No, because if you can look at some transaction, and see, that the amount is "confidential", then it does not make it less suspicious. It is actually the opposite: if you want privacy, then everything should be visible in plain sight (except for things like private keys). Privacy isn't about being less or more suspicious. It's about being incapable to de-anonymizing the outputs, ergo hold the financial activity private. You'll have to define what "plain sight" means. A coinjoin is visible in "plain sight", yet it can provide sufficient levels of privacy and might be considered "suspicious" according to this definition. Think about it in this way: if you have 1 BTC, and a single Schnorr signature, then what is safer? To have that amount explicitly stated on-chain, and hide the fact, that there are 100 people, each having 0.01 BTC, and doing 100-of-100 multisig? Or to have 100 separate outputs with unknown amount, marked as "confidential"? The former hides the inputs. The latter hides the amount. Both are good for privacy. In the second case, you are explicitly in a group of "people trying to hide", so your coins are not in a group of "all users", but in a group of "hidden users" instead. That's your best course, since hiding in people with no privacy will inevitably de-anonymize you as well. Think of the Tor example. If you use Tor, you're in the "hidden users" group, even though you can use your ISP's IP address, and belong to the "all users" group with "stronger anonymity set", which is obviously false. |
|
|
|
Ανακάλυψα αυτό: Haveno. Decentralized, peer-to-peer exchange για fiat currencies και crypto με base cryptocurrency το Monero. Δηλαδή το αντίστοιχο Bisq, αλλά αντί για Bitcoin ως βασικό νόμισμα, Monero. Αυτό λύνει ένα βασικό πρόβλημα που είχε το Bisq. Δε μπορούσες να αγοράσεις / πουλήσεις XMR με άλλο νόμισμα απ' το BTC. Έπρεπε να μετατρέψεις τα BTC σε XMR, μετά τα XMR πάλι σε BTC και να πουλήσεις αυτά. Οπότε ανεξάρτητα των αδυναμιών ανωνυμίας του Bitcoin, τώρα μπορείς να πουλάς ανώνυμα εύκολα. Το project δεν είναι έτοιμο ακόμα, αλλά πιστεύω θα επιταχύνει το development τώρα που έκλεισε το LocalMonero. |
|
|
|
Commercial and private banks can't print money, and that's why commercial banks go bankrupt as they have done it a hundred times already in history And who's saving the commercial bank, or at least its deposits, when it goes bankrupt? Taxpayers. Commercial banks can't print the pile of cash you want to insure out of nothing, but the state can guarantee you that in case of the bank going out of business, they can cover your losses, and even if it doesn't have the money to do that (worst case scenario), it can either print it, or borrow it in exchange for bonds. I think this is the big difference between ETF and simply storing it in your Coinbase account. In the former, in the worst case scenario your bitcoin is insured. If their partners (e.g., Coinbase) are hacked, you'll be refunded in fiat currency. |
|
|
|
People confuse Feather as being very similar with Electrum, while this is the case only for the UI. It's important to understand the distinction, which happens on the background. Let me explain. In Electrum: - You're sending all your addresses (until the gap limit) to a public server.
- This server then checks for every TXO that matches with one of the addresses.
- Once this search is done, it returns you the transactions associated with these addresses.
- When spending bitcoin, you reveal to them information like which UTXO is being spent, how much money is transferred, and to whom.
In Feather: - You're requesting from a public server to send you the blockchain in sequential order, starting from the latest block until the wallet's block height (or block 1, if you've lost it).
- For every transaction received, you check if it belongs to you, utilizing the technology of stealth addresses. If you do not, you discard it.
- When spending monero, you don't reveal neither which output is being spent, neither how much money is transferred, nor to whom (to which address).
The big problem is, obviously, scalability. Feather is a lightweight wallet and you're requested to download the blockchain. Not so lightweight if you've lost the wallet's block height! |
|
|
|
|
Time: 32'
BCGame ID: 35021766
|
|
|
|
|
I remember 100 merits like yesterday. Time flies.
|
|
|
|
well yeah obviously, there's got to be some limits but no one is doing larger than M=N=15 most likely and i doubt people even do anything that big. But there might be 5 of 7 but i think bitcoin stamps only does 2 of 3. Define "bitcoin stamps". It is completely valid to spend from a 15-of-15 multi-sig. so there's not going to be any justification for saying that 2 of 3 multisig transactions even the ones from bitcoin stamps are not welcome on the bitcoin network. I still don't understand the point you're making. There is no justification to ban something if it can't be an attack vector for the network, therefore banning Ordinals the way they work, so they switch to being stored at the UTXO, is an unreasonable statement to make. for example, say you changed bitcoin transaction format so that there had to be an extra second signature on top of the first signature. the second signature would be from a node that validated the first signature. the node that did the validation would get a small reward if the transaction they signed and validated made it into a block.
if a node didn't want to participate in the signing process they could just broadcast it out to other nodes and let them sign it. so it could be like an opt-in system for nodes who are looking to pick up a small amount of spare cash. My friend, you really don't find anything flawed with this?  |
|
|
|
Thank you for your explanation, although you are going more deep. I believe with time, I will have a full understanding of what you are saying. You're welcome. If you're interested to learn more about LN, I fully recommend this book: https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook. and I guess you want to have backups of your channels transactions.
This is a great problem, actually. Bitcoin users are used to backing up a seed phrase, and now you're asked to do frequent (automatic) backups, which are a lot more probable to fail with a disk corruption. Or for some people (honestly probably most people will choose this) it'll just be better to treat LN as a checking account at a bank and use a custodial LN wallet and not worry about any of these things. It's just that relying on custodial LN to save the day is hypocritical. The entire purpose of lightning is to respect self-custody, and most people simply disregard this, reasonably; setting up a lightning wallet properly is a pain in the neck. |
|
|
|
First time making a Bitcoin pizza. Family ate it within 3 confirmations. The Bitcoin symbol was a delicious bread mixture. First time eating a Bitcoin as well. Thank you, Laszlo!
No Gods or kings. Only Bitcoin.
(Click on the image for full screen) |
|
|
|
Price determines the hashrate, not the other way around. If you find a way to mine bitcoin with very low cost, won't that influence the price? The total bitcoin entering the circulation will remain 450 every day, but your share increases, and that alone, can influence the price. Let me give an example. Suppose we have 450 EH/s total hashrate. You find near zero electricity cost in Hypothetical-Islands. It only takes $10,000 to mine a bitcoin there, while it costs $50,000 the least to your competitors. Since you're with $56,000 profit for every bitcoin mined, you decide to make a big investment in infrastructure, mining at 50 EH/s. Adding this to 450, and total hashrate becomes 500 EH/s. Your competitor might be selling it at $51,000 to make $1000 profit, but you can drop it a lot less than that, making it unprofitable to them. Then, they'll have to shut down their operations, and you can take their hashrate by expanding your operations in Hypothetical-Islands. You're practically taking a large portion of the pie, and have the flexibility to sell it for a lower price than your competitors, while expanding the hashrate. Have I missed anything? |
|
|
|
|
Second prediction: $67,220
|
|
|
|
|
Second prediction: $67,202
|
|
|
|
|
Second prediction: $67,110
|
|
|
|
|
Second prediction: $67,110
|
|
|
|
This either means he cannot spend them (for reasons I mentioned above) or he's probably dead/lost the keys (same speculation about Satoshi's coins). Correct, I just wanted to mention an example of a big money heist, which in today's value would be about the same orders of magnitude as the BlackRock bitcoin reserves. but if you're investing a lot of money over a long time frame and not using a retirement account, using Coinbase and avoiding that management fee is probably the way to go.
But, if Coinbase goes bankrupt or hacked, you don't have fund insurance, as with the ETF. I think that's the big difference between the two. Buying bitcoin in Coinbase (and leaving it there) is the equivalent of buying Coinbase IOUs, where in the ETF, you're buying a Coinbase IOU, but if Coinbase goes bankrupt, you're covered by insurance. From the standpoint of the average consumer, there is no difference. It's just a different way of betting on the Bitcoin meme, which is all most people actually want to do with Bitcoin. If there's practically no difference, then why did people demand ETF like that? We have bitcoin IOU since the beginning. It probably has to do with insurance. A person might want to save in bitcoin, but not like the process of entrusting these savings to an entity with no insurance. They'd rather have the option of insuring their deposit, similarly as to bank's deposits. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
