citb0in and paid2, the two of you are correct, it is so annoying lol, I would imagine someone who doesn't understand how mining works would really struggle to understand the difference between the two statements you both made despite both being perfectly correct.

I really think the simplest way to explain all this would be to imagine yourself hunting in the dark, the number of bullets you shoot is always the same (your miner's hashrate), and the number of animals you are trying to shoot also doesn't change "blocks per time unit", the number of bullets other hunters shoot doesn't directly affect your chances to hunt something "more network hashrate doesn't mean your hashrate is suddenly worth less since every bullet has the exact same chances of hitting a target as any other bullet", but eventually, every now and then, those animals "blocks" becomes smaller in size and thus harder to hit "difficulty increase".

Which means; if you want to maintain the same chances of hitting one of those animals' "blocks" you will need to up your fire rate "hashrate". The smaller the animals get, the more bullets you would need to keep the same chances.

Here is an example of a transaction that was sitting in the mempool for long enough but was not picked by Ocean, it was paying 321 sat/Vbyte, here is a transaction they did include to replace some of those taproot transactions paying 83 sat/Vbyte


mempool rates this block at 85%, which is a very terrible rate, the calculation is rather simple


The total fees that were available to extract on that block were 1.306BTC, the actual fee after the censorship turned out to be 1.162 btc, which is roughly 11% loss on fees, or 0.144 btc to be exact, that would be pretty similar to your calculation above.

Of course, this could have been a lot worse if there was a whole BTC of Ordinal fees sitting in the mempool like there was a few days ago, I think it's for their best interest that they did not hit a block when fees were skyhigh.



Of course, it's not, which is why I made the compassion with full nodes, every time a node receives a transaction it becomes fully aware of what the transaction has in it, the same concept would apply to a pool.

If the pool creates the blocktemplete they would include
Transaction A > legal
Transaction B > legal
Transaction C > Illegal

This means the pool has purposely included the transaction.

If the pool does nothing but broadcast a block found by miners, and the block is

Transaction A > legal
Transaction B > legal
Transaction C > Illegal

The pool can't just remove transaction C as that will invalidate the block, and given that the pool has no control over what the miner includes, legally speaking, it would be at least a bit more complicated to regulate this scenario compared to the first one. 

I understand it's possible for regulators to state that "As a pool you must not broadcast a block that includes a sanctioned transactions", but I assume it's easier to state "As a pool you must not include any sanction transaction in the blocktemplets you send to miners".

I also understand it's perfectly possible for regulators to impose these laws on every node, not only miners' node, something like "Anyone running a BTC node must blacklist the following addresses".

I could be wrong, but i would assume something like that would be a lot more difficult.

An address that starts with "3"  could be "assumed Segwit, however, That is not necessarily correct, it could be a multi-sig address(not Segwit), you can't tell unless they spend something from that address.

Of course, given that he is the owner, he probably knows -- but we don't.

For more info, read this.


** would be better to specify in the OP that addresses must be "Native Segwit, not just segwit.

Username: Mikeywith
Segwit Bitcoin address: bc1qllsppyglhc04ec84kqu9sh6fa7a9f7g28apn4z

Ok, I see your point now, and I think it is based on this assumption you made in the first post


You base your assumption on what seems to be rational actions, whereby, with profits this tight, you would expect higher difficulty would drive some miners away, but mining is far from rational.

Look at the previous epoch, we had 7% increase, does it seem like there are fewer miners today? Nop, in fact, it seems there are 6% more hashrate, so we are finding 6% more blocks than what we should, there is no guarantee the next diff would be any different.

As I said in my previous post, it is crazy American money, you can not predict anything, large corps could be mining at a loss and still manage to get investors to fund them, i see no end to this madness, the halving will stop some of it, but not all.

Your question is not clear, please elaborate.

يوجد موضوع مترجم في قسم المبدئين يمكنكك الاطلاع عليه https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5130449.0

يحتوي الموضوع شرح كامل حول انواع المصنات, طبعا الموضوع قديم بعض الشي وربما الامور تغير في بعض المحافظ ولكن الفكرة بالمجمل هي نفسها فأنواع المحافظ لم يتغير منذ انتشارها, عليك اولا تحديد نوع المحفظة التي تتماشى مع احتياجك وبعدها تقرر باقي التفاصيل بناء على امور اخرى مثل مستوى الامان, السعر ان وجد وغيره من العوامل التي سوف توثر في قرارك.

ولكن تذكر ان المعرفة والفهم اساسين في اي نوع من المحافظ, يمكن لشخص محترف استخدام محفظة ذات مستوى امان متندى بكل امان وبدون فقدان امواله, ويمكن لشخص اخر لم يقراء ويتعلم ان يسخدم اكثر محفظة امان في العالم ويسخر كل امواله في اول يوم.

Whatever issue Gholly reported probably has to do with outdated pool code that doesn't support ASICboost (although, I always thought those T15 had Asicboost enabled by default so why did they work fine?). Some people would argue that certain miners might not be able to find shares large enough for a block and thus getting valid shares on the pool doesn't necessarily mean they can hit a block(they even block firmware that were not proven to find blocks), but then again, finding blocks on the testnet doesn't mean the miner is capable of hitting a block on the mainnet either.

TL;DR

Is your hashrate reporting fine on CKsolo pool? if so -- you are good to go, there is nothing more you can do.

Tell me about it -- I haven't been taking these screenshots for a while. However, last week, I really wanted to record my 6000 score. I was at 5998, and all I needed was 2. But, alas, someone ruined the party for me. We should request a feature that allows us to delete our own merit just to record these impressive figures, as they are really hard to hit.

That's a terrible idea, why would you delete PMs just because someone might publish them, like how often does this happen? is it even bad enough? most others would prefer PMs to stay there, I do some business on the forum and my PMs have some order details either me selling or buying something from other forum members, while I do keep all this info somewhere else "safer", I would like for them to stay there just in case something goes wrong both parties could go back and check since none of us can change the content of the messages (except the Admins obviously).


There is no such thing, you can't control people's hardware, they could always take screenshots, and videos, doesn't matter how hard you try to restrict that on a software level, they could always just use another phone to take a picture.

There is no point in automatically deleting them messages, besides forum's PMs aren't exactly private, they are sent in plain text, Cloudflare sees them, the receiver's email provider sees them, the forum admins do, and moderators can "if PMs are reported", also god knows if other devs who maintain the forum code (if they exist) can also see them.

It's fine to request an encrypted PM system just to stop those parties from viewing your PMs.

Of course, regardless of these messages not being exactly private, I still think it's wrong to publish them unless there is a strong purpose and that would be person A claiming that person B said something to or about them in a PM, person B denies that and asks person A to prove it, Person A is left with no other option.

In this incident, Royse could have said "GazetaBitcoin is PMing my clients and making x claims about me", without revealing the whole content like this, I also think GazetaBitcoin's PM to Royse's client is wrong, he has the right to complain to that client for sharing the message with Royse, but the accusation in the PM makes it seem so his goal is just to stop the client from doing business with Royse.

I now wonder, what started all of this between the two of you? I know that you two are reasonable folks, neither of you is a proven scammer or a troll, and neither of you used the trust system to punish the other person, so was it worth it to go this far? and how far are you willing to drag each other into this? I don't think any of you would manage to "destroy" the other person's reputation with all of this, you are probably just going to make things worse for both of you, maybe it's about time for peace talks?

I strongly believe that this is the main driving factor for difficulty. It's easy to forget how things were a few months ago when you look at the current profitability. With fees still higher than average despite the huge drop and BTC at around 43k, the increases now may make sense. They didn't a few months ago, but they kept on adding gears.

I think where the U.S differs from other countries is that to a small group of the elite, money is literally printed out of thin air, and it's money that counts ($$$) unlike most other countries' money  . It's too easy to make a few million dollars just by circling around the right politicians. I sure don't doubt the business skills of fellow Americans; I know they have great entrepreneurship. I am talking about the person whose uncle is in the decision-making/cooking room, invited to an expensive dinner by some defense contractor offering him 10M to convince his uncle to sign a firearm deal with some country somewhere on the other side of the planet.

Such a person doesn't understand anything about business, or BTC. He meets someone from Foundry—they offer him a great business deal where he could invest 2M in mining gears and hit ROI in a few months. The foundry person gets his 0.5% referral, and the money spins in.

There is no doubt that many of these multi-billion corporations will take a massive hit after the halving. I can't, for the sake of me, think that all this money they invest is the result of a rational study on the market where risks are taken into consideration before "potential profits." To me, it seems like a bunch of rich folks who got rich by accident being "scammed" by mining companies for temporary gains.

Hey phil, the price for jan batch has increased (since we are pretty close to January, it has gone up 2$ per TH

Also the DDP shipping of $200 is for 2 moq, we pay pick up fees in hong kong and a minimum weight of 25kg is imposed by the shipper, so 1 pc would cost nearly as much as 2 pcs for shipping.

Anyway, PM, i will try to sort it something out.

Fees now have dropped to 80~ sats/Vbyte, if nothing much changes, in a few more hours you may get away with 40 sats transactions, there is a large wall at around and above 40 sat (almost a whole day's worth of transactions) so I think 40~ sats would be a good level to consolidate if you are rushing and don't want to wait, I think we would eventually in a few days get to 10-20 sats, but probably never again see 1-2 sats unless something major happens.

Not even that, the only reason why would someone buy Nerdminer is just probably just to "learn" a few things about BTC mining, as far as luck goes, there is just no chance in heaven that a single Nerdminer would hit a block, with that hashrate it would be almost impossible to register on the pool you mine to if it doesn't allow super low difficulty, probably only a pool or two that would do that.

That would be somewhat similar to regulating P2P nodes, is it not? If your node receives and relay a banned transaction, they take you to jail?

When the pool no longer operates in a centralized manner they become just a pooling service, just like a bus driver, if someone carries something illegal with them on the bus -- the bus driver can't be held responsible in the same manner as if they found those illegal stuff in his pocket.

So I run a pool service which I have no control over, how can I be responsible for what happens inside? Similar to the bus driver analogy, the worst would be shutting down the bus service or the pool.

But when you are the owner, and the operator of the pool, you are at a greater risk, because now, not only that you facilitate illegal transaction a byproduct, you intentionally do so.

It is a lot easier to regulate a pool that create their own blocks vs pools who work as a medium between miners, it's also easier to regulate centralized exchanges and force them to ban or even seize funds of certain addresses, but it is nowhere near easy to regulate bitcoin nodes.

Obviously, it's not impossible, it just a lot harder.

الموضوع: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478824.0

تم اليوم, او الامس اضافة 2FA للمنتدى "اخيرا".

طريقة تفعيلها بسيطة جدا

1- تظغط على profile
2- Account Related Settings
3- تقوم بعمل Enabled للمصادقة
4- تقوم بسكان الQR الكود من برنامج المصادقة في هاتفك او نسخ الرمز يدوي في حال عدم وجود كاميرة
5-تقوم بادخال الرمز وايضا كلمة سر الدخول للمنتدى

ملاحظة مهمة, هده الخاصية تحمي حسابك فقط في حال تحصل احد ما على باسورد دخولك للمنتدى, في حال تحصل احد على ايميلك يمكنه ايقاف هده الحماية والدخول لحسابك بدون مشاكل, لذلك فأن تأمين ايميلك امر مهم جدا, تأكد دائما ان ايميلك صحيح وانك تمتلك الوصول اليه وانه لايمكن لاحد الوصول الى كلمة السر الخاصة بالايميل.

بالتوفيق.

Hell no!, not with him copy pasting CK's thread


It looks identical to CK's main webpage, he just removed the high diff part and a few more words, this is likely just the same open-source code for CKpool which you can find on bitbucket.org "which is probably outdated and doesn't work".

This would be better than treating transactions differently, in my opinion. However, it has to be implemented similarly to how XMR does it. Raising the block size would result in a reduction in the block subsidy; otherwise, whatever the max cap is will always be activated by greedy miners. This would lead to larger pools absorbing all available well-paying transactions, leaving smaller transactions with almost nothing.

If we have three pools—A (45%), B (45%), and C (10%)—block C, with the current protocol, is almost always guaranteed to mine 10% of the transactions. So, if there are 100 transactions paying 0.1BTC each, and each block can only take 10 of them, it would, on average, make 1 BTC out of that. However, if pools A and B can increase the limit from 10 to 15, pool C (which only finds 1 in 10 blocks) will be left with nothing but dust. The current way relies solely on luck; a small miner may hit a 5 BTC fee block, whereas large miners who find twice as many blocks may not get 5 BTC combined.

In other words, as of now, potential rewards from fees are based more on "luck and market conditions" than your hashrate. The other model will shift that, making it more about your hashrate and leaving little room for luck.

However, looking at Suzanne5223's comment above this one, if you read what user Kiba wrote right below Satoshi's post, he said:

Reading this 13 years later, it certainly makes a whole lot of sense; it's pretty difficult to do now.

@philipma1957

I agree that leaving a small amount of BTC for emergency cases like this in somebody else's custody may not be a bad idea. My only issue is with the KYC part; I know many people are okay with KYC-ing themselves, but I try to avoid that as much as I possibly can.

So you did this to avoid custody, which is great, I mine on PPS pool that keeps my money for 24 hours before paying me, Ocean now has your money (dust and in form of hashpower) for a few weeks, probably for a lot longer, so the custody aspect is even worse.

Also for the 0 fee thing, they censor ordinal transactions, which means if they find a block now, instead of getting say 9.25 btc they would get about 7.75, so in other words, you would lose 15% of your potential profit, the highest PPS fee is 4% so you are paying 11% extra for the time being at least given that ordinals are still a thing.

Thank you for answering my question, I wish you the best of luck.

It really depends on how you look at it, you may call it a 50% discount or you may call it a 100% tax, being on the "normal transaction" side, it would seem as though you are getting a 50% discount compared to the rest, being on the other side, it would seem that you are paying a 100% tax compared to the rest, if we think of block space as goods sold at the market, at the end of the day, a "normal" person can buy twice as much of those goods with the same money compared to those "weird" people.

However, I agree, censorship is probably not the best word to use here, I suppose it's more of a discrimination.



This is a "Chicken-and-egg" debate, and has not been solved, and probably never will, simply because there are two side of the same story, the first one is what you described, in other words, more space = more transactions = same or more profit for miners.

The other side suggests a different thing, because you are creating more supply of something, it's most likely the price will go down, and that makes sense because you can't guarantee "demand", you would only speculate the demand will go up, which isn't something you can be sure of, and if demand doesn't increase as much as the demand does, then the overall price of block space will go down enough to bring the overall profit down.

people who support this theory have a very good point, and that is, whoever needs to transact on the blockchain would do so no matter what the fees are, and those who don't want to transact on the blockchain -- they won't even if you bring fees down to near zero.

The above "theory" suggest that the transaction count is limited, so you could just assume that there would be 100 transactions a day no matter what, if there is enough space for all 100 to be included on the same day, you are simply removing the competition/bidding insetnive, whereby if there is only a place for 10 transactions, those 100 transactions would have to outbid one another, raising the profit of the miners.

Keep in mind that in order for profit to be the same for miners in the above example, if you increase the daily block size from 10 to 20, and want to keep the same profit, you would have to increase transaction count by 100%.

So

10 space  > 100 transactions  > profit = 1
20 space  >          ??              > profit = 1
=
20 space  > 200 transactions  > profit = 1

anything short of 200 will make profit < 1.

And it's not guaranteed (actually probably less likely) for transaction count to do 2x just because fees are down 50%, so this side of the "Chicken-and-egg" theory is more favorable to most miners because they can't control demand, they rather control the supply.