And what would we do when we run out of such coins to "steal" and pay miners? It is a finite number after all.
In the year 2140 we start stealing the coins which have been not moved since January 2009. In the year 2144 we start stealing the coins which have been not moved since February 2009. ... In the year 8428 we start stealing the coins which have been not moved since January 2140. ... The same problems apply here. We can't decide what people should do in a hundred years from now when we aren't even around. You also significantly decreased the incentive and also re-introduced a decreasing reward since the amount of coins "lost" or amount that hasn't moved in a long time is decreasing per year as price goes up and more people get in. That means after a couple of "periods" we could theoretically end up with a fraction of bitcoin as the total amount "lost", which is like halving all over again. At some point as you keep increasing the complexity of this idea, it raises the question of why not just increase the supply in the year 2140? |
|
|
|
Hashing is simply the process where by a numeric or alphanumeric string is assigned to a piece of data through a functional method that ensures the output values maintains the same number of bits in length.
Hash is computed from the data (not exactly assigned to it) and one of the usage of computing a hash is ensuring integrity of the data which means not a single bit inside the data can change without the resulting hash also changing. In other words even if the bit length remains the same but the bits change, the hash changes too. Must this hash value start with a specific number of zeros
A block header hash must be smaller than or equal to a globally enforced target (hash <= target). miners use mining hardwares other than ASIC miners?
Mining is similar to a competition where each miner tries to find the hash faster than others, so they need the most efficient hardware to perform the most number of computations in the shortest time possible. Otherwise the hash itself (and the whole process of mining) can be performed on any device, even the least efficient or ancient computer you can find that performs something like 1 hash per hour using one of those computers that were as big as a room! |
|
|
|
مهارت برنامه نویسی که داری در چه حدیه؟ یعنی در حدی هست که یه ابزاری مثل کی سابترکتر رو تغییر بدی که مثلا از یک بازه انتخابی کاربر تا انتهای اون بازه کار جمع و تفریق رو انجام بده و قابلیت ذخیره یک لیست از پابلیک کیهای ورودی کاربر رو داشته باشه که همزمان با انجام جمع و تفریق تمام نتایج رو با لیست کاربر مطابقت بده و اگر یک مچ پیدا کرد اون رو نمایش بده؟ این کار خیلی مهارت لازم نداره، فقط باید زبون سی بلد باشی و وقت اضافه برای هدر دادن که بشینی همچین چیزی رو روی کدی که از گیت‌هاب میگیری اضافه کنی من یک راه حلی دارم که فقط با یه همچین برنامه ای که گفتم قابل پیاده سازیه. مسلماً هرچی بدست بیارم ۵۰ ۵۰ تقسیم میکنیم، و اینکه بحث حداقل دو سه میلیون دلاره، در نتیجه امیدوارم که مهارت برنامه نویسیت بخوبی مهارت ماله کشیدنت برای این نظام باشه. 🤣 اگه راه حلت هم مثل ماله بینیت باشه که ... ایشالا خدا یک عقلی به تو بده و یک پولی به ما دوستان کسی یک برنامه شبکه احتماعی مثل بیتکوین که غیر متمرکز باشه و بشه نودهاش رو بصورت فردی راه انداخت نمیشناسه.
فقط قابل استفاده باشه.
پروژه‌هایی که من تا حالا دیدم همیشه یک پاشون میلنگیده. یعنی اول ادعای غیرمتمرکز بودن میکنن بعد نگاه میکنی میبینی از صدتا متمرکز هم متمرکزتر هستن. مشکل اصلی اینجاست که استفاده از مدل بیت کوین (استفاده از بلاکچین و پی‌او‌دابلیو) راه مناسبی برای شبکه اجتماعی نیست. تو این پست با جزئیات گفتم چرا نمیشه. |
|
|
|
The skeptics of RFK should challenge him hehehe. It might be good for some people from the bitcoin community to ask Robert Kennedy for the transaction hash of each of those 2 BTC that were sent to each of his children. He should not be lying because it can easily be proven by using a blockchain explorer. However, if he is lying, he should pray that not one person would starting demanding for the transaction hash hehehe.
Doing that would make thins worse because RFK would easily deflect by saying it is a violation of privacy of his children and that is against bitcoin ethos and wouldn't provide anything. Then you wouldn't know if he is lying about this or having bought bitcoin in first place.  |
|
|
|
Let's imagine a situation. The year is 2140.
We can not even begin to imagine what the situation is going to be like 100 years from now.  Wouldn't it be better to take unused coins and use them to incentivize miners to continue their business?
And what would we do when we run out of such coins to "steal" and pay miners? It is a finite number after all. |
|
|
|
~
Iran and Gulf countries have long history of differences but recently KSA crown prince MBS took some initiative which will suppose to melt the ice between two parties. Iran recently reopened his embassy in Riyadh and earlier this year Iran president has received an invitation to visit KSA. Gulf countries are strong ally of USA while Iran sit in opposite camp. The position KSA and UAE has taken on Ukraine is against USA stance, so it is expected that KSA may shake hand with Iran also.
Saudi dictatorship and the artificially created micro-countries like UAE, Qatar, etc needed United States for existing. Otherwise you can't just brutally murder a Washington Post journalist in broad daylight or even attack and destroy 2 trade centers in US and still continue "existing"! Now the thing is, US is getting weaker every day and they realize this. Which is why they are trying to distance themselves from US like rats fleeing a sinking ship. The fact that they are extending a hand toward Iran is just them realizing the super power in the region but also many believe that they may be buying time hoping US would recover so that they can go back to doing what they were doing before, because in short neither Iran (nor other countries like China which they are also getting close to) would stay silent about their atrocities. Regarding "bloodthirsty invaders such as the US in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq" is a lie ! Those were civil conflicts where the local population asked the US to protect the Afghan-speaking, Syrian-speaking, and Iraqi-speaking populations from the Kabul, Damascus, and Baghdad juntas.
Do you really believe that America allocated budgets in the billions just to provide aid to those oppressed peoples? I do not want to believe that someone is so naive as to believe the allegations that the US administration made to justify the invasion of those countries. Don't underestimate the power of brainwash. After all US regime spends billions annually on it specially in mainstream media and in hollywood. |
|
|
|
If your dream comes true, it doesn't make others useless or lazy, we just all can't get lucky, some will fail and some will win.
Lucky? People who had any success or wealth out of luck are extremely rare if they exist at all and they definitely won't keep such success or wealth. Any solid success or wealth is acquired through hard work and experience. Before you say that I am talking trash, Bitcoin investment is like taking from some and feeding others, what this mean is someone is buying from you when you are dumping, it's like the world shape, it goes around.
You are assuming that people "buy" and "dump" bitcoin, which is a wrong assumption. Many people "earn" and "spend" bitcoin like any other currency. So try as much as possible to help those that are in need in your surroundings, or help others that are living far away from you, you can do this anonymously too if you think it's not safe, this is the right way to bring back into the community.
Your preface makes no sense but I agree with this. You should always try to help others however you can. It is not always financial aid either. |
|
|
|
P2C2P  Technically they're still somewhat P2P anyway, it's just that the centralized exchanges acts as the escrow for the transaction.
To be peer-to-peer network the whole network should consist of "peers" which means participants or nodes that are at equal level with equal privileges. If any part of the network has more privilege than others (eg. the server that everyone relies on) that stops being P2P. Otherwise if we start bending the definition we start calling a lot of other things P2P that aren't P2P for example CEX like Coinbase since you are technically trading with other people not with the company!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer |
|
|
|
If you don't have an advanced understanding of the Bitcoin protocol you should not attempt implementing any part of it, specially security critical parts like address generation. Not to mention that using it in browser and using Javascript is already a terrible idea. Case in point: From this x-only form coordinate point:
X= 60376045308133502588319041039213905409191423390227563583774073057371619898448 (decimal)
X= 857BA1721C71D8F80F9C208B513BEEAC46816A4123FB7DB11A3CF6833D58B450 (hexadecimal)
What is the next step to get this final taproot address:
BC1PY5VKU7TV8A39WPE6LQF3P6W5JMC3CMHTWCQ3WHYTW59MCH7542JSFYEMK9
Creating Taproot addresses is slightly different from other addresses. It is not a simple matter of pubkey to address since a Taproot address can be both a "pay to key" and a "pay to script" at the same time (imagine a combination of both P2PKH and P2SH but with only one address format). So there are also two ways of creating the address. One is the simple and quick way of "pay to key" where the address encodes the pubkey you have: bc1ps4a6zusuw8v0sruuyz94zwlw43rgz6jpy0ahmvg68nmgx02ck3gq7xmyug
The other is creating a "dummy" script with the single key to use that for spending. This requires computing the tweak hash t = SHA256(SHA256("TapTweak") || SHA256("TapTweak") || pub_bytes)
and tweak key pub_tweak = pub + (t * G).
and computing the address using the tweaked pubkey bc1py5vku7tv8a39wpe6lqf3p6w5jmc3cmhtwcq3whytw59mch7542jsfyemk9
This means depending on how you created the address, the way you spend the coins sent to the address is going to be different. |
|
|
|
I would add segwit. Which virtually increased block size and was not implemented in bcash and other forks.
It is somehow a on chain scale. So now we have on chain and off chain scale solutions, with lighting network
SegWit falls under the first group ( main scaling should occur on second layer and the first layer should scale without hard fork), otherwise you are right that SegWit also offers an on-chain scaling by increasing the block size but it is through the soft-fork as I said in the first category which makes it a limited scaling. It's a bit off-topic but bcash has implemented more of SegWit than you know. From the SegWit way of transaction serialization for sighash all the way to the bech32 address format.  |
|
|
|
It's entirely impossible to back the U.S. dollar with anything, even partially (say new U.S. dollars created were proportional to some tangible or digital asset).
Once USD deviated from the gold standard, there was too much will by the government to keep borrowing future dollars and hoping the economy would grow quick enough to warrant the borrowing. It was a sound strategy except for they kept printing too much money. And over recent years, the rate of debt generation has increased. The hole is dug too deep to back the U.S. dollar with Bitcoin, essentially. The perverse incentive of deviating from the gold standard was government became an entity that was interested within itself by the members who ran it. It never actually helped the constituency.
US is already in a deep ditch with no exit and the only way they could go back to gold standard or similar standards is to first bring dollar to its realistic value which is a lot lower than this. The US debt alone is $32.6 trillion, in today's bitcoin exchange rate that is 1.1 billion bitcoins! Obviously with bitcoin's max supply being 21 million even if US regime were to store all the bitcoins in the world (mined and yet to be mined) it still wouldn't be nearly enough to cover that. |
|
|
|
Where do I find this puzzle, a link or some sort of destination would be amazing.
The closest thing I can think of is the collision reward scripts that created by another core dev Peter Todd (not Mike Hearn) and can be found on bitcointalk in this topic. |
|
|
|
I admit, I might be wrong in assuming that it was purchased as a collectible, however, it makes it appear this way from my eyes when he said he bought those bitcoins for his kids. I was not implying bitcoin is a collectible but it can be if you only want to hold it like a stamp collection without the intention of spending it or selling it.
But for his kids, if one of them is a good friend of Hunter Biden, the coins given to him would certainly be a medium of exchange that he can use to purchase drugs from the darknet hehehe.
You forgot the first rule, you shouldn't believe what politicians say. They say all kinds of lies. For all we know he may not even know how to spell Bitcoin let alone having bought anything. After all he is a multi millionaire who doesn't really care about "profit" to buy bitcoin, such people also are already living "above the system" so they don't need the privacy and sovereignty that decentralized money gives them. In other words bitcoin doesn't have any benefit for them which means there is a good chance that he is simply lying to try and get some votes. |
|
|
|
So I saw this and I see nobody talking about it, so I reckon people either do not know about it or it is not seen as a potential threat to Bitcoin. (Yes, I know it is focused only at the US, but I reckon it will branch out to the rest of the world soon.. or they will link to it)
Maybe things are different in US but banks have always offered "instant money transfer" from one account to another as far as I had a bank account. So this doesn't seem to be a new thing not to mention that this is super centralized which means it is not even on-topic to talk about it in a bitcoin forum let alone be a threat to bitcoin P.S. Lets not forget about the reversibility of such "instant transfers" in the centralized world. |
|
|
|
You can model the timezone of Satoshi if you were to analyze the code commits, forum posting patterns among other things and you'll realize that Satoshi mostly follows a specific sleep schedule. A possibility could be Satoshi turned off their miner as LoyceV has said but it could also be that his PC is just that slow and unstable to find a block. CPU miners were fairly unstable and slow, even for 1 difficulty blocks especially how optimized it was. Regardless, the nonce of the block is pretty special and follows a specific pattern. Jlopp has a nice writeup here: https://blog.lopp.net/was-satoshi-a-greedy-miner/The extra nonce of block 15 is lower than block 14 (0x010a versus 0x013e) so if we subscribe to lopp theory there has to be a wrap around. Maybe the client could have been restarted (maybe shut down overnight to start in the morning => ~8-10 hours) then after starting it took a long time (14-16 hours) to find the block hence the high incrementing of the extranonce to 0x010a. |
|
|
|
~
I'm not talking about Russia's gains from terminating the grain deal, which are fairly obvious, but about the less obvious reasons why Russia extended this seemingly unprofitable deal several times.
That was an interesting point regarding precision weapons. Whenever Turkey is involved that's a whole lot of complications on its own. A country that is geographically in the Eastern Bloc but is a part of NATO and dreams of being considered "part of Europe" while neither side wants them! So they play in the middle. One day they trade with Russia, the other day they try to shut down the sea route from Black Sea on Russia, then the other day they have conflict with a NATO member like Greece and clash with US in Syria. So it is understandable to have such deals or extend them while "encouraging" Turkey to play a different game and when Turkey starts to change face, such deals also lose their benefit. |
|
|
|
Regarding "bloodthirsty invaders such as the US in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq" is a lie ! Those were civil conflicts where the local population asked the US to protect the Afghan-speaking, Syrian-speaking, and Iraqi-speaking populations from the Kabul, Damascus, and Baghdad juntas.
I love how you repeated the exact thing that Russia says about Ukraine. Maybe they were right and Ukrainians did request Russia to come to their rescue and denazify Ukraine Why is Iran squealing at Russia over some foreign islands that are ancestral to the UAE?
That's even cuter than your previous jokes. The microscopic country called UAE was created in 1971 (that's 52 years ago) whereas these islands were part of Iran for the past 5000 years The term "ancestral" is not even defined for artificial countries that aren't even as old as the trees in my yard. If we start talking about history, UAE itself is part of Iranian soil that is under occupation and needs to be liberated... LOL |
|
|
|
~
There is at least one reason why the grain deal was also beneficial for Russia, and that is the answer to the question of why Russia waited a whole year to suspend the deal, although the original conditions were not met. Russia received a stream of parallel imports through Turkey, including electronic and optical components used in the manufacture of precision weapons. This was not advertised, but I think this is an open secret and the main reason why Russia does not run out of missiles, although this was predicted last spring. I think that now the flow of parallel imports goes through another country (for example, through the UAE), so the grain deal has been suspended.
There is never only one reason for these things, for example another reason is to increase the pressure on Europe. After all this is the next world war and it is being fought in multiple battlefields including energy, economy and food. Disrupting grain exports, fertilizer exports, etc. would show itself in the food market like the generally high food prices over the past year in Europe. Additionally this puts pressure on other countries as well, specially when accompanied by other countries messing with the markets like the recent Indian rice export ban or the last year's ban on oil and oily grains by a couple of countries. This could potentially have some economical benefits for Russia if they manage to struck new deals with countries that are affected (like in Asia and Africa) and increase their exports to those countries possibly even at higher prices. |
|
|
|
|
It is interesting that almost everyone remembers the "block size war" as the end of it in 2017 and with the shitcoin called bcash. In truth this "conflict" about scaling bitcoin lasted at least 5 years and it definitely wasn't just bcash versus bitcoin with only 2 sides. There were many sides or better said many different proposals for different approaches which we may categorize in a simple way into 2 or 3 categories.
1. The group saying bitcoin should scale using the second layer and should not have a hard fork.
2. The group saying bitcoin should only scale on-chain (layer one and only layer one) by hard forking to a bigger block size
3. The group saying both at the same time. This was short lived and was very messy mainly seen in SegWit2x which had its own separate issues.
Of course this is an oversimplification since for example the second group consists of many different approaches like one saying we should have a one time fork to a massive block size while another saying we should let the miners choose to change the size at any time they wanted, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
It is a very small scale free advertisement for bitcoin although I don't know why you think it is as "collectible" since this is just getting the name Bitcoin heard by a small number of people who may later decide to search a little about Bitcoin and find some articles and maybe this forum to learn more about this currency.
It is also definitely not big enough to be considered "mainstream" adoption, mainly because he is a candidate wannabe...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
