An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher.
That's assuming that's what they want. 'They' being the creators of Bitcoin blockchain bloat and spam. I don't think they are interested in moving their activities off-chain. I'm assuming from the viewpoint that capital is limited, and Bitcoin = Capital. They either run out of capital first by doing expensive on-chain transactions, or they are going to start to do it more efficiently and cheaply off-chain. Plus I believe we could also assume that that many of "those" users want cheaper transactions as well, and that they would accept the trade-off of having lesser security to have cheaper transactions.
I am ready to be proven wrong, though. I think making the Bitcoin blockchain congested is one of the goals, aside from tricking a big enough crowd that the inscriptions have a value. They are trying to prove a point by saying, you didn't want a bigger block size, so enjoy our Ordinals on your low-throughput network.
There "could" be some entities that "could" use Ordinals as an attack vector to spam the blockchain, and make it congested. Good luck to those entities, and let them burn though their capital. The miners + a small group of people will make money, 90% will not. It's simply not sustainable plus it proves that the system works. For some strange reason it keeps going on for months and months since last year... Maybe because some of these guys behind Ordinals/BRC-20 are actually OG Bitcoiners who jumped to the big block camp (BCH/BSV) and keep burning incessant amounts of BTC? Not everyone exchanged their BTC stash for BCH/BSV... some people kept both after the forks happened. |
|
|
|
a lot of the members that carried no signature have left the forum because of the spam wave that some signatures have brought Or just because they aren't paid. If bitcointalk was just another regular forum, then I might be visiting once in a while, and I'd definitely ask my Bitcoin questions whenever I needed it, but it's just not economically viable to be that active. The only active users who aren't paid to post are probably retired OG Bitcoiners. I was more thinking of guys who quit before 2013, when campaigns were just at the beginning, a lot of users felt like this was inviting spam, some think that even now, and although they still are around they harbor a few bad feelings against this, and I do understand some, it's a bit frustrating when suddenly from a simple discussion where everybody was posting just for fun there were 100 outsiders making quotas. A lot of the users there already experienced one hell of a bull run, with gains in terms of % that will never be replicated so for some it made no sense even at that point to wear one. I have participated in a lot of forums during the last 21 years (even when some members here didn't exist exist as single-cell organisms). There was one forum (which no longer exists) where I had a 5-digit post count... I never got any profit, despite the fact my recommendations helped a company to generate more profit. Ingratitude? Maybe. My point is, it would be acceptable to reward someone who has already participated enough for the fun of it. But it's not OK to reward someone who wasn't a regular poster to begin with, but became after the monetary incentive appeared. It's not that hard to implement a fair, non-spammy incentive. |
|
|
|
People who have to get paid to post (usually spammy nonsense, or even AI-generated posts) remind me of gamers who are willing to play (usually boring/crappy) video games to boost their KDR/trophies/achievements. They're not doing it for fun, they're doing for profit. What's the difference compared to prostitutes who are willing to fuck old, smelly guys for money (usually fake fiat currency)?  People should do things because they like it first and foremost. Just like Satoshi invented Bitcoin for the fun of it, not to gain money. If monetary profit comes later on, that's OK, but it should not be the primary focus! I would say the same thing about people who get degrees not because they love knowledge, but because they love well-paying jobs. The hypocrisy of humanity in general is astounding, if you ask me. |
|
|
|
I sent a 3 sat/vB transaction an hour ago.
Will it be confirmed by tomorrow perhaps?
Probably not. We don't see this fee rate in a block for about 6 months. I would use RBF and put at least 12 if you want to see a confirmation tomorrow I just watched the last few days, price drop + low fee and thought maybe the fee could go below 10 sat/vB. Maybe at some point during the weekend, but he certainly won't come to 3 sat/vB. At the moment, 11 sat/vB  It has come down to 3 sat/vB as the minimum fee as per this chart. As per mempool, it does not hold any priority for now. Low priority has now increased to 12 sat/v B. - fastestFee: 11 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 11 sat/vB
- hourFee: 10 sat/vB
- economyFee: 6 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 3 sat/vB
 I still do not think it will be confirmed as the transaction fee is more volatile than Bitcoin. A transaction fee of 12 sat/vB or 11 sat/vB could have got confirmed. I do not think it will be confirmed by tomorrow, do keep us posted whether it did or did not. It did 6 blocks ago, thanks for the insight. |
|
|
|
I sent a 3 sat/vB transaction an hour ago.
Will it be confirmed by tomorrow perhaps?
Probably not. We don't see this fee rate in a block for about 6 months. I would use RBF and put at least 12 if you want to see a confirmation tomorrow It was dropped from the mempool, so I sent another one at 12. Let's see if it makes it... |
|
|
|
|
I sent a 3 sat/vB transaction an hour ago.
Will it be confirmed by tomorrow perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Ο Craig Wright είναι ο Satoshi -> κουβάς  Το BTC δεν θα ξεπεράσει ποτέ το προηγούμενο ATH του, συνεπώς το mining θα γίνει μη-βιώσιμο με το halving και το μικρό block size -> κουβάς Συνεχίζουμε...  |
|
|
|
I'll be honest, though, I'm quite disappointed by lightning network over the years. Not because of the liquidity nonsense argument, or the "custodial wallets". Merchants simply don't accept it, and those who do, see very little activity coming from it. People rather pay in altcoins, and I don't blame them. To run a lightning node, you need to have a Bitcoin and lightning node running 24/7, which is another level of lack of comfort. And on top of that, add that your payments might fail completing sometimes, and that you need to manage your sending and receiving capacity. Simply put, a no-go for the average consumer.
Indeed. That's a legitimate criticism. It's far from user-friendly at this stage and needs a great deal more development in that area. A platform that's only practically usable by power-users and tech-boffins isn't an ideal outcome. If the "solution" to that issue is that LN ends up becoming more reliant on custodial services, I'll be rather disappointed too. Merchant adoption is a valid metric to judge it by, since people effectively express their approval or disapproval by their actions. Clearly the evidence shows that people aren't being " forced into LN", as certain nutjobs repeatedly claim. But if people generally aren't using it for payments yet, then that would suggest it needs improvement to become a more enticing option for them. I've said it before that Bitcoin needs to have its own "Android moment". Linux was not very user-friendly back in the 90s/2000s (tons of heated debates about replacing Windows on PCs and becoming the dominant desktop OS), until Android came out in a blue ocean market (mobile devices totally displacing PCs for the Average Joe). Of course we all know that Android is mostly controlled by Google (despite having some free open-source variants without Google Services). I honestly don't know what would be the equivalent "Android moment" for Bitcoin, but I sure hope it's not a custodial service/LN bank. ps: What worries me about LN are some Reddit comments from LN node owners that they permanently lost their BTC balance when the other side of the channel disappeared all of a sudden. I know watchtowers exist, but this adds unnecessary complexity and TBH it sounds a bit centralized. |
|
|
|
Imagine a "security expert" who: - does not know what's an unsigned int. - had their email account hacked multiple times. - had their Bitcoin private keys compromised. - blaming someone else for using his computer. Very expert. Such wow! Definitely the Bitcoin creator!  It's also much more than merely having his keys compromised. Several times he says he has lost access to his bitcoins and that they've been stolen by hackers, yet the coins never moved. Why would hackers steal his coins but never even move them so at any time him or the hackers could do so at any time. Pure nonsense, but I guess you've got to come up with something to excuse not being able to move the coins yourself or sign a message from them. And yet, some people insist there's 95% (HmmMalakies ) chance he's Satoshi Nakamoto! |
|
|
|
For me, the most ironic fact about Tether/USDT is the fact that it relies on the biggest Ponzi scheme ever invented: the FED. So yeah, even if Tether isn't a Ponzi scheme (highly unlikely, but let's assume for 1 second that it's a legit business), it doesn't really matter, because the FED is definitely a Ponzi:  So, if you don't trust the FED, why would you trust Tether? This is all a big House of Cards waiting to collapse... will it happen any time soon? Who knows... Some people speculate we will see a bank collapse by March 11th. I strongly doubt it. FED will start printing more money, just like they did back in March 2020 due to COVID. I think it's far more likely to see a USD collapse in 2026-2027 during Taiwan's invasion (good luck if you hodl nVidia, Apple, AMD stocks ). Most people don't even know what TSMC is... |
|
|
|
It's too late for me to hide anything on the government and it's not like they are going to tax me on my crypto stuff so I don't think that I'm ever going to try using Monero and now that a lot of CEX are trying their best to remove it in their exchange. We're probably living in a dystopia already, we just refuse to see it because it's not what we've expected of the dystopias we've watched and read. I would still go for bitcoin, I'm good enough with the pseudonymity that it provides, maybe I'll worry about my privacy when I have tens or hundreds of millions if not billions in crypto.
This is the mentality of most and I get it. "I'm just a drop in the ocean" "I've got nothing to hide" The dystopia is advancing at a rapid rate. Soon you'll need to buy real meat on dark net markets if you don't want to eat ze bugs. Soon you'll need regular poison jabs to get your UBI. To me, privacy will be life or death. If you want to live a healthy and free life, you're going to have to be like neo and navigate the matrix like a ninja. Or you're going to have to leave the system entirely/walk into the forest & start a new life. Hopefully I'm wrong, Hopefully people find themselves again and start acting like humans, the world can change so fast if people started doing the right thing. Almost no one is a good person, because everything in this system is immoral. We're the problem and the solution. They'll tell you you're a crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist... |
|
|
|
Franky1 material! |
|
|
|
> BTW I don't remember if we talked about this, but the other day some
> people were mentioning secure timestamping. You want to be able to
> prove that a certain document existed at a certain time in the past.
> Seems to me that bitcoin's stack of blocks would be perfect for this.
Indeed, Bitcoin is a distributed secure timestamp server for
transactions. A few lines of code could create a transaction with
an extra hash in it of anything that needs to be timestamped.
I should add a command to timestamp a file that way. Τα emails είναι timestamped κάπου άραγε; Πώς μπορεί να αποδείξει κάποιος την γνησιότητά τους; |
|
|
|
To think about what a really huge transaction load would look like,
I look at the existing credit card network. I found some more
estimates about how many transactions are online purchases. It's
about 15 million tx per day for the entire e-commerce load of the
Internet worldwide. At 1KB per transaction, that would be 15GB of
bandwidth for each block generating node per day, or about two DVD
movies worth. Seems do-able even with today's technology. 15GB * 365 ημέρες = πάνω από 5TB ετησίως * 15 χρόνια = 75TB η blockchain Δεν ξέρω όμως κατά πόσο αυθεντικά είναι αυτά τα email... ούτε με ποιό σκεπτικό ήταν εφικτό αυτό το 2009 (σε datacenter? ούτε η MS δεν είχε το Azure cloud τότε). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
