It has to do with putting ethics above the protocol. You would deny SBF's coins, because you find it so morally unacceptable to have him conceal his activity, that you'd give up Bitcoin principles to have him censored.  

It's a good analogy, because you carry the same shitty principles in real life. The moment someone did something you disapproved of in Twitter, you publicly doxxed them. You could have respected their right to privacy (as pro-privacy you call yourselves), but you did not.

Same strawman. Avoiding the essence, and repeating horseshit.

---

Of course. Just as denying to mix SBF's coins isn't censorship, because he's a criminal! 

What a satisfactory conclusion. I'm quite acknowledging the downsides of custodial mixers, though. Forfeiting ownership of your coins, first and foremost. In comparison with you, who's avoiding the outright lies, the evidence from address reuse, the partnership with blockchain analysis firm, etc., the list is quite endless.

WabiSabi, at the time writing this, can only be used practically via zkSNACKs' coordinator, which is supporter of mass surveillance.

Let's leave asides for a moment that you're actively funding blockchain analysis, that you're outright liars when it comes to fungibility, that judging by the given letter you're immature individuals, and that you (singular) have been caught to doxxing your competitor.

What about the address reuse that's been multiple times reported? There's an entire twitter page exposing you're a bad service. I honestly haven't seen such a dev team which disregards all the evidence before, it's almost impressive.

The community are the users. Users run full nodes. There very much exist a choice. Either not to run Core's software, or to run it with all the potential drawbacks.

Again, there very much exists consent, choice, user responsibility. It's just you who's incapable of noticing it. You're trapped in an imaginary dystopia where Internet strangers can somehow have individual freedom only if there is no freedom to encroach. And the problem is that you're so sure you're correct, that you're subconsciously refusing to accept the truth. Your ego is so big; so prioritized in your mind, that accepting the truth, and that you're wrong would put your psychological well-beingness in danger.

But your biological defenses are merely to protect this little, still properly working part of your brain. They are not designed to make you write good answers. That's why your entire post history is filled with garbage.

You're not very different than him:

How does this sound: I don't trust Wasabi developers' coding skills as much as Electrum's. Aside the fact they're outright liars, "privacy-preserving" hypocrites and childish responders, it is reasonable to trust Electrum as software more than Wasabi, because it's orders of magnitude more reviewed, tested, and used.

I think that, unless specified they're in favor of Wasabi after recent events, it's a little bit extreme to mark it supporter of mass surveillance. BTCPay is the best open-source bitcoin payment processor with lightning support I know of.

I know, but I've taken this more personally. Obviously, anyone with a little sense can notice that blacklisting and funding mass surveillance is against the Bitcoin spirit, but when that very supporter of blacklisting comes and tries to prove otherwise, I won't leave it unchallenged.

Here are some possible scenarios:

- I want to test Wasabi Wallet, and I'm required to send a small amount which can come back to my main wallet software.
- I want to mix less than 0.5 BTC, and I only possess an 0.5 BTC UTXO.
- I may don't like Wasabi Wallet as wallet software, and I only want to use it to coinjoin, which means I have to occasionally move coins from Wasabi to my main wallet software.

It's quite possible, and it is the user's fault. What the user does outside the wallet software isn't the wallet software's fault.

Well, sure, you can't stop a miner from doing anything at any moment, but my point isn't that. If we keep an eye on it, we can notice the differences of incentives overtime. Maybe, who knows, there might be a disincentive to protect the network sometime. Or an incentive to attack it. Quite hard to imagine, but since these aren't impossible, then maximizing profit from fees by congesting the network is right as well a possibility.

Absolutely. So in which criterion was lack of more than 64-bit guaranteed data type based on, in C89? At the time of publishing that standard (1989), one could argue problems didn't need more than that integer size, or it may have been unusable with processors of that time (I think MIPS32 and MIPS64 were popular in the early 90's, none of which could handle more than 64 bits number). And as I'm reading pooya's reply, we haven't exceeded that on the newest processors neither.

What? I know it gets tiring to repeat it again and again, but as you can see, it isn't grasped yet.

Depends on how rogue. If they're about to establish a 51% attack, they're pretty much undermining their own money. What they don't lose is the hash rate (comparably to open pools).

This is precisely why we should be keeping an eye on, and not rely exclusively on "fairness theories". There might be bad incentives in the future.

Just as it hurt with FTX, more or less. People would pretty much be mad again, they would not believe their eyes that after the collapse of Mt. Gox, Bitfinex, Coincheck, FTX etc., another shit-exchange would go down too. It'd be impossible, they're very secure etc. By the way, Binance got breached in 2019 and lost some millions if I remember correctly. But yeah, it'll neither happen. They're quite safe now. Granted.  

Bitcoin would recover in a few months later, because that's what happens always.

I hope I don't sound as an AI, but: it depends.

- Are you looking to build a career around that, and try to get linked in? Then yes, it's worth it.
- Are you fine knowing that you'll attend in a place where the people become targets for $5 wrench attacks? Then go for it.
- Is there anything you believe you can't find out elsewhere, except in such events? Go.

But in my opinion, it isn't worth it. Let alone, most of these "blockchain events" are organized by people who want to promote their shitcoin agenda.

Depends on whether the lightning network is the future of Bitcoin payments. I genuinely doubt. It's pretty limited unfortunately. Sure, it helps as fuck at the moment (especially at the moment), but technically and economically speaking, it isn't worth it for the vast majority of merchants which can be paid alternatively in cash or credit / debit POS. Visa might cost a lot, but it's questionably more than the maintenance of a lightning node.

We need more work on second layers.

So everyone who's part of Bitcoin, one way or another. So mining pools included.

You can't kick anyone out of a censorship-resistant, permissionless network.

Completely agree. That's why I made this thread. I just don't think it's entirely against their benefit to pretend there's network congestion.

Hmm. I don't think that's enough of an argument to not have standard replacements of this kind. To put it this way: if the average practitioner wants to write a program with 256-bit integers, and acknowledges he's incapable of maintaining that in C, won't he just switch to an alternative, like Python?

Sure, it's possible, but to rephrase my question: why isn't it standard already? I mean, the last C standard was published in 2017, long after Big Integers became a need. And still, the largest standard integer you can define is 64-bits long.

Yes, but undermining the system their own wealth relies on outweighs the advantage of controlling which transactions are allowed in, apparently. Also, attacking the Bitcoin network can happen for a temporary time, because the miners will switch pool, and it will have serious financial damage to whoever attempts to do it. I don't hold my breath that the same applies if they pretend there's network congestion.

I don't like the term "investment exchange". If you want to gamble with margin trading, then why not declaring them casinos in the first place? 

No matter how those few "crypto-trading-firms" can be the worst, I'll go with responsibility above all principle, and disagree. Every single time in history, when regulators enter a field, it dramatically drops in novelty. Invite regulators inside, and expect things to go worse.

Sure, ensuring the exchange doesn't run a federal reserve system is good; but you're probably talking about more. Can you give a little bit more context? How interventional the state should be, when someone chooses to trade a bunch of shitcoins on Binance, for example?

If you're in this forum, it doesn't make much sense to talk in the Politics or the Economics board, and not in the Bitcoin boards. Asides from less activity, they are not moderated properly, and are a total mess (not that Bitcoin boards are orders of magnitude different, but yeah).

If you're a total newbie, begin from the obvious one. Beginners & Help.

Pardon me, but isn't verifiable codebase synonym to open-source? In the Github repository, you have everything needed to study the source code of the firmware. Why doesn't that count as open-source? Also, in bitcoin.org it marks it as open-source, but I do notice it's the only place that it's called that way.

Bitcoin Core and Electrum are the two most tested and reviewed Bitcoin software. Where does it fail? Open up an issue.

Sure, but with majority of hash rate, you'd expect to mine yours more often than the rest of the miners. But maybe you're right; maybe that risk outweighs the benefit, it's just seems to me that in times when the network is clogged up, raising the high fee by a lot could outweigh the risk.

Parents don't need to be large at all. Think of a parent that is double-spent, whose children are Ordinals.

Don't free market principles apply to frankland-utopia?

But that would be late. People would have raised their fee rate, and they won't be able to lower it, which is what's this attack all about.

How so? The parent transaction is meaningless in size, comparably to the children. If you have 1000 tx paying 200 sat/vb, and 1 tx paying 1 sat/vb, it's obviously in favor of the miner to include all 201. Why would the explorer show 20 sat/vb?