|
over a decade ago. (pre bitcoin) i was frugal but my mindset was that my "wants" were NEEDS. like i needed certain entertainment TV packages for movies and tv series. i needed to enjoy fast food as its more convenient then self cooking, i needed to go to the gym, sports clubs and night time activities, i needed X time off for vacations.. nothing was a want, everything felt as a need
then i got into bitcoin, and decade later im set, retired early and have no money worries
that said, im still frugal. where i dont see "needs" i just see wants. and now i question those wants and realise i dont need.
it can feel good to walk into a restaurant and know you can afford anything on the menu but buy the basic meal..
it can feel good to walk into thrift/charity store knowing you could afford the whole stores produce at their original unused retail rate, but you are buying the same thing second hand (i also do new retail price.. but i do enjoy frugalness too)
it can feel good to walk into a car dealership knowing you can buy their newest model full price, but then asking about their ex-display/ex-owned/trade-ins
just knowing i can doesnt mean i should
i still travel and enjoy experiences but i just dont have the "need" weight on my shoulder. and i realise how wasteful my "wants" were
some times the knowing i can but not needing too is a positive experience more so then going ahead and buying the luxury to fill a emotional hole some people have
i still spend, dont get me wrong. but my habits remain frugal and i still invest, and i do question my purchases even if i dont have to
best advice is.
look for things in life that make you happy. then do them. knowing your investments are also happening side by side so you get to look after yourself now and in the future
there is nothing wrong with being frugal about wasteful spending,, if you then spend on the things you really enjoy too
|
|
|
|
Sometimes as a rational thinker, I've tried to wrap my head around how China has been able to sustain their economy with an estimated GDP growth of 3.00 percent and per CAPITAL GDP of 18187.98 USD, Especially owing to the fact that, they have to much people heavily dependent on her economy and population of over 1.400 billion people.
the answer is simple when public services like hospitals, road maintenance is done in-house by government contractors. the costs are actually done "at cost" rather than giving funds to private companies where there is a 2-3x charge which private companies add on. so they do not have to "print" as much money during covid to be syphoned off by private business at 3x profit. when they build the hospitals for covid they built them far cheaper then the US gov budget handed out to medical corporations to handle covid instead of handing citizens $1xk per quarter. they instead employed people to do shopping deliveries and welness checks thus people did not have extra out of pocket expense staying home when you look how much fraud happened in america about the covid grants. you soon start to see who wasted more money |
|
|
|
Edit: Also, Satoshi explicitly said something about uploading videos: I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
That's one of the reasons for transaction fees. There are other things we can do if necessary.See? The answer was not "just use OP_PUSHDATA4, and upload it". The answer was "fees are needed to discourage that". And even more: "if fees will not be sufficient, then we can do something else to limit it further". That's what he said, as you can see above, and click on the link to the quote to confirm it. .. some trolls that dont want junk to stop. think the only way is fee's they also pretend the only way via fee's is everyone pays more equally.. there are many other ways to limit it. such as adding rules to opcodes to limit length(remove assumes and add conditions). and also penalise just certain opcodes for using certain opcodes. multiply base fee by 2000x much like the dev policis decision to multiply legacy by 4 |
|
|
|
I wonder, since solar storms move as fast as light, how can we see them and alert earthlings in time?
dumbing it down the "light" moves at different speed than the "energy" |
|
|
|
The Internet has become life in most people and most transactions. Scientists will surely take action to prevent its breakdown otherwise,
scientists dont take action.. its the IT admin in businesses that take action. its the IT admin that needs to convince their CEO to keep a stockpile of replacements to use in an emergency. usually the problems stem from CEO's wanting to budget and cost cut. |
|
|
|
It is a curious question, rather than saying that it is out of context, because it is, so , an asking about ir on equivalence is; "What color is it, the orange bitcoin logo?"
In reality, no amount held by any person with limited resources will get them out of poverty and that fallacy of taking "x" percentage of their salary does not work either when the poor generally earn less than three figures per month ($). .
money is a mental construct that confuses many people even millionaires can be 3 mortgage payments away from bankruptcy/foreclosure "rich" is a human mental construct too. peoples lifestyle and spending changes the more they have, where even rich people only have X amount of months spending money in reserves if they carry on at their lifestyle spending level.. anyone can end up poor within months however no matter the level of income. if your able to live the day/month on it. then to secure surviving 1 month, 6 months, 20 years of that level you have to save something to build that assurance poverty is not just about inability to drive a lambo.. its actually about can you survive your current lifestyle if a financial chaos happened. like unemployment or sudden bill, or debt collectors came knocking and yes even the "rich" have their lambo's repossessed .. once you build your nest eggs of savings to help alleviate the risks of financial turmoil. those nest eggs can themselves overtime help you further to raise your standard of living |
|
|
|
|
most adult people dont even know how credit cards function behind the plastic. they just learn how to swipe/use it
most adult people dont even know or even understand or even taught about the economics of credit/debt
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoin does not have a brain, does not have a soul, does not have arms, does not have legs, does not have a mouth, does not have eyes, does not have genitals
bitcoin does not care about gender. bitcoin does not look for particular gender, bitcoin does not priorities gender
however in any society. you have to look at real things
peoples own preferences for their own career, work, hobbies and preferences.. and yes women and men do have their own preferences
|
|
|
|
I hear a lot about how big blocks will reduce decentralization and make things harder for I dividual miners.
Mining is already pretty centralized, almost no blocks are mined by miners outside of pools... The difficulty is so high it's hard to mine on your own. But even with bigger blocks, how would that prevent someone from mining like he does now? If someone is going to invest hundreds of thousands $ in mining equipment, are we to assume that they can't invest at an internet connection that is at least at ADSL or 3g speeds?
mining has nothing to do with blocksize and blocksize has nothing to do with mining mining hashes a blockheader.. blockheaders and hashes remain the same size no matter the blockdata part containing transactions becomes people can still mine from home. they can buy their own full size asics or USB miners. the hashrate is linked to difficulty but difficulty is not related to blocksize. the reward amount of sats is related hashrate and to market price not blocksize directly here is the thing if bitcoin transaction users have to pay more per fee.. less people want to use bitcoin, less want to buy bitcoin. less people want to transact with bitcoin.. this is a bad economic game like only having one table in a restaurant thinking the restaurant can stay profitable serving one customer a day by charging that one customer huge price for a meal.. however more transactions per block does not harm miners or break miners but does allow more transactions and more users and more opportunity to get profit from more people without charging people outrageous prices.. thus more sustainable economic model Can somebody show me some data or a paper to support this?
I am genuinely curious, bitcoin's block size from 1 MB going to 4 MB didn't cause any such issues. Propagation time on Bitcoin is already pretty good. We are not talking about decreasing block times here.
the 6 trolls against blocksize increases are not thinking with their head about pros-cons for bitcoin. they instead are thinking using their training on how to promote that people should use other networks. the fun part is their other network promotions/training admits that nodes can handle relay/verification of millions of transactions a second.. so there is no node problem for dozens of thousands per second reasonable request |
|
|
|
|
i see it as $7.5m will be wasted on 300,000tx of $25 fee to scam people into paying more then $100 per junk, to hope to keep their reserves full to keep the scam flowing
|
|
|
|
We are now at 33% for, 33% undecided, and 33% against!  Actually, who cares about this. That issue was solved a long time ago by splitting BCH and BTC. FRANCY1, save me from the sensors who deleted my subject like common spam. Is the truth disturbing? Sorry to impose on myself like this before my probable disappearance...
What does this memory dump have to do with block size? nothing he posted nonsense in a topic unrelated to what he was trying to announce(newbies cant create new topics) its some troll that every year creates a new account just to announce he knows the identity of satoshi due to some book he read.. it seems he enjoys me debunking him, i think he tries to use lessons from my debunks to improve his trolling/tweak his script later.. but he never wins.. |
|
|
|
Yeah, and they why should I care about that? Peer-to-peer cash. Not trusting third parties. Do these remind you anything? I'm pretty sure you'll have to trust some data center after the 100 MB proposal is accepted, unless you're willing to pay ~500 GB of space each year. no one is saying 100MB by 2024.. you and your forum family troll scenarios numbers the exaggerations, miscounted and just make you look dumb.. but heres the thing you dont know.. math 100mb blocks at your extreme is not 500GB/year... its actually 5.2TB a year and hard drives these days you can get 16TB for less than your household TV you dont need to buy a $xbillion server centre now put the cost of a few years of running a bitcoin node.. true math and then look at logical 1tx a day cost per transaction for the same few years.. then come back and tell the forum which costs more.. securing or spending.. (hint the fee's are the problem not the hardware) |
|
|
|
That's because that's what you believe. In my personal opinion, it's probably better to maintain its current course of development and value decentralization and security more than the accomodation of a higher number of transactions through bigger blocks.
that is not your personal opinion. its plageurised script from a group of idiots that lulled you into repeating their narrative just reciting the mantra of the party line.. without doing any math, or independent thought/analysis of what he is about to write Plus do you actually believe a single decentralized database could process all of the trillions of financial transactions per day? No? Then use Netflix's centralized/federated data centers with their very-low-latency, high-rate-of-data transfer. That would probably fix the problem. But that wouldn't be a protocol called Bitcoin.
you then double down by using nonsense exaggerations, exaggerations that are not even original or well thought out there are 8 billion people on the entire planet. and not all of them use one currency.. but lets say they did.. for "trillions of transactions" requires each person to buy 12 items a days SEPARATELY for one trillion.. you used plural so multiply it by your magic plural amount you have in your head.. but becasue not everyone uses one currency naturally, lets take yours 250m mature people(toddlers dont shop for themselves) using the dollar. they do not even do 3 billion transactions per day so stop with the exaggeration that one currency needs to do trillions.. let alone billions of transactions a day you training of a discussion of reasonable adjustments at regular periods vs your stupid training of pretending the argument is about "gigabytes by next year" huge leaps, make you look foolish get away from your training officer(forum-daddy) and think for yourself. he is not helping you try to use actual data, real statistics, math and logic.. not some story some troll you call daddy tells you |
|
|
|
After reading most of the posts, I'm sticking to my views, it's Taboo if by increasing the blocksize to avoid network congestion the individual miners are getting eliminated from the Network, Increasing Blocksize can be a potential solution for Bitcoin but it is inefficient, because with this solution there will be another mess about the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin.
The proposal accepted is open if increasing the blocksize individual miner's power is not affected because we don't want our node to be controlled by only large entities. Network congestion can be a problem but having a solution risking the entire nature of the network is a big mess. Simply avoid moving coins in network congestion in such scenarios until we have a better solution to scaling rather than increasing the block size only.
try reading again a miner does not even see full blockdata. a miner simply hashes a header (hashes a hash of a header to be more precise) the header and hash which miners are involved in never change their length no matter how big a transaction or blocksize is |
|
|
|
Again you're making the same mistake, by saying that if a shitcoin doesn't have the needed popularity for 10MB capacity Bitcoin should either.
No, you misinterpreted me. All I'm saying is that even with 10 MB, you will still sooner or later run out of block space, and fee market will arise. The difference is that you will have traded a percentage of the expenses of the user for the risk to split the network in half, and that there will be greater incentive to use it as a cloud storage. whilst worrying about "expense of the user" a $150 hard drive bought in 2012 and is 3TB which is enough for historic data plus future data of next 5 yearsof 10mb blocks... thus dividing cost by 17 years is less then $10 a year you are ignoring that instead of 2500 average legacy transactions there can be 25,000 legacy average you are ignoring that instead of 4000 lean legacy transactions there can be 40,000 legacy average where by instead of paying $2 a day for daily use ($730/year) they can pay $73/year, saving them $637/year so while you point fingers at the $10/year hardware cost your ignoring the $730/year transaction cost for daily use I have pointed out that your analogy with the roads isn't accurate. If we double the roads, it doesn't mean the cars will double. But if the block size limit is 10 MB, then you should expect it to be full. If the block size is 100 MB, same. And same with 1 GB. If you take a look into BSV, they save entire movies. That is a verification nightmare, kills off the competition for small mining pools, and turns the currency into a shitcoin.
movies dont get verified.. thats how they get in.. they bypass verification also transaction verication of actual bitcoin rules for transactions is done 99.99% of the time at the pre-confirm relay of zero-confirm transactions.. funnily enough your favoured subnetwork devs had admitted that verifying transaction data shows nodes can handle millions of transactions a second.. funnily enough when node mempools hold 300mb of validated transactions and a block contains only 4mb.. your arguments about what a node can handle fall flat on its face |
|
|
|
What is the minimum amount of bitcoins a poor person should have? and the minimum time it should be Hold/retained?
much like fiat.. people should have 3 separate limits A. save enough to have a (1 month) non paycheque-to-paycheque rainy day/emergency expense budget (spend as you please once profitable) B. save enough to have 6-12month unemployment period survival fund(save for times when there is no income coming in for many months) C. invest enough for a peaceful 20 year retirement lifestyle(sont touch for decades) usually people can only afford to put aside X%.. EG: 8% of income takes them 12months just to accumulate 1 month of (A) when poor (B) can take half a dozen years to accumilate to ensure they can survive if made unemployed (C) can take(depending on age) 50 years of hoarding to then look after them(after cumulative interest) for 20 years also peoples level of "poor" is different per nation.. a US/UK is poor at $£7/hour income.. someone in 3rd world countries deem it $£0.15/hour so the amounts are subjective .. dont think that you must save like crazy into one pot/address and then only spend when your grandkids are born. just save what you can afford and split it into 3 addresses which you only spend on 3 different conditions when you first save. put post into address(A) to look after you sooner for short term emergency then address B then address C EG initially A 70% B 20% C 10% (if income affordability to invest is 8% of monthly income: A: 5.6%m.i B:1.6%m.i C.0.8%m.i) once you accumulated enough in A to look after you for a month.. it becomes B 70% C 30% (if income affordability to invest is 8% of monthly income: B: 5.6%m.i C.2.4%m.i) once you accumulated enough in B to look after you for 12 month.. it becomes C 100% (8%m.i) no one can say what amount. because each nation has different living costs so most people have different ranges of fiat-amount vs sats |
|
|
|
its also worth noting that CORE stop supporting windows versions when windows stop supporting their old versions
windows 7 bbecame unsupported in 2020 so windows 8 is min standard core devs find viable for bitcoin now
windows 8 was first released in 2012. and 3TB hard drives in 2012 were only $150 back then. You do realize that Windows is a far more popular desktop OS (compared to Linux) due to the fact it offers backwards compatibility with multi-decade old apps (like 32-bit apps from the 90s), right? point was.. when core set the standards and put a age limit on their support.. it funny how some of them and their fangirls then try to incite some taboo that bitcoin cant run on windows 98 thus must(in their eyes) require quantum computer server farm.. (one extreme to another, no middleground) i was simply using their standards against them that even their 12 year old computers can be $400 back then and still able to handle historic data PLUS many years of future data even if bitcoin scales.. simply to debunk their own myths using their own standards its fun to us their own standards against them |
|
|
|
It is laughable to pretend that the same levels of security and decentralization exist in BSV, Solana, etc. If other coins "manage to do the impossible", how come they are still shitcoins?
you do know that ASICS do not store blockdata right.. they just hash a hash (a hash is the same length no matter the blocksize.. a blockheader is the same length no matter the tx data total) the "security" of hash cost has NO correlation to block size the reason altcoins are shit is due to the fact that the social steer towards them does not exist. most altcoins have no underlying value and their market price is artificially held up. they have no good 'store of value' the market speculation vs underlying economic store of value... has nothing to do with block bytes the block bytes have nothing to do with hashpower cost/security as just told to blackhat.. the scalability(blocksize/tx count) <> security(mining) are not correlated scalability(blocksize/tx count) <> decentralisation are not in opposition the more transactions individuals can do the more individuals the less transactions, means users tend to not run nodes and just used centralised services for daily use once you get passed the myth ("PC's from a decade ago is not bitcoin capable"). you stop believing the myth instead you realise people can use old computer and not "servers" to run bitcoin even if it scales |
|
|
|
Weird..
Block 817,119 was mined at 04:44:31
817,118 at 04:43:10,
817,117 at 04:42:19
3 blocks in 2 minutes, how was that possible if 1MB blocks over 60 seconds is such a danger?
Oh, maybe a one in a year event, let's go just 30 blocks further over last night:
817,089 2023-11-16 23:49:47
817,088 2023-11-16 23:47:59
817,087 2023-11-16 23:47:34
Did I miss the news on the blockchain breaking down and bitcoin becoming unusable last night when those 3 blocks in under 90 seconds happened?
We constantly mine blocks under 60 seconds from each other for years by the thousands and there has been no problem whatsoever, how could one even think this would be a threat?
also it didnt break the tor nodes that relay/propagate at very slow internet speeds.. so the "speed" drama risk is also a myth, its also worth noting that CORE stop supporting windows versions when windows stop supporting their old versions windows 7 bbecame unsupported in 2020 so windows 8 is min standard core devs find viable for bitcoin now windows 8 was first released in 2012. and 3TB hard drives in 2012 were only $150 back then. thus the cost myth of running a ~$400 pc from 2012 being unable to handle bitcoin for next 10 years is a myth |
|
|
|
P.S. I don't think increasing block capacity has ever been a "taboo" as some like to exaggerate it. HOW it is increased has been the source of a lot of disagreement.
the great thing about the blockchain. is that there is piles of data to accumulate statistics from over X period XX%+ of blocks are XX%+ filled blocks total fees are >X sats per byte (block total fees / block total byte) transaction count vs sat/byte fee heck you can even formulate if blocks are prefering "batch" vs "individual" EG individuals usually only do a couple outputs.. (destination+change) so if transactions have too many outputs it shows users are prefering to batch up transactions or use centralised services that batch .. it does not have to be a political decision done by devs. it can be a programmed trigger based on the data |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
