KYC εννοείς; Σκέτο τον αριθμό ταυτότητας τι να τον κάνει; Μπορεί να το επιβεβαιώσει ότι θα βάλω το σωστό;

Μέχρι στιγμής ζήταγε ονοματεπώνυμο, email και κινητό. Όχι KYC όμως.

We can't vote our own, right?

$71,500

$71,500

It's two simple conditions:

Beginning from the first, if it's true, meaning if "the actual timespan was less than only the quarter (25%) of the current timespan", then set it equal with the quarter, and don't go below. If the actual timespan is more than the quarter of the current (but not more than 4x the current), both these conditions will evaluate false and it will continue executing the code below, which will set the new difficulty based on expected / actual.

Edit:
If in the current epoch, we had 1 hour average block time, then expected / actual would be 20160 / 120960 = 0.166, which is less than 0.25, and therefore, with hashrate constant, it'd be impossible to drop to 10 minutes average block time in just one difficulty adjustment. We'd drop to 15 minutes first, and then to 10.

Here's why:

Το τελευταίο μήνα, το Monero "γράφει" όλα τα delistings και κάνει +33%, περνώντας το Bitcoin που είναι +12% τον τελευταίο μήνα.

$172 / XMR. Για να δούμε πόσο θα συνεχίσει.

Why shouldn't the federation secure its own deposit? It deposits via peg-ins, and that liquidity would attract users. I think Liquid has been implemented like that, by I don't cross my fingers.

It sounds really cool as concept. It's orders of magnitude more efficient than lightning, because it's multiple bidirectional channels opened by just one UTXO, which can communicate with other such UTXO (pools). The problem with this solution is interactivity:

For once more, hosseinimr93 is the first to actually answer with the solution. 

The correct answer is 13.125 trillion, because in the epoch B it increases by 25% (42 -> 52.5) and then decreases by 75% (52.5 -> 13.125). The trick of this quiz was the knowledge of difficulty adjustment restriction to a factor of 4, as shown in here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4a020ca443ba370bf41583962d16aa8551876f53/src/pow.cpp#L54-L59. The reason we do not allow difficulty to grow beyond 300% or drop by less than 75%, is to achieve a middle ground between resilience in network disruption and quick response to a genuine change in the hashrate.

For example, in the extreme scenario that the US government shuts down large mining farms, and reduces the total hashrate by 83.3%, these miners can migrate their infrastructure elsewhere within the next month. Difficulty adjustment restriction is another way to say "something really bad or unusual has happened" and respond respectively.

I had checked ChatGPT and it did not produce the correct answer!

New quiz! 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5499129.0

It's been a while since I published a quiz. It's time for another one. 

- What's this?

Answer the questions that follow and you will earn merits. We have talked a lot about probabilities, such as the probability of reversing a confirmed transaction, or probability of finding a block within the next few minutes, but it's time for another kind of puzzle.

---

Let's suppose that the network's difficulty is 42 trillion, about half of what's today.

• The average block time of the current epoch (A) is 10 minutes, and we're close to the difficulty adjustment. Once we reach it, difficulty remains the same and we enter the next epoch.
• The average block time of the next epoch (B) is 8 minutes, and another difficulty adjustment occurs, which increases the difficulty, so that the average block time returns back to 10 minutes.
• The average block time of the next epoch (C) is 1 hour, due to a catastrophic decision made by the US government to seize all the miners.

What's the difficulty once it adjusts after epoch C?

Is this the version Snapcraft suggests when running snap install electrum? Last time updated May 2017? Have they gone nuts? Any version prior 3.4 is vulnerable to receiving arbitrary messages (phishing) and is strongly recommended to avoid.

By the way, snap is supposed to handle the signature verification part itself, even though I do agree that you should manually verify it with gpg --verify.

That's not true, IMO. All these social media are one big "Bitcoin Discussion" board. Reddit and Twitter are filled with bareless speculation, and maybe like 10% "good quality". Nostr is pretty dead last time I visited.

A very cool place for Bitcoin-related discussions is stacker.news. It's like Bitcointalk before it introduced signature campaigns. Everyone's without signatures, or avatars. Just talk and have fun. 

There you go, you nailed it. The entire Ethereum project is built pre-mined. Pre-mining in second layer is seen as completely normal, because the main layer is pre-mined itself.

And just to be even more clear: It doesn't make sense to name it "layer 2", if it isn't reusing the token of layer 1. You either reuse the currency, or you're creating a brand new. In the latter case, there's very little reason to build it on top of another layer, and not recreate another layer 1.

Having a pre-mined token for your "layer 2" is the exact opposite of what a layer 2 stands for. The most critical aspect of a layer 2 is to reuse bitcoin, not to invent a new token.

I don't think the world needs another pre-mined token to "solve" scalability. What we need is a solution that compresses multiple bidirectional channels into one UTXO. And if I had to bet which solution does this best, I'd go with Ark or another covenants-relying solution.

Very minimum, though. Imagine the equivalent of FeatherWallet to mobile version, just as Electrum for mobile: https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/mobile/android/electrum/. In Feather, you do not reveal to the public nodes the recipients, nor the amounts transferred. You neither reveal your inputs, although there's a chance the node executes a very rare (and costly I think) attack which can reveal the true input of a transaction, but that's detectable by the client.

The problem with mobile client would be bandwidth and verification time. You would need to download the entire blockchain since your wallet's block height. That's feasible to do for a modern computer, but a smartphone has a slower Internet speed and is less computationally capable to verify all those blocks.

There is one important difference with the year 2038 problem. We know exactly when this problem will appear. Therefore, we have to fix it before then, ideally a few years before 2038. There's no ideal year to hardfork for merging legacy with segwit, and it's not in the same level of necessity. The network won't stop working after year x if we don't merge legacy with segwit.

Cool. I like reading both sides' arguments of this debate.

I believe it depends on the necessity, but it's very difficult for me to imagine a hardfork introducing significant changes and gaining nearly unanimous support, especially since the roadmap is somewhat oriented to implement changes via softforks.

That is unlikely to happen. It's going to break tons of software.

The issue, or feature, depending on your perspective, is that Bitcoin has a hard cap. This means that eventually, it will rely entirely on transaction fees, which in consequence means that the network must always be congested. Increasing the block size rises the risk of the network becoming unsustainable to continue operating at some point in the future.

So, it's not about "technological limitations" per se. It's mostly this economic problem.

Hey there. It's true that you can't find testnet bitcoin these days. The spam only makes it worse. Low value testnet transactions are impractical, change vanishes into oblivion, if there is any.

Sent you 0.1 tBTC: 23c950e2acb29506dc905a8bca03a26f0f846f033bfd515a49d437d89e01b4f7. I believe it's enough to play with. Use regtest for higher amounts.

Um, let me remind you: Bitcoin went from $1000 to $36,000 during Trump's presidency. That's 3500% up. If you want to resort to this soundbite, at least make sure it doesn't work in the other way around.

I'm trying to see the connection with Bitcoin here.

Alright, then, what's the source of the truth, according to the Democrats you?  

That's the article I remember reading: https://www.reuters.com/legal/bankman-fried-used-customer-funds-100-mln-us-political-donations-prosecutors-say-2023-08-14/. I agree that it might be fake news, but where can I verify it?