|
What the arguments about lack of internet usually forget is that internet is used in a lot of things and without it majority of what we do every day becomes impossible or at least extremely hard. It is the same with bitcoin, it will be extremely difficult to make it work without the internet.
Besides, a lot of villages and rural areas have already gotten access to the internet. We have a lot more to worry about regarding the adoption among average Joes first before wanting to get everyone else who don't have access to the internet to adopt bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
I have been observing the mempool in the recent times, and it's usage has gone past 300 MBs, now getting to 500 MBs  Technically a mempool visualizer/analysis tool like https://mempool.space (which your screenshot seems to be from) should not purge its mempool or at the very least have a much larger cap compared to what the default is for most full nodes, so that it can give a better view of all the number of transactions and their fees. If you want to know the real behavior of a node you should check a real node (like your own full node). |
|
|
|
As opposed to arbitrary payment data that is pushed to the blockchain once to stay there forever?
I don't know how to respond to that!!! You are bringing up the main reason why bitcoin was created (payment) and you argue that it could be considered arbitrary too which makes no sense otherwise why do we even bother with bitcoin in first place. lol Maybe you haven't, but many others had, and no, people using bitcoin for payment have not been increasing, it's actually the opposite, there were more transactions in 2016 and 2017 than were in the last 3 years, take a look at the transaction count, to be very generous and not call this a downtrend, it's flat at best.
You are making a wrong conclusion based on false data. In 2017 bitcoin was experiencing the biggest spam attack of its entire history (biggest until today too). The number of transactions then can not your baseline. In reality if you check the stats rarely released by payment processors, check out number of merchants that are accepting bitcoin each year, countries adopting bitcoin as legal currency, legal tender, reserve currency, for international trade and a lot more you can clearly see that usage of bitcoin as a currency has been increasing by a lot. Do you know what is actually in an uptrend? it's the number of BTC going out of circulation buried in the "hodlers" wallets for god knows how long, if you were to check the average block size for the past 3 years, it would be closer to 50% than to a 100%, there are days where blocks barely had any transactions, the worldwide percentage of people using bitcoin to transact rounded to the nearest whole number is exactly zero, and it will only get worse over time, the more valuable BTC become the less people will transact it.
Lets fact check your assumption. 3675 blocks had "barely any transactions" and a small size between 2015-01-01 and 2017-03-09 (a rough 2 year window). 632 blocks had "barely any transactions" and a small size between 2021-01-01 and 2023-03-09 (a rough 2 year window). That's an 82% reduction! I intentionally chose 2015 to 2017 because the end date is approximately when the spam attack gets worse and also the huge bull run and the bubble has not yet started. The window from 2017 to 2019 isn't that better though (~1400 ie. ~55% reduction) which proves my point about increasing adoption as a payment network. Someone could make the same argument about someone else making a transaction for a cup of coffee, a few sats worth a transaction that is going to sit on thousands of hard drives forever, it's pretty difficult to define what is useless and what's not.
No. You can't even begin to compare using bitcoin for payment (whether for a cup of coffee or a house) and using bitcoin as a cloud storage. They do add value to the users who want to own those sats that point to something of value to them, furthermore, they add value for miners to extract as fees.
Miners are already "extracting fees" they don't need Ordinals for that unless you mean spam attacks like 2017 which artificially inflate the fee is a "good thing"! but I would not mind sucking all the value from all those altcoins into BTC, if that's what the people want -- why not?
If that's what you want then there is a much simpler way without filling bitcoin with garbage and making it unusable which is to use a side-chain. There is already a couple of projects out there like RootStock that actually create real smart contracts and transfer actual tokens around instead of the fake thing in Ordinals that has no value. |
|
|
|
ok then pooya
seeing as many have tried to propose fixes for ordinal bloat and got no where
Have you got a example of this because if the proposed fixes bring more problems then fixes then I can see why they get rejected If this had actually happened he would have filled bitcointalk about it instead of spreading misinformation with vague claims. As I pointed out above even if a PR is removed from BIPs repository it can not and will not be removed from the original repository of the person creating the PR. |
|
|
|
|
There is a joke going around that if you get a cold in US and visit a hospital you'd go bankrupt.
Ever since they infected US economy with capitalism, everything went south. From all the industries that went bankrupt and had to migrate overseas leaving millions unemployed and many homeless in America to every other service that got worse over time. Over all the quality of life in US has been going down every year for the past 40+ years.
Medical services is not an exception either. It slowly got more expensive and at the same time the quality of services dwindled. At this point it is safer to receive medical services elsewhere including Mexico than inside US not to mention that it is way cheaper.
|
|
|
|
1. its not simply 'write a bip' in a format and submit it..
it requires going through a few tests first (yes the guidelines of now 'bip guideline 2' (which are treated as rules not just a guide))
There are no "tests" to go through first. Like any other repository on Github There are certain criteria before the PR is merged otherwise abusers and trolls would spam the repository. they have become very anal/ god-mode about their status to remove/ban stuff for lame silly reasons to avoid things that people want
i mean actually not even publishing bips and just banning users from access to whole bitcoin github if they see a bip that diverges away from cores roadmap even if it still meets majority user benefit and keeps bitcoin philosophy
Post actual examples of these cases. It is not like the proposal disappears from Github, after all you have to first create a fork of the repository then make your commits. |
|
|
|
It has been a negative moment for bitcoin since March has started. Bitcoin is losing price since then, hiting the 22,000$ support level already, in a very sharp momentaneous crash. Although there was a recovery after that, it still looks a pretty bearish moment, which can continue pushing btc price down to lower and lower support levels. The tendency indicates pessimism among crypto investors for now.
That is mostly because price failed to break $25k resistance. Usually the day traders panic sell when something like that doesn't happen, hence create this kind of drop. We are still far above the resistance so I wouldn't start talking about pessimism yet. The other reason is of course the terrible economic situation that is going on everywhere with inflation and recession. |
|
|
|
300 nfts sold at 2btc minimum. wow. people really want bitcoin nfts badly it sounds like  and these werent even pictures of monkies apparently. There are always gamblers around who want to make bets on price of anything they buy in the cryptocurrency market. If you manage to put dog poop in a pretty package and advertise it well, you will be able to find lots of them who would buy it. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin was never "coupled" with any market, least of which US Stock Market for it to want to decouple with it. This idea started ever since the global economical crash after the COVID19 pandemic, people thought just because bitcoin dropped while other markets were also dropping, that must mean there is a correlation!
If you look at the 14 years worth of charts you can clearly see that there is absolutely no correlations between bitcoin and any other markets.
However, what happens is that whenever there is a massive economic crash, it also affects bitcoin like everything else in this world.
Besides, even the chart you posted is weird. This year, starting from January bitcoin has gone up more than 60% while S&P500 has been struggling to keep the same level and not massively dump.
|
|
|
|
"S" as "Spend"
Small makes more sense though since these are indeed "small" strings that are used to derive a private key and we couldn't use "m/M" for mini since "m" is used for addresses on testnet already and could create confusion. |
|
|
|
But bitcoin is no longer a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" as far as the majority of people are concerned it became more like a "store of value",
Money is store of value and bitcoin was supposed to become money hence a store of value from day one. If you say it is already a store of value them it means bitcoin has succeeded in becoming money. there are fundamental aspects of Bitcoin that keep it from being a perfect "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" like the average block time and the value instability
Bitcoin was never supposed to be perfect but the average block time is not the reason for it. Now that we shifted way too far from any "principles", it's probably a good idea to reconsider who are the real users of BTC? you can argue that the real users are those who just use the blockchain for regular transfers, to many others, the real users are the ones who contribute value to the blockchain, at this point, the exact definition of "spam" is going to be lost.
We haven't established that bitcoin has shifted away from its principles. The number of people using bitcoin for payment has always been increasing regardless of how many "investors" exist who don't. That means bitcoin has never shifted away from those principles to begin with. Besides it still doesn't justify spamming the blockchain with useless data and use it as personal cloud storage. however, maybe we can consider these Oridnals as an added value to the blockchain, at least from the security side of things.
We can't because these are not "tokens", they are not even smart contracts, they do not transfer anything to anyone, they also don't add any value to the blockchain. These are arbitrary data that is pushed to the blockchain once to stay there forever, pointlessly increasing the chain size. As of today, that might not be so crucial, but at some point in the future, the block rewards will hardly keep "enough" miners online, to them, it doesn't matter if they are getting paid by someone transacting value or sending some arbitrary data, as long as all "users" are competing and paying high fees -- miners will stay online.
This argument has been made ever since block reward was 50 BTC and now it is 6.25 BTC and yet the hashrate is at an all time high and increasing. Now look at it this way, in another possible scenario when the spammers will have had filled each block with "cryptokitties" and increased the fees the rest of the bitcoiners would abandon bitcoin and dump their coins which would crash the price. In which case the miners would be the first to see the consequences. The token hype dies like it died in 2018 and bitcoin wouldn't even be used for that anymore. We were discussing the hashrate trend in the mining section a few days ago, and it does seem like there is enough room for more growth given the average worldwide power rate, but that growth can't be sustained, at one point the network will be saturated and no further growth can happen, when we arrive at that equilibrium, every drop in BTC price will result in a drop in the hashrate
The real question is "when". I'd say the growth will stop in at least another 2 decades and by then market has grown big enough and matured enough that there will no longer be big drops and small drops like 2% is not going to affect the hashrate enough to be considered a problem. Besides if you think something like "token scam" is needed to keep bitcoin alive in the future, there is no need to add it now! You are basically saying that just because something may happen in the far away future we should ruin bitcoin today while it is working fine and has no problems! |
|
|
|
I fully agree but I'm not sure if it's good or bad in Bitcoin context. So far we have witnessed Bitcoin/USD exchange rate didn't react to USD inflation, in other words $22k this year is not the same as $22k in 2021! Mainstream investors prefer gold as a hedge against inflation, not Bitcoin. So yeah, I agree, but is it good for Bitcoin? Time will tell.
Bitcoin and gold don't have to compete with each other and these two markets haven't really done that so far either. In other words even if investors prefer gold that doesn't mean bitcoin isn't benefiting from the current ongoing situation. As for the price, my theory is that the problem is that we aren't just facing inflation but inflation with recession. Which is why people generally liquidate their assets instead of increasing them hence the sell pressure last year. it's actually contrary to what the USD is experiencing in reality.
US dollar has been losing its value in reality (easily seen in increased price of everything) but if you aren't seeing a catastrophe that's because of the high interest rate that is trying to keep dollar artificially strong. |
|
|
|
1. Remittance Industry : years to come cryptocurrency can have a major impact on the traditional remittance Industry as the number of immigrant workers rises, the problems in sending money to families at home also increases. The traditional system of sending money is expensive and it also takes alot of time. Cryptocurrency offers a seamless alternative to those traditional problems with a lot more transparency, lower costs and faster transfer times. So there's a high possiblity of immigrants shifting towards cryptocurrency for making money transfers to their love ones at home
I don't think that can work because of all the other fees involved. When an "immigrant worker" is working in another country, they are being paid in the fiat currency of that country. In order to send bitcoin back home they first have to convert that money to bitcoin which requires a bank transfer to the exchange (fee #1), buying bitcoin with that money (fee #2) then withdrawing those bitcoins from their exchange (fee #3) then transferring those bitcoins back home (fee #4) and back home they have to do all that in reverse meaning to exchange those bitcoins to their local currency in an exchange (fee #5) then withdraw the fiat from that exchange (fee #6). So we already have 6 extra costs and only the #4 is cheap (bitcoin tx fees) but the rest can be expensive specially the exchange related ones that you may even end up losing money due to volatility. |
|
|
|
OK so only the '1' addresses are penalised 4x, but the witness data gets through at the same 1/4 cost as non '1' addresses.
The legacy addresses (starting with 1 or 3) and their transactions are the same as they ever were, nothing has changed and nothing is being "penalized". In other words SegWit transactions being cheaper doesn't mean the legacy transactions became more expensive! That would be hard as tromp already posted, miners would be blocked from a good source of profit, and it starts a bad precedent.
lol it's funny that you never complained about blocking all other forms of spam transactions in the past decade like rejecting a transaction containing an OP_RETURN that is bigger than 80 bytes, but all of a sudden you are so worried about rejecting this new type of spam!!! Should we tell nodes to reject transactions from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China as well?
Apples and oranges... |
|
|
|
Surprisingly, it was confirmed on regtest. I didn't expect that, last time I checked P2SH addresses, there was a strict requirement that the underlying script has to be standard. I wonder, in which version that was changed, because I remember times, where I had problems with non-standard scripts under P2SH in the past.
It depends on the standard rule, there are other checks taking place in other places (not everything is checked in policy.cpp). For example the interpreter.cpp also performs certain checks on the scriptsig before it reaches the redeemscript and it could be rejecting the tx as non-standard there. |
|
|
|
|
Connections are two way (bidirectional) not one way and what you refer to as "listener" is just listening for incoming connections so after that it receives a connect request it opens up a new "socket" where it can both send and receive messages over TCP at the same time.
The reason why you see version first then verack second or vice versa is that the clients put both messages into a single "package" and then send it over the opened socket. This only make implementation slightly more complicated (to handle both cases).
Otherwise to make sure other node receives verack first it would have to first initiate a "I/O send" operation for verack then finish it and initiate another for version and both messages are tiny and have to be sent so it makes sense to send them together.
|
|
|
|
Ukraine, unlike Russia, did not turn to other countries to help her with manpower.
Even Zelensky has said tens of thousands of foreign fighters are in Ukraine and they are advertising the "invitation" 24/7 globally both physically (banners and such) and on the internet like fightforua[.]org It is Russia that hires the Syrians, promising them big money for participating in the war against Ukraine.
That is irrelevant to my comment because whether or not Russia is hiring others to fight their atrocious war doesn't change the fact that ISIS is now part and parcel of Armed Forces of Ukraine. BTW most of these terrorists who were shipped from Syria are not Syrians, many of them are actually European. |
|
|
|
There are countries like Pakistan that are almost at verge of economic collapse and desperately in need of USD to save there economy.
There are a lot of countries that have their economy suffer because of the way USD is. Some of them are in fact dumping it for this reason like Iraq that recently moved to using Yuan for part of their energy sales so that they can at least have access to some of their money (US regularly blocks them from accessing their own money). It's used as a weapon because why?
Because that is mainly how US survives with its messed up economy that has a ridiculously high national debt and a rapidly increasing trade deficit. |
|
|
|
Not anyone, but only miners, because those scripts are non-standard. It would work for anyone if those puzzles would use P2WSH or P2TR instead of P2SH.
My understanding is that the redeem script is not subjected to the usual standard rules that would reject the scripts in OP which is why I said "anyone". Although I'm not 100% sure but according to the code it seems like the only "standard" check on redeem scripts is their max sigop count and nothing else: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/2a0c05defd32c37f083fa2cc890e03aecc451555/src/policy/policy.cpp#L201-L203 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
