "gained" btc the funds are still locked in YOUR funding utxo of keys YOU own. where the channel then has a UNCONFIRMED, UNSETTLED tx template showing a output where JJG MIGHT get btc in the future when you both mutually close.. but until then he does not have BTC inside LN YOU still own the coin. its not his coin on the blockchain. its still YOURS you are 'crediting' him with a IOU of future settlement. but you have not given him BTC yet its the same as CEX custodians, he might see a balance of value owed.. but if its not in a UTXO he has key control of.. its not his #not-your-key-not-your-coin thats why we tell people to withdraw and gain control of value owed also LN has many flaws that do not guarantee the recipient will ever get the inbound owed balance.. LN devs admit it, its why they then use work arounds of then needing centralised watchtowers and hubs and stuff.. but even those have flaws.. flaws building on flaws, still not resolving the underlying issue oh by the way breez also opens channel and credits users with inbound balance without needing a X confirm funding locked value utxo which is another flaw learn the problems when services say they can give instant inbound balance. it means they are not locking value to their partners keys when LN stopped their initial plans of co-funding a multisig(2-of 2, both partners own and control) and then both needing mutual sign off.. more LN flaws appeared
Of course, you don't want to provide links because you think that people should figure things out for themselves, and yeah, I still would question whether whatever that you are even referring to is related to this thread or not? and your failure/refusal to either provide a thread or some kinds of specifics, causes me to conclude that it probably is not sufficiently related and/or even worth looking into further.
rather then you posting a message asking to be hugged and spoonfed.. and waiting hours for a response. you could simply spend 30 seconds on google and find the answers yourself i am not your mother. i do not need to spoonfeed you or hug you. if you actually want to learn. GO LEARN |
|
|
|
This is just due the f*cking ordinals. The Bitcoin fee was normal or even low in previous days. And I hope this will go down because these ordinala are not long lasting. Soon they will not exist in the crypto world.
By the way there is one more reason, the popularity and adoption of Bitcoin increased, the congestion in the mempool and the competition for block space led to noticeable increases in transaction fees.
As we can see the Bitcoin Price is increasing, with this significantly the transaction fee also increasing. Hope it will come down soon.
there are ways to identify transactions that use particular unconditioned "non standard" (validation bypass) opcodes.. where by code can punish only the junkers at a higher rate.. but dev politics have other games in mind to make bitcoin annoying for all, so they can promote other networks and systems users should use to pay middlemen.. to reimburse devs sponsors |
|
|
|
The miners are too centralized,and a lot of dust trans was made every day.
miners do not select transactions asics dont have a mempool. asics dont have a hard drive to store utxo's mining pools are different than miners learn this exploit is not caused by miners.. they do not code. mining pools did not even code their own nodes.. learn who coded the bitcoin nodes to allow this exploit learn this exploit is not caused by AI.. bitcoin did not write itself realise core devs wrote the exploit. and core devs are the centralised group.. the secret is in their brand name whomever you read about blaming miners is a fool making you look like a fool. they ar trying to make you not look at CORE devs realise core has become too centralised. they can add new funky stuff without network fullnode majority readiness. yep they added code to bypass validation stuff so "full" nodes are not full nodes compared to the previous years way of network operation and consensus readiness before new features activated core devs softened consensus core devs REKT alternate brand nodes to gain dominance. core devs added opcodes that exploit validation from november 2016-june 2017 mining pools were only <45% agreeing the the network change that opened the exploit. they were mandated using blackmail to comply to the change or have their blocks rejected. which caused an artificial(not natural) 100% compliance core dev won their tricks, sponsored by corporations that want users to move away from using bitcoin network and instead use middle-men custodians and systems |
|
|
|
In your own personal opinion it's an "expoit". But if it's functioning within the consensus rules, then technically it isn't. But this is is what I'll tell you, and I believe we could be of the same opinion,
- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.
they use a validation bypass mechanism.. a thing that is bad for bitcoin.. known as a trojan horse  frankandbeans, you're making it sound as if there's truly an "exploit" that "hackers" could covertly use to break the consensus rules. Laughable. you do realise that this junk is causing a form of DDoS attack. stopping users having the ability to transact freely you do realise by not needing general population full node vote of readiness before activation. a sybil attack by economic nodes can mandate pools comply or have their blocks rejected(yep it happened and is backed up by blockdata and code) look into the NYA look into things like blockstream Fibre, look into the mandates. look into the blockdata to show real versions of events look how "nonstandard" used to not relay pre-confirm. and now does see how things have changed consensus has been softened, it has never been this soft since the start start caring more about bitcoin for your own funds security, rather than your forum daddys emotional security consensus has already been compromised.. LEARN "backward compatibility" nodes no longer validate all data. they allow junk in and nodes cant veto an upgrade anymore thats what core love, being able to trojan in new funfy stuff nodes dont understand without the consent of the masses learn what this entire issue is all about. and no dont ask your forum daddy for a new script to recite full of silly buzzwords you dont understand learn about bitcoin for once core added a f*ck-tonne of new opcodes that bypass validation.. they then use the strawman that there is no point stopping one opcode because exploiters will just use one of the other.. well disable the pre-confirm relay of the f*ck-tonne (they refuse because it then requires node readiness to then activate, meaning they cant slide new funky tx formats in themselves but by having node readiness before activation means the network secures itself again. as it should do to prevent a dev from just sliding things in before nodes are ready and no dont respond that core devs should be permissionless and should be able to do anything without consent.. because thats BAD security to allow them full control with no responsibility/consent of the majority of the network |
|
|
|
It's important that bitcoin remains as decentralised as possible, the added value of having low value transactions directly on the L1 is not enough of a reason to compromise on bitcoin's decentralisation.
lower fee do not cause more centralisation.. its actually the opposite way round when fee's are high users lock their value to middlemen, causing more centralisation of fund control when mining pools get too much profit. they buy more asic farms to centralise the hashing. but the distributed hobby miners due to not having great deals on electric and hardware cannot buy as many asics in one go to compete. when pools take a 2% cut of reward + X% of fee's they can expand their single location asic farm faster than hobby miners distributed around the world getting only 0.000x% share of reward+fees it doesnt matter how high the fee's go the individual independent asic owners cannot compete compared to the pool owners its the economics of any industry manager-worker relationship if general income is X but manager gets 2% and worker gets 0.0002% the more income the business earns the manager profits the most think about it.. (asic costs $4k) if a manager gets 2% of $270k ($5375) he can add 4 new asics every 3rd block if a worker gets 0.0002% ($0.54) he can get one new asic once every 7400 blocks |
|
|
|
|
segwit and LN have not solved things..
fee's have remained higher than pre 2016 prices.. infact segwit had code to make 2009-2016 formatted transactions become 4x that of segwit. and then segwit also increased in fee rates too , thus the legacy multiple grew even faster in fee cost
looking at the liquidity capacity of LN compared to the transaction volume of bitcoin network. more bitcoin transfers had more value in one block than the whole LN network ever locked up in 6 years
LN has not even touched 0.0001% of the value transfer, bitcoin has been able to achieve in one 10minute block session
yes bitcoin has lost efficiency and since 2016 all we have seen is development stall, in exchange for developers getting sponsored by corporations to concentrate on other additions that only aid projects which aim to get people stuck into using middle men.. all while being told for 6 years "be patient, just wait, it will take care of itself"
many excuses are made. all trying to avoid the conversation of blaming the developers. yet bitcoin is not some self writing AI. developers wrote it and now they want to blame everyone else for the actions caused by developers and the inaction caused by developers.
the latest distraction is trying to blame asic machines for the fee cost. even though asics do not select which transactions get into a block
developers could have retained a fee formulae that would have only fee punished spammers.
developers could have keeps "nonstandard" tx formats disabled from node relay preconfirm
developers could have not included code that miscounts bytes
developers could have scaled the blockspace efficiently where the 4mb space was actually usable to be 4x of 1mb space
developers could have had many ways to keep fee's from becoming a premium
but instead developers stopped optimising bitcoin or scaling bitcoin and sold their souls to corporations that want users to abandon bitcoin in exchange for some other payment system off the blockchain
for developers that no longer want bitcoiners using the blockchain efficiently. those developers should give up-retire and realise they should not be politicising their views by pretending to be bitcoin blockchain developers if its now against their sponsored ideals to develop bitcoins blockchain
|
|
|
|
"conduition" only got involved 4 days ago this debate has been going on nearly a year so your screams of relax and be patient.. when talking to people that have been discussing it FOR A YEAR yet you want to congratulate someone that only got involved 4 days ago.. seems you have things backwards |
|
|
|
Miners must be loving it right now!
Yeah, the miners are getting huge rewards in the form of those high fees miners dont see transactions miners dont choose transactions miners are just given whatever cut of reward the POOL decides. dont point fingers at miners. realise who is making transaction decisions look at the devs that refuse to fix the exploits they create asic owners were not in poverty when the bitcoin price was $17k so dont even pretend miners deserve fee's now.. also the spot market will take care of miners when the reward halves so fees are not essential realise its all about dev politics thats causing the issues we see. it has absolutely nothing to do with asic economics whomever is telling you to look at miners is the guy that doesnt want you to scrutinise the core devs indecision and sponsored deals |
|
|
|
- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.
I'm willing to be you most miners don't see it as an "attack vector." So long as somebody is paying a fee, the system is working as intended. miners dont see the transactions!! mining pools decide on the transactions stop using the scripted PR campaign shown to you by dumb-dumb group to try to make it as if its the miners are the cause miners dont handle transactions.. they just SHA256 hash miners are not making political decisions on code miners do not write code miners did not open the exploit miners are not the ones to fix the exploit the exploit has nothing to do with asic firmware thus has nothing to do with miners the core devs opened the exploit the core devs can close it. adam back is not even a dev. but a manager of the devs and he has commanded that they do nothing.. he hypocritically then says devs should work on other networks and promote other networks instead.. as the things bitcoiners should use (facepalm) core devs should fix bitcoin issues not be subverted into helping subnetworks become popular due to their employers politics bitcoiners should not be made to move over to other networks bitcoin devs should concentrate on bitcoin issues not the politics of their employer |
|
|
|
and since the miners pick transactions
miners do not pick transactions POOL managers do an asic does not have a mempool an asic does not contain node software i have no clue where these idiots are getting their ideas from that miners are selecting transactions and need fee's miners were not in poverty when the bitcoin market was $17k miners were not in poverty when the bitcoin market was $34k miners were not in poverty when the bitcoin market was $44k miners are not to blame nor the reason the real culprits are the devs that opened the exploit the real culprits are the devs that refuse to fix the exploit POOLs are taking advantage of it POOLS just use API commands to bitcoin core. so if core says junk belongs in mempool unverified.. its ultimately cores fault for getting un-validated junk into mempool (the exploit of "isvalid" without checks) ultimately the exploit leads back to core devs by pretending they are not developers this year and staying away from fixing it |
|
|
|
I just hope the miners get tired of all these.
miners are not involved.. they have no decision on transactions POOLS decide on the transactions.. hope POOLS get tired of it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
