This response about SBF has nothing to do with the proof about Samourai's deceptive practices against the Bitcoin community.
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. The WabiSabi coinjoin protocol has nothing to do with "outright lies" Same strawman. Avoiding the essence, and repeating horseshit.
|
|
|
A Wasabi developer exposing the Samourai developer using sock puppets to deceive social media users out of their Bitcoins is not "doxxing". Of course. Just as denying to mix SBF's coins isn't censorship, because he's a criminal! ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) All three of you are advertising custodial mixers, which means you have to engage in deception to keep people from using non custodial privacy solutions in order for people to use the services you are shilling. 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 is a coinjoin protocol, your idea that using coinjoin makes you a supporter of mass surveillance is literally backwards. Coinjoins prevent mass surveillance. WabiSabi, at the time writing this, can only be used practically via zkSNACKs' coordinator, which is supporter of mass surveillance.
|
|
|
Delivering a Bitcoin privacy solution that's lightyears ahead of the others, is the best testimony to that. 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.
|
|
|
you want CORE to have the individual(centralised) freedom to add trojans without the community choice. 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. or to put it into your words shuv picked onions down peoples throats without their consent 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:
|
|
|
Yep, if your "main wallet" doesn't support WabiSabi coinjoins, then you should switch your main wallet to one that does: Wasabi, BTCPay Server, or Trezor. 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. Thanks for alerting me that BTCPay is also now a supporter of mass surveillance and blockchain analysis. Another company to forever cross off my list of recommendations. 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. Due to the attitude of Wasabi they have lost users, due to the monitoring they have lost users, ignoring those 2 facts they also seem to be working towards working with larger financial institutions. 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.
|
|
|
Your scenario involves someone sending coins to themselves, how am I trolling? Why would I send .2 to myself in order to create .3 change? 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.
|
|
|
Yeah, but keeping an eye on it does nothing 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.
|
|
|
Yep, I'm with you. But, it's worth thinking about where basing decisions on a criterion like that will eventually lead, no? 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. Second, Foundry from which the topic started is not an open pool, it's basically an alliance of large US miners, so if they decided to go rogue there is no threat of losing hashrate for them. 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). Do you think miners are different? 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. ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) Bitcoin would recover in a few months later, because that's what happens always.
|
|
|
In your opinion, is it worth attending blockchain events? 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.
|
|
|
I'm sorry for not making it clear, but what makes the Bitcoin community includes the developers, the miners, the economic majority, and our fellow users. So everyone who's part of Bitcoin, one way or another. So mining pools included. I don't think it would be OK for the majority of the community if mining pools themselves turned into dishonest operators in the network. Kicking them out would easily get community consensus. You can't kick anyone out of a censorship-resistant, permissionless network. The Game Theory in Bitcoin revolves around incentives. It's what makes everything in the network stick together. 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.
|
|
|
Every time something is made easier for people, there's a corresponding drop in the skill level of the average practitioner.
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? You can do that in any language by constructing something (ie. struct in c#) in that language that consists of multiple instances of primitive types that store the bits. For example if you want to create a 128-bit data type you'd create a struct holding two 64-bit integers on x64 or 4 32-bit integers on x86 machine. 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.
|
|
|
With more than 50% of the hashpower, they have full control over which transactions are in blocks and which aren't. 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? ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) 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.
|
|
|
Well, Coldcard isn't open-source either. But unlike Ledger, Coldcard has a public and verifiable codebase.
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. Electrum's tried and tested but sometimes it just fails and when it does it fails horribly, so take using Electrum with a massive hand of salt. Bitcoin Core and Electrum are the two most tested and reviewed Bitcoin software. Where does it fail? Open up an issue.
|
|
|
If you allow enough time before invalidating it you risk another miner mining them just 5 seconds after so you just lose money and achieve zero. 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. - if you push 1000 highly paid tx at 200sat/b and you try chain them to the mempool forever with parents twice their size but with 1 sats the mempool will not show 200sat/vb since that tx are ~66at/b and they will still get confirmed as they wills till be the first in line. Parents don't need to be large at all. Think of a parent that is double-spent, whose children are Ordinals. the easiest, fastest cheapest option is just have them mining pool managers just select exclusively high tx fee's especially ones they include to themselves thus no real cost Don't free market principles apply to frankland-utopia?
|
|
|
Invalidating transactions it will mean it will be dropped out of every single node mempool, so leaving the mempool empty again. 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. So you can have 1000 tx with 200sat/b if you want to get them stuck like this by having either a parent or child with 1 sat/b it will still bring the average fees down also 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?
|
|
|
|