|
A "trend" requires an ongoing movement in the market that takes a long time not a sudden drop that lasts less than 24 hours that takes the price from $31k to $27k and then remains there. The only "trend" that we had in bitcoin in the past two months (from roughly March 15) is sideways not bull nor bear.
|
|
|
|
Miners, users, Satoshi himself, did make usage of it, when there was surplus in block capacity.
The protocol is slightly flexible in some places where it can be used like that. For example when Satoshi inserted that text in the coinbase of Genesis block. But it is both within the rules without any exploitation and also it is very limited to 100 bytes. You can't even begin to compare that with the Ordinals Attack that is both exploiting the protocol and injecting as much data as they can into the blocks with basically no limit apart from the block size. But honestly, let's assume you censor -or as you call it "fix the exploit"- and make Ordinal transactions invalid; what if they adopt another encoding scheme, which wasn't "exploited", like OP_RETURN? What then? You'll soft fork and make OP_RETURN with data_size >= x invalid? What if they switch to completely indistinguishable monetary transactions? That's right. What if they send 0 coins to plethora of 256-bit addresses? Until when will you scrutinize other people's transactions to enforce your Bitcoin ideals?
What you are forgetting is that we've already done all of that! There is a limit on everything to keep spams like Ordinals out. It has been like this forever. OP_RETURN size is limited. Every output size is also limited to standard outputs (P2PKH, P2SH, etc.) witness sizes (for version 0) are limited, stack item sizes are limited, transaction sizes used to be limited, and a lot more that I have iterated too many times in this topic! Nobody has ever complained about preventing spam for 14 years until the Ordinals Attack appeared which is pretty weird to me if I'm honest with you. But, when these ideas were raised, no one took issue with it. I don't recall anyone at that point in time saying "No, Bitcoin is just for money" and that it can't be anything else.
They did take issue with it from day one, and by they I include Satoshi himself. For example by principle the BitDNS project was like Ordinals, storing data on bitcoin blockchain: Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
This is not the only time either. Ethereum was also supposed to be as part of Bitcoin and we all know how that ended up. We also didn't sit idly by just rejecting everything anybody proposes, other better solutions were proposed. For example for BitDNS the NameCoin as a separate cryptocurrency was created. For turing complete smart contracts the Ethereum was created. Even to help these smaller projects not to have a weak security things like merge mining were invented. And a lot more including the existing bitcoin side-chain projects. My hope is merely that the silly-picture-brigade loses momentum and people go back to looking at the more "legitimate" use-cases regarding property rights and such.
The problem doesn't lie in the content at all. After all BitDNS idea was cool and useful too and yet it shouldn't have happened on bitcoin blockchain because the problem is that they are trying to swat a fly using a sledgehammer. |
|
|
|
If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with.
Not a fair compression IMO, I didn't compare the Ordinals Attack and its preventive measures with SegWit. I pointed out that in 2017 people were attacking core devs and anybody supporting SegWit trying to prevent it from happening and we didn't listen and pressed on. This time it's different, many people will view it as "censorship", doesn't matter what we think of those folks who buy some money's png for a few thousand dollars, they still make a community, and the market cap of those BRC-20 tokens is now nearly half a billion $ in value, the trading volume of those tokens in the past 24H was $105,489,791, with nearly 30 projects built on BRC20, so it's not just a few mad folks who buy things that others think of as "worthless", they seem to have a large community, and many of those famous Youtubers and folks on Twitter bought into these shit tokens and are already promoting them, it is easy to understand the pressure on whoever leads a "ban" plan on these guys.
Back in 2017 those who were performing the different types of attack on bitcoin were also a community and their funds surpassed at least tens of millions of dollars. You are also going to have to convince mining pools to side with you and ditch the massive gains they started to make from those BRC-20 transactions, so a "ban" it is doable, but not easy at this point.
Again in 2017 the mining pools were making massive amount of profit from the spam attack and yet we managed to activate SegWit and the attack was also eventually eliminated. |
|
|
|
I have been studying the secp256k1 for the past 2 months, and tried at least 40-50 methods to figure out which one could be used to crack the target k by hand, not using automated existing tools.
Experts and mathematicians have been trying to crack elliptic curve cryptography ever since 1985 and they only have a handful of methods and haven't been able to make any meaningful progress. But good luck to you... other coins copy pasted bitcoin's curve with a bit of modification, what is special about it?
Actually other coins that copy the ECC part of bitcoin, are creating an exact copy without any modification. The changes they make is elsewhere like the address encoding and PoW (eg. LTC, Doge, ETH) or they just replace the curve itself (eg. NIST P-256 in NEO). What @ecdsa123 is doing has nothing to do with other coins though, they are just pointlessly manipulating the basics of the math behind the algorithm to sell a silly script to anybody who falls for it. |
|
|
|
Guys, why are you so hard on OP?
There are generally 3 reasons. The most obvious one is trolling where even if I say the sky is blue these particular trolls will deny it and say it is some other color. As they say کی شود دریا ز پوز سگ نجس  Second is being too brainwashed with the propaganda that they are incapable of thinking anymore, this is masterfully summarized in this semi-recent picture about the regular derailments of trains in US some of which are unprecedented environmental disasters! And finally is because some people think these things are in black and white. For example when we talk about energy crisis these people think that it means nobody should be left alive in Europe anymore (freeze to death)! And because that obviously doesn't happen, they claim that there was no energy crisis whatsoever. This may sound crazy but their arguments are saying exactly this! They also refuse to see everything else like the deindustrialization that has been going on over the past year and the trillions of dollars of markets that Europe lost, the banks that collapse and are on the verge of bankruptcy, the companies that either go bankrupt or have to fire large number of employees to stay alive (~170k layoffs in past 3 months), or the cost of living crisis in UK or the fact that we entered the fifth month of violent protests in France over the economic crisis caused partly by the energy crisis, etc. |
|
|
|
Indeed, it is very ironic to bring the "my freedom" (to spam) argument while at the same time act like a dictator. DooMAD is of the opinion that being free to transact, as in freedom, is more important than being free to transact, as in beer. But even if you prioritize transaction costs rather than censorship-resistance: the Bitcoin network being congested should be seen as the normal state. I don't want to disappoint you, but you'll have to be more generous with the miner, because sooner or later you'll become his main income. There is no bright future for Bitcoin without a shitload of unconfirmed transactions, so if you're here for low costs, better study second-layers. Yes of course congested is always going to be the normal state of Bitcoin. We wouldn't want it any other way, because if it isn't congested that means people aren't using it. But there is a huge difference between congested with monetary transactions and congested with stupid crap like using it for cloud hosting of silly images. Most people I think want it congested because it is useful money, and don't want the people who use it as useful money to have a hard time using it because it is instead congested with stupid jpeg cloud hosting. We're at a problem now when unintended uses are starting to spam the blockchain. It's not a huge problem at the moment, but during the next bull market, or in a few years when 10x as many people use Bitcoin as today, it's gonna be a serious problem if these Jpeg pushers are still around taking away space from people who are actually trying to use Bitcoin for its intended purpose. Exactly. Just one correction: the content of what they store on bitcoin blockchain is not important at all. I keep saying that even if they store the cure for cancer (as opposed to monkey pics), it still is malicious. Generally speaking the arguments about decentralization, censorship resistance, fee market, etc. that some users like DooMAD keep bringing up are not wrong on their own, the problem is that they have nothing to do with this topic! Since we aren't arguing about normal usage of bitcoin, this Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System that led to all these troubles. We are arguing about a malicious usage of this system for something it is not designed to be (a cloud storage) that is causing problems. |
|
|
|
What Is Hyperbitcoinization? Hyperbitcoinization is the inflection point at which Bitcoin becomes the default value system of the world.
This is not going to happen anytime soon. The world is still too selfish and too centralized to want to adopt a decentralized currency as the "default value system". Not to mention that for the foreseeable future majority of countries are going to push their own centralized fiat (both traditional and CBDC). ~ said that HyperBitcoinization is coming soon, he went on to say that "Should the existing trend continue, BTC price growth would soon make buying it not only a luxury but something unattainable altogether".
Maybe the definition of hyperbitcoinization is different, but if we define it as "increased adoption and high price" then yeah that is going to happen. There is a lot of reasons for it too. We have the current centralized financial system that is slowly falling apart with banks that keep going bankrupt and the fiat currencies that are being printed nonstop causing high inflation rates. It is bound to push people into thinking about alternatives like bitcoin. Regardless of the current market situation the onchian analysis shows that the adoption is rapidly increasing. |
|
|
|
If these are better, then why are they not being used?
The real question you should be asking is the purpose of this whole thing. These options are better if the purpose is to create a decentralized, censorship resistant, strong protocol to run smart contracts on. But if the purpose is to have a centralized censorable non existent protocol just to be able to create a market to sell satoshis at a much higher value then none of those options are "better" anymore. To put simply if you try to sell a token created on Omni layer or on any of the existing sidechains like Rootstock you will never be able to sell it for high prices or at all. But if you create a fake thing directly on bitcoin, we now know that you can sell it for a very high price! Perhaps one of those is a better solution but people just aren't aware. What's the best action to take in that case?
A real developer is aware and they should be building their projects on top of them and then advertise to let others know. Remember that people didn't know Bitcoin existed in 2008 either. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin mining is both a business and an investment. Just like a business you have to know how to run it and how to remain competitive so that you can keep that business alive. Also just like an investment you may see profit and losses with the ups and downs of the market and the total hashrate.
Don't think of mining as some easy money making method. It is a serious business. Plan ahead and do some research. As others said you need to see if you have access to electricity at a competitive rate (I'd say anything less than 5 cents per KWH is good).
You should also plan for market volatility. For example are you going to sell every coin you get from mining right away or can you afford to hold for a better sell opportunity? This may require additional investment to cover the electricity and other costs without selling your coins to maximize profitability.
|
|
|
|
Well this is the question I was asking myself too. Wouldn't that be at least partially true? Your example of "dapps running on bitcointalk" only falls apart because bitcointalk is not an immutable decentralized chain.
The question I have is that, if by storing every transaction's "arbitrary bytes" on Bitcoin, guaranteeing its immutability and persistence, if you're able to store your smart contract AND completely recreate the entire "state" of the transactions performed on it by using solely what's stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, wouldn't you have effectively built it on bitcoin?
I guess the flaw remains only in verifying the truthfulness of this information, and if there is a method decentralized and trustless enough to consistently verify the truthfulness of this information by any given party.
The main characteristic of a "smart contract" is its execution not its storage. - Consider vending machines for example. The platform is centralized but it can execute the contract. You insert the money and select what you want, then the machine executes its smart contract and if it passes it automatically returns what you ordered. If you store that smart contract on bitcointalk which is centralized and mutable like the vending machine, it becomes arbitrary bytes because bitcointalk can not execute it. - Now consider a P2WPKH smart contract. When you spend that output, the system (or full nodes) automatically "executes" that smart contract and if it passes your funds are transferred; otherwise you are prevented to execute that smart contract (ie. to spend someone else's money). If you store your P2WPKH on bitcointalk it similarly becomes arbitrary useless bytes. Not because what you stored is not a smart contract or useful, but because bitcointalk can not execute them. Even if you manage to convince some other people that what you stored on bitcointalk has value and sell it to them! - Now consider the arbitrary bytes that they are injecting into the blockchain using an exploit like Ordinals Attack. Who executes these contracts? Certainly not Bitcoin! That means it doesn't matter if Bitcoin is decentralization with a n immutable blockchain. That contract is executed elsewhere in another protocol on another platform that can be controlled by centralized entities that change the rules of it whenever they want. Exactly like Tether, a centralized protocol with a centralized platform that only stores arbitrary data on bitcoin blockchain (using OP_RETURN as Omni layer). The centralized entity controlling Tether can freeze your funds, increase/decrease the supply cap, ... Now the full circle; if they mange to create a decentralized network then there is no need to use bitcoin blockchain anymore! It can execute and store the smart contracts at the same time. Can even be merge mined with bitcoin so that it can benefit from the huge hashrate bitcoin has. |
|
|
|
|
The ongoing recession and high inflation that United States is struggling with is the reason for the sell pressure we have been seeing in the bitcoin market (among other reasons). The new records that US national debt sets every day ($31.79 trillion right now) is also the result of that alongside the constant money printing policy to fight these crisis.
|
|
|
|
But it does prove that guessing btc private keys can be successful.
The only thing that your post proves is that either you are too confused about what happened (if we give you the benefit of the doubt), or .... You also didn't need to move the coins to prove you have "found" the key, you could sign a message from the address that has the balance and post it here as proof... It’s possible that the way he coded his program was to start at private key 0. Which is low entropy. And these have been sweeped years ago but someone maybe sent some funds to one address which has a low entropy key but the fee to sweep it is higher than the value of the bitcoins inside, since fees are high right now.
It is a possibility but a small one since usually there are many "scripts" written to watch these keys for any funds and steal them right away. Which means it is nearly impossible to see any of them having any confirmed balance for long. |
|
|
|
|
As long as you diversify for your retirement, bitcoin is definitely an excellent option to have in your "basket". It has a tremendous amount of potential for growth and more importantly we are still in very early stages of adoption and far away from reaching mass adoption.
But you have to be careful about the other options you choose. It depends on certain factors like where you live, your personal preference and knowledge about that asset, time, etc. For example these days the stock market is the worst choice specially in places like US and Europe where the recession is creeping in and majority of companies have been having lots of troubles with energy crisis, inflation, etc. that they had to fire employees or even some file for bankruptcy, all of which has led to more dumps in the market.
|
|
|
|
This is actually the soundest proposal I've read in days (although bitcoin core developers cannot really take any action themselves at this point, or they will be attacked from all sides by the press and "youtubers" and nobody will use their invention. Just look at what happened with dashjr's comment if you don't believe me.)
If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with. The only way I'm thinking it can be done is, to create a new hype technology?
That's the main problem. The tokens are useless as an idea this is why any alternative is not going to work. We already have other "hype technology" from Ethereum to all the other token platforms. We even have at least 3 bitcoin sidechains and protocols created with the purpose of "token creation". However their uselessness means none of these are going to become serious projects. In other words this means that they NEED TO create their garbage inside bitcoin blockchain to gain any kind of hype since at this point they have exhausted all their options. That means the only viable solution is the "ban hammer" |
|
|
|
The premise is that the dapps are running on bitcoin.
No they are not. Just because you can store arbitrary bytes on bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a vulnerability in the new scripts introduced by Taproot that doesn't mean they are running on bitcoin. Imagine if you stored the same bytes for a "token" (the smart contract in byte form) on bitcointalk inside a forum post. Can you claim that "dapps are running on bitcointalk"? |
|
|
|
|
If you look at the historical charts you can clearly see that rises have started after downtrends and very abruptly too. In fact the 100% rise back in 2017 near the end of bull run only took place in 2-3 weeks. So saying that "half the year is gone so there is no way we can see a rise" is historically and fundamentally wrong.
As for the market, I don't see any major rises in near term because of the silly reasons stated in OP but because of the way global economy is. The recession is affecting bitcoin price and is the main preventing reason for the rise. Even though the effects of it is decreasing as time goes by because more people are still coming in than going out.
|
|
|
|
On the contrary , ordinals began on 14-12-2022 , at that time btc was at 17k .
It takes a lot of time for a scam to start gaining traction. Just like Ethereum that started back in July 2015 but until about 2017 the token hype and the massive pumps hadn't really began. How this would affect miners ? Pre ordinals price was much lower , blocks were almost empty and hashrate was making new ATH's . I see no problem . Fee market works as it was suppose to work . Supply and demand rules .
Wrong. Pre ordinals blocks were mostly full but the mempool was empty (not congested) and price was at the bottom getting ready to rise. Then the attack grew in size and the mempool got congested and also it contributed to the price drop. |
|
|
|
This attack has even created additional sell pressure on the market and has been one of the main contributors to stopping the rise and bringing the price down from $30k level. In other words not only attacks such as Ordinals are not going to ever help the adoption, but they do the exact opposite. Not to mention those who "gamble" with the scams called tokens aren't even buying bitcoin to help the price rise, like some users loved to speculate. This is also going to affect miners since their revenues would go down with the price and after fees go down |
|
|
|
|
I think the market is going to get more wild this month or in other words we can see bigger size sideways market in the coming weeks. On one hand we have the manipulators and the attackers that are directly and indirectly creating chaos in the market. On the other hand we still have the money coming in and buying bitcoin cheap getting ready for the future rallies.
Then on top of all that we have the global economy that is in a chaotic state with the inflation still high and the recession growing at the same time. As I've said many times before, as much as inflation is good for bitcoin price, recession is bad for it.
|
|
|
|
The only way to avoid something like that is to impose a quota on ALL transactions involving Taproot outputs, which is not ideal at all.
It wouldn't be a new limit, but the limit that already exists. That is to say just copy the limits on witness version 0 to witness version 1 and we'd prevent the Ordinals Attack very easily! It also is very ideal because nobody has any use case that would need bigger witness size other than this attack. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
