The point of using a side-chain is to avoid spamming the mainnet with anything that is not a "transfer of money". It also has other benefits such as being able to have a clear and solid consensus rules that is enforced by a clear and solid network instead of some abstract "agreements" (instead of rules) defining an abstract protocol.

Not to mention that history proves that doing such things on bitcoin blockchain using "abstract agreements" would make those things centralized. Example Tether which is the centralized altcoin that grew using bitcoin blockchain.

That's what he means by "understanding the risks". Amount of fee a transaction pays (and fee rate) is one of the factors that can be used to determine the risk of accepting a transaction. There are other factors to analyze such as the parents of the transaction and whether they are confirmed or not. Another would be analyzing the transaction to see if there is anything non-standard or uncommon in it that would lead to miners not be willing to pick it up.

And some more. With these things one can use some sort of scoring system where 1 is super risky while 100 is risk free. Then the closer the "score" is to 100 the safer it is to accept.

Files are usually signed using GPG not ECDSA but you can still encrypt/decrypt messages (as in plain text) using Electrum. It has a GUI and the option is available under "Tools > Encrypt/decrypt message" option. It uses ECIES (ECDSA combined with AES) to encrypt/decrypt messages. The code can also be found here:
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/17a89efd3c19cbff1fbf76d24e5c246d6e0ed935/electrum/ecc.py#L344

Throw away private key I used:

Keep in mind that you can only decrypt messages with the keys that are part of your wallet. Don't import this key since it is publicly known or use a TestNet Electrum wallet and import the above key so that you don't accidentally forget and lose money by sending funds to this key.

A preview:


P.S. You can obviously sign and verify messages using ECDSA too. The option is available under the same path: "Tools > Sign/verify message"

You can inject any arbitrary thing into the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting the flaw in the Taproot scripts the same thing Ordinals Attack is doing. But that doesn't mean they will "expand capabilities" since none of them are part of the bitcoin protocol.
Solidity or Jpegs are seen and treated the same, as raw bytes.

I wonder if Handelsblatt newspaper received similar weird reactions from trolls when they published the same exact thing I posted here. Or is the reactions like this because I posted it... hmm...

I always publish the source of the data I post. If you have a hard time believing them, you should either dispute the numbers or take it up with the source. For example the part about 30% bankruptcies the troll doesn't like to mention is the source which was Siegfried Russwurm, head of the Federation of German Industries BDI in an interview on German TV.

It depends on which country you look at. For example the number of bankruptcies in UK is between 25 to 30% higher than previous years specifically years before pandemic. Or in countries in Central or Eastern Europe, like Hungary where the numbers grew significantly more compared to 2018-2019 (a 11x increase from 3700 to 41500).
Or in Turkey [which is included as parts of stats in Europe (!)] the number of bankruptcies grew by 80% compared to 2018.

On the other hand there are of course some other countries that set a better stats, like Greece with 50% decrease compared to 2018. Or Italy with 30% decrease.

However, the overall as the study says shows an increase in the number of insolvencies across Europe.

Number of transactions per block depends on the size of each transaction. After SegWit soft fork, it also depends on how many of them were using SegWit; the more SegWit transactions, the bigger the block and the higher the number of transactions in that block up to 4 MB. The smaller each transaction, the bigger the number of transactions in the block.

Take these two blocks, even though they are both special/extreme cases but are also good examples: 367,853 and 786,501

The first one is pre-SegWit so the max size is 1 MB (or 999,956 bytes to be exact) however it contains 12,239 transactions simply because the transactions in that block are among the smallest sizes possible*.
The second one is post-Taproot/post-Ordinals-Attack and the size is 3,978,938 bytes however it only contains 39 transactions simply because it contains a spam transaction of 3,969,494 bytes where the attacker pays $13500 to include that tx in this block!

* These are special cases that are not normally possible. In short this block is cleanup of another attack against bitcoin where the attackers flooded the chain with outputs with 0 satoshis paying to OP_TRUE.

If you change the content of the OP_RETURN in this tranasction to send 2000 USDT instead of 1000 USDT, the transaction is still a perfectly valid bitcoin transaction, will be relayed and mined. However it will no longer be a valid Tether/Omni transaction, and the Tether amount will not be transferred to the secondary address anymore.

Since none of these protocols are actually supported or enforced by the bitcoin protocol, we can't say "these 'tokens', etc. exist in bitcoin".

It is trivial to "surpass" bitcoin in market cap considering how easy it is to create fake supply (mc=supply*price) and how centralized shitcoins with huge premines like Ethereum have unlimited supply. But I don't see them gaining anything more than that, specially shitcoins that have a mutable blockchain with no real world utility that have been on a downtrend against bitcoin and have lost 60% of their value ever since 2017.

I try not to assume the worst of people in first encounter but in your case after I saw your post history and saw that this has been going on for almost a year I realized that this doesn't seem like "fun for a lazy afternoon" kind of deal.

In a study published on May 11, 2023 by the German credit agency creditreform it is revealed that last year (2022) because of the energy crisis that Europe experienced the number of insolvencies grew by 24.2% in Western Europe (EU-14, Britain, Switzerland and Norway) which is 139,973 companies and by 53.5% in Eastern Europe which is a total of 60,010 companies.

The largest increase of insolvencies were among these countries:
1. Austria 59.7%
2. Britain 55.9%
3. France 50.0%
4. Belgium 41.7%



The reasons stated for the huge increase in number of bankruptcies in the study are:
1. "Lack" of energy (or energy deficiency as I pointed out nearly a year ago)
2. High inflation
3. "Massive" rise in price of raw materials
4. "Massive" rise in price of energy
5. Significantly higher financing costs due to the turnaround in interest rates
6. Weakened economy


What makes it worse is that the energy crisis in Europe is not yet over. In fact expects predict this year it will be worse considering that Russian gas exports to Europe has significantly decreased compared to last year and nowhere near enough replacement has been found. Add to that the ongoing deindustrialization of Europe and as Hantzsch stresses:

Reference: https://www.creditreform.de/aktuelles-wissen/pressemeldungen-fachbeitraege/news-details/show/unternehmensinsolvenzen-in-europa-jahr-2022

Doesn't matter!
You are wasting electricity and computing power on a crime that is never going to succeed either (that crime being finding someone else's money and stealing it). If you dedicate that time and effort to mining bitcoin with ASIC or an altcoin with your system, you'd make more money which is also not a crime.

I believe everyone considers this an exploit considering that it was created because of an oversight in the Taproot implementation. There is nothing to dispute there. But some don't consider this an attack which in my opinion is weird considering that when someone exploits a protocol and abuses it, that's the literal definition of an attack

To be clear none of these are "bitcoin" token standards since none of these protocols exist in the Bitcoin protocol, and they are not enforced by it. These are centralized virtual ideas that only exist in centralized platforms that can change just as easily.

Sometimes people ask "when countries dump dollar, what are they going to replace it with?". The answer is "a lot of options", from another shitfiat similar to dollar (like euro in EU or yuan in international trades) to their own local currencies.
However, the last option seems to be gaining more adoption as we are seeing billions of dollars worth of trades between many countries using their local currencies instead of dollar.
For example India and Russia, despite having some dispute over the trade deficit are using their own currencies (Rupee and Ruble) in all their trades. We are seeing this method used specifically in "economic blocs", from BRICS to SCO and the most recent example among ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries with 10 main members: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam.

In the recent ASEAN summit 42 (9–11 May 2023) they emphasized importance of strengthening their economies and dumping the dollar. The replacement is of course each country's fiat currency. It is already implemented in some of the countries and some others are in the process of implementing the infrastructure needed for that.
It is done using Quick Response (QR) Code in a universal way but using local currencies.
https://en.tempo.co/read/1724432/asean-nations-to-implement-universal-qr-code-says-asean-bac-chair

We do not need a hard fork to fix the exploit they are using to attack bitcoin because the change would be adding more restrictions on the consensus rules instead of removing anything. This is backward compatible and can be achieved using a soft fork like all the previous soft forks.

It is nothing like the scaling debate because there aren't two sides proposing different approaches (increasing hard cap using hard fork vs increasing the capacity though soft fork + second layer).
The two sides in this case would be those arguing against abuse of the protocol and fixing the exploit versus those arguing that bitcoin should turn into a cloud storage.

Well it is impossible to give the best answer without knowing the reason why you want to create this many "wallets" per day!

For example if it is some sort of project to "get lucky" and find a funded address then it is a waste of time but also the answer to such question is that you shouldn't create "wallets" but to create keys and in such a scenario you won't need to store them so there is no need to discuss databases, etc.

But if the project is for some sort of centralized service then things are very different, you do need to create "wallets" and you do need "storage". But then again the details depend on the type of the service. What you would do for a custodian web wallet is different from non-custodian web wallet and different from an exchange and also different from if you want personal wallet for a service receiving payment (last one needs a single wallet with many "child" keys).
In these cases you would need to discuss database (what to use and how).

I can keep going but I think you get the gist. The other replies here are also all over the place because they don't know your purpose.

P.S. Although with "10 mil/day" I'm guessing your goal is the first thing I said!

Electrum wallet is not designed to handle large number of keys/transactions so I seriously doubt it can perform well for anything beyond a couple of hundred keys.

The bull run in general is not in any kind of trouble. What we have these days is a very similar situation to what we had back in 2017.

The bull run starts then as it is starting to gain momentum an attack starts against the network. Back in 2017 it was a spam attack flooding the mempool with garbage which would then increase the fees and make it hard for anybody to use bitcoin. And today it is the same with another attack called Ordinals where they too are flooding the mempool and doing the same.

Meanwhile market manipulators abuse the situation to crash the market, even though this time it was a small drop. We have to wait and see how much strength does the initial momentum have to counter the manipulation.

To be clear you can NOT create any kind of tokens on Bitcoin blockchain. The protocol simply doesn't support that. Any other alternative centralized network can decides to interpret any of the bitcoin transactions in any way they like.

It is a scam but that's not even the thing people are arguing about.
All the problems that the Ordinals Attack is creating is because they are abusing Bitcoin and are exploiting the protocol.
As I've said many times in the past, even if people were using Ordinals to store cure for cancer on bitcoin blockchain, Ordinals still would be considered a malicious attack.

I disagree with this part for a couple of reasons:
1- Altcoins are only cheaper because nobody uses them and their price is very low. As a matter of fact if usage of majority of them increased by a small percentage (a tenth of bitcoin usage increase) their fees would rise a lot more than bitcoin's.
2. They are not faster. Most of them produce more blocks per 10 minutes on average but that doesn't make them "fast" simply because they don't provide the same level of security. In simple terms 1 bitcoin confirmation is usually equal to tens of confirmation on an altcoin chain and in some cases tens of thousands and in a couple of case no matter how many confirmations you get on that altcoin chain it will never be secure (due to being centralized or having mutable blockchains).

That is a subcategory of smart contracts and this definition was popularized after the introduction of Ethereum. Otherwise ever since 1990s a smart contract is technically a program or a protocol that can be executed automatically without human intervention, trusted third parties, etc.

The best and simplest example of a smart contract is the vending machines which is the oldest implementation of them too.

That is incorrect.
Having a block size cap which would create a fee market in case of a spam attack which discourages/prevents prolonged attacks is not exactly called "network security". Security of the network relies on many things including hashrate and its decentralization. Not to mention that bitcoin was secure when the blocks had barely any transactions in them (in early couple of years) and it was still secure when the blocks were full and it is still secure when the mempool is congested.

For your information we have been "censoring" this types of malicious transactions from very early days of bitcoin to protect all principles of bitcoin including censorship resistance.

Nobody says limiting OP_RETURN size is against censorship resistance or saying limits on the witness size for version 0 program is against censorship resistance. Same with 50+ other limitations.
So why should limiting the size of witness version 1 be against censorship resistance?

US economy has indeed collapsed multiple times. The last 2 are in the 70's then about 30 years later in 2008 and now in less than 15 years it is on the verge of another collapse.

Keep in mind that empires don't collapse overnight. It is a long and gruesome process that can be slowed specially when they are actively trying to slow it down (not solve it though). For example USSR wasn't at the peak of its strength one day and destroyed the other. It took years and a very long cold war to break USSR apart.

US is also on the same path, although as the superpower of the unipolar world of the past US had managed to slow down its demise to buy time with methods like Petrodollar, invasion of oil rich countries to steal their resources, etc.
But today the world is very different. US not considered the only superpower anymore. US military that once was feared and by sending a carrier group they could do a regime change in a country before the carrier group reached it, is now seen as a weak militia at best where their bases are used for target practice!
In other words when Bush ordered destruction of 7 countries in 5 years to steal their resources back in early 2000's he never imagined that 20 years later the number of body bags they send back is going to be more than the number of barrels of oil they steal.
To put into numbers the ~$10 trillion they wasted in West Asia without anything to show for it and the massive $31.7 trillion national debt, nearly a trillion dollar in trade deficit, etc. is going to ensure the collapse of United States.

It is not just the economy that is on the verge of collapse. The political system with the serious polarity that can not be solved, the society that is no longer under control, the world that openly showing the lack of trust and interest in relations with US, etc. are all going to slowly lead US into its total collapse.

Well they never inscribed satoshis to begin with using the Ordinals Attack. They are saying it that way to make the attack look like a fancy protocol.

In consensus rules the only thing about values that is checked is that the sum of outputs is not bigger than sum of inputs. This is why you can send 0 satoshis and spend 0 satoshi outputs. It is also not a new thing. Here is the oldest transaction that did this from 2012:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3a5e0977cc64e601490a761d83a4ea5be3cd03b0ffb73f5fe8be6507539be76c
These transactions are non-standard and majority of nodes won't relay them.

The fix is actually trivial since it is a centralized service and modifying it with a workaround or a way to ignore this transaction or anything like it is very easy.

As I've said before, those who created this attack are very incompetent which has been clear from day one from the way they are abusing the exploit in Taproot scripts.