This makes me think whether the solution to water scarcity in the future will depend on our Desalination capacity (turn water from the ocean into potable water).
Unfortunately that is extremely harmful to the environment and the cost isn't that low either. It destroys the local fish and other sea animals' life (so it also ruins fishing market) and the remainder salt and other impurities has to be disposed usually in the middle of the sea which is costly. |
|
|
|
|
The problem is that you are combining contradicting ideas. Centralized CBDC and fair money printing and new money to cover min rate income over 80 years, etc.
Most of the times when governments print money they are doing it to cover their budget deficit (case in point: Germany these days that is heading towards a record debt; or any country during COVID19 pandemic). In other words as long as we are mixing the cryptocurrency with the existing financial structure there can't be any fairness in it. They need to have full control over how they print more money.
In any other decentralized design we have bitcoin which the supply has to be predefined and can't have unlimited supply with volatile printing rate.
|
|
|
|
could you please explain to me why I can't determine the hash160 of a long P2WSH bc1 address ?
In short P2WSH is encoding a 256-bit hash that is the result of SHA256. P2WPKH and P2WSH are different. To create P2WPKH we compute HASH160 of public key (so we have a small 160-bit digest) which is then encoded using Bech32 to get that short address you see. To create P2WSH we have a "redeem script" which we compute its SHA256 hash (so we have a 256-bit digest) which is then encoded using Bech32 to get that longer address you see. 7250d91085a77a4568fa4cfd5bebb59f0b9cb3530f8154cd4fab6d28abd548fe
Is this the correct hash160 for the P2WSH address mentioned in the example ?
Yes this is the correct SHA256 digest for that address. The ice library thing you used doesn't seem to support decoding P2WSH addresses for some reason. https://github.com/iceland2k14/secp256k1/blob/691e238c4a05c4bc93959fa339df341f24113919/secp256k1.py#L400The address_to_h160 you called using the P2WSH address should have thrown an exception instead of returning a value since it is meant to decode P2PKH (Base58 encoded) addresses and not anything else. |
|
|
|
|
It is a win-win situation for the FUDsters in the end.
If Binance goes down, they will jump up and down in celebration and will fill the internet with I told you so's. That will also give them legitimacy and future followers whom they can manipulate in the future for their own benefits.
If nothing happens, they will be idiots like hundreds of others who made such claims and will be forgotten until they repeat similar FUD campaign. On top of that they could create fake volatility in the market since they could actually cause some panic among some weak hands like the recent panic sell the moment price went up above $18k which coincided with an increased amount of FUD.
As long as they are getting the reaction they wish for out of the market, their FUD campaigns will keep on coming.
|
|
|
|
|
In the end no matter what the policy makers do, it won't help bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. Because if they ban them or the centralized services, the scams won't stop and future FTX like collapses will still happen. And if they heavily regulate the market it still won't help users because such regulations have always been privacy invading type that targets users and they do nothing to provide any kind of security for them so FTX like collapses will still happen!
|
|
|
|
|
As long as this doesn't turn into a long term habit where you always check the price, there is no problem with it. It is normal that during the first couple of weeks of adopting bitcoin for you to be worried about the price specially since the market is a bit weird right now.
But if it turned out to be a long term thing, there could be a problem with the amount you'd invested in bitcoin. If you invest what you can afford to lose your concern will also be a lot less.
|
|
|
|
I am surprised. Usually public sector is more inefficient than private. What's the tradeoff?
The downside of private sector is that they work like any other capitalist, when global price goes up they increase local price as well and there is not much the government can do about that. See US for example, they increased domestic gas price in accordance with the global price surge without hesitation. The government makes their profit by exporting energy at ridiculously high prices to others. The downside of that is that they get addicted to easy money and if that export is disrupted for any reason (eg. sanctions or price fall) they have no clue what to do about budget deficits so they print money and increase inflation (hence the terrible exchange rate). The wages are low if you convert it to $ due to exchange rate but not when it is compared to cost of living. For example the total of all utility bills I paid last month is barely 1% of what minimum wage salary is. The cost of my bimonthly electric bill was the cost of a small bag of chips. The fact that Iran doesn't have the most Bitcoin miners shows it's not as accessible as other countries.
There are a lot of factors affecting that but being "accessible" is not one of them. For example Iranians usually go for altcoin mining with GPU rigs not so much bitcoin mining with ASICs after bitcoin-GPU-mining stopped being possible. There has also been a lot of ups and downs over the years. For example when GPU mining was replaced by ASIC mining, many gave up mining altogether. Or two or three years ago when mining started being regulated and many foreigners were kicked out of the country for having illegal mining farms that stole electricity and never paid any taxes; that decreased our total hashrate. Or last year when had a weird electricity crisis for 2-3 months it slowed down the industry's growth. But the industry is still growing every day, it just takes time for farms to build up. Additionally the real statistics about Iran's economy is never going to be known, just like nobody knows how much oil we sell and how. Since mined bitcoins are also used officially as one of the currencies for international trades, the official hashrate will definitely not be made public. My estimate is somewhere around 10% at this point and the mining community is working with the energy ministry to increase their capacity for example by building facilities that could use wasted gas flares for electricity generation, installing more solar panels, etc. and in the next 4-5 years we could easily be looking at a quarter of total hashrate. |
|
|
|
Well why people not talk about peer-to-peer exchanges , which is probably where people can trade safely
Decentralized exchanges are growing too but since they are decentralized they aren't really advertised as much as the centralized ones that have dedicated funds for such advertisement so their growth is slower. There is also differences in interfaces and features that may seem less convenient to some hardcore traders. Trading volume in some cases is a factor too. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin, by design of its disappearing block subsidy, will eventually require WAY higher fees than that in order to remain the least bit secure.
So long term, low bitcoin fees are just wishful thinking. It was not designed for that.
In that long term things have changed so much that Bitcoin itself may be obsolete because cryptography has significantly changed. Just the cryptography we use today is nothing like what was used during WWI. What's important is that so far over the past 13 years fees have gone down and despite reward going down from 50 BTC to 6.25 BTC there was no need for WAY higher fees! For example we have no blackouts here and the electricity price is about $0.002 per KWH. So cheap?  Which country is that, if I may ask? Iran. But don't be surprised, that is what happens when a country has the most amount of resources in the world and the energy sector (basically all utility bills) is owned by the government not the private sector. |
|
|
|
With the collapse of FTX these things became more much imaginable
Wrong. With the collapse of MtGox that happened nearly a decade ago, collapse of centralized exchanges became a sure thing. Now if some people have chosen to forget that and think it can not happen to other exchanges (Bitfinex, Cryptsy, Bittrex, Poloniex, ....) that is their own naivete. To answer your question, Binance could collapse and I have been saying this ever since it started growing and it still wasn't as big as other altcoin exchanges like the scammers called Bittrex. I don't see anything changed except the size of their operation. However, the current drama about CEXes in the media is 90% FUD. |
|
|
|
Consensus was broken when Core devs decided to go against Bitcoin´s White Paper: For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend.
Unconfirmed transactions have never been safe ever. With or without RBF this fact is not changing and what you insist on calling "attack" is not a thing. Full-RBF was deliberately included on Core V24.0 without reaching consensus.
Options that have nothing to do with the consensus rules do not need to reach any kind of consensus. It opens a door to centralization under Blockstream: Bitcoin is not Lightning. Lighting is a L2 solution for scalability of micropayments. Bitcoin L1 is the truly secure, high value layer.
Nonsense. Full-RBF solves NO problem: RBF already existed, there was no reason for Full-RBF to be deployed.
Full-RBF enables ANY transaction to be double spendable,
I agree with this part. Specifically since we have CPFP option. any honest transaction could be replaced by a malicious higher fee one. This could result in censorship, seizure of funds by an state actor or theft.
Complete nonsense. Sender is in control of their keys so nobody can censor or seize their funds. The receiver also is not in the possession of the unconfirmed transaction so there is nothing there to censor or seize either. After the confirmation there is still no way to censor or seize the coins that are in their possession since they would control the key. Because of how Bitcoin's cryptography works, You'll not find substantial attack worthy unspent UTXO. This is because whales know that any pvt key gets easier to extract through brute force if you already use it to sign a transaction.
Complete nonsense. There is no way to "brute force" any private key by having the signature, one signature or a million doesn't change that. Any transaction awaiting in the mempool is vulnerable due to this same reason. This is why the first seen rule was included on Bitcoin's white paper.
Complete nonsense. You either didn't read bitcoin's white paper or misunderstood it all, don't just read point #2, continue reading #3 and #4. That is how bitcoin works (confirmed transactions in blocks protected by Poof of Work) not by unconfirmed txs in the mempool based on which one was seen first, in fact this last part is the flaw that Satoshi is pointing out in other systems that bitcoin solves with PoW. If a state agent is able to extract a PVT key from a transacción on the mempool in less than 10 minutes on 2022, or in X years from now is not an argument. Full-RBF is opening the back door towards censorship and seizure of Bitcoin's transactions.
If that becomes a possibility, the same imaginary "state agent" would also mine the block containing the double spent transaction without needing Full-RBF  |
|
|
|
When you have opted to put the funds in your personal non-custodial wallet, why not make a step further in selecting an open-source wallet such as an unstoppable wallet and save yourself from any possible issues?
Exactly. It may make some sense to use a closed source wallet like Coinomi for certain altcoins or claiming airdrops that don't have any decent open source wallets specially light weight wallets but there is simply no justification for choosing a closed source wallet when we already have good open source wallets for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
There is no need to change the protocol or add any more complication. It is easily solved by making bitcoin more decentralized.
In fact any time you are thinking about any of the basic principles of bitcoin (in this case censorship resistance) the same question arises: how decentralized is bitcoin? Because decentralization is the solution to all your concerns regarding these principles.
If one government in one jurisdiction demands censorship in their own country, the rest of the world are not going to follow and as long as all or majority of bitcoin mining power is not in that jurisdiction, their decision won't matter one bit.
Case in point US government having a blacklist of bitcoin addresses they have "sanctioned". They simply can not enforce that on miners/mining-pools because bitcoin is decentralized and the amount of hashrate in US jurisdiction is small.
The bitcoin community also doesn't look kindly to such actions.
Case in point MARA pool. News came out they were censoring transactions, so they were attacked by eveeryone and even their stock price dumped. The small number of miners connecting to their pool (the majority of hashrate is owned by the company itself) left the pool too.
It is going to be the same with any other mining pool that tries going down that road.
|
|
|
|
Interesting how two btc supporters are only able to talk about ethereum.
Maybe start a new topic and quit derailing this one.
Topic is Replacement for POW in BTC.
Try and focus.
Altcoins have always been an experimentation ground for bitcoin. A shitcoin that has copied majority of its protocol from bitcoin changed part of it to a different algorithm. It is a valid discussion to talk about that change. You also still experience Energy Blackouts on a daily basis in your country.
You still haven't learned that bitcoin is not for one or two countries or a region. It is a global currency and for every country that has some issues or bans bitcoin there are dozens that don't. For example we have no blackouts here and the electricity price is about $0.002 per KWH. Geographically speaking most EU countries are only as big as one of our average size cities and the whole country is as big as more than half of Europe combined. So even if half of EU were dark (which it isn't since there are only small number of blackouts) it is negated by one country alone. There are a lot of other cases like this. How long before they place that carbon tax on btc transactions in Europe BTC exchanges.
Bitcoin "transactions" don't go through exchanges. Bitcoin trades to! There is already a hefty tax on trades which has nothing to do with mining algorithm of the coins. BTC needs an energy efficient alternative to current PoW, if it wants to be taken seriously.
Bitcoin's Proof of Work is the most energy efficient algorithm that exists and it is taken seriously which is evident from the adoption around the world with multiple countries adopting it as legal tender, more as legal currency and the billions of dollars of businesses that are built on top of bitcoin and millions of dollars that is transferred using bitcoin on daily basis. a $1.82 transaction fee eats up 14% of a day wages.
This is why a centralized shitcoin like ETH that is using PoS and has fees that are above $5 is not useful while bitcoin that has a transaction fee of less than $0.10 is.  |
|
|
|
did you mistype and meant rather "no one can spend the coins" ?
No. For forward compatibility the consensus rules have to assume any transaction spending any of the future witness versions (currently anything >=2) are valid by only performing minimal checks. Otherwise any future witness program has to be activated through a hard fork instead of a soft fork. If the output script is OP_NUM + a single data push with total size between 4 and 42 it is considered a witness program and the interpreter will only check the following 2 if the OP_NUM is anything except OP_0 and OP_1: 1. Signature script of that input is empty 2. Program doesn't evaluate to OP_FALSE bc1sw50qgdz25j is OP_16 <751e> and since 0x751e is not equal OP_FALSE anybody can spend any coins sent to this non-standard address without needing to provide any signature or anything since witness version 16 is not yet defined (we only have version 0 and 1). Although because of it being non-standard, almost all full nodes reject such transactions and user has to contact a miner to include them in a block. |
|
|
|
Bech32 encoding has 3 parts: (a) a human readable part that is "bc" for bitcoin (other chars used for other coins/chains) (b) a separator which is always "1" (c) the data part that is at least 6 characters long. In bitcoin (SegWit) addresses the first character is the witness version. Bitcoin's Bech32 addresses are only defined for 2 witness versions and a total of 3 address types: * P2WPKH that is using witness version 0 and is a short address encoding 20 bytes of data (pubkey hash) and starts with bc1q ( q being the witness version) * P2WSH that is also using witness version 0 and is a longer address encoding 32 bytes of data (script hash) and starts with bc1q ( q being the witness version) * P2TR that is using witness version 1 and is as long as P2WSH address encoding 32 bytes of data (tweaked pubkey) and starts with bc1p ( p being the first byte of the data encoding the witness version). The reason why you find so many addresses starting with bc1p is because Taproot was activated a while ago and people are using it hence the addresses. Any other address you see that is using a different length or a different witness version (bc1 sw50qgdz25j with s being witness version 16) is non-standard and anybody can spend the coins sent to these addresses because there are no consensus rules defined for them yet. but no bc1p1 prefixed addresses.
1 is only used as the separator not as part of the bech32 charset for encoding which is why you will never see it as part of the encoded data. Note: If you see a string like this the human readable part is actually "bc1p" and the second 1 is considered as the separator and everything after that 1 is the data. What cirumstance led to this fact that no such bc1p1 prefixed addresses were generated and seen out there ?
A separator was needed, symbols would have made copying harder so "1" was chosen. When it is used as separator it should be removed from the charset. More here. |
|
|
|
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had a significant impact on the economy of our country. I remember when the conflict between these two countries just started, the price of gasoline increased a lot until the highest level reached was more than 2$ per liter.
But it's a good thing now that it has dropped to around 1$-1.2$ per liter, it's good that the conflict between these two countries has calmed down because they are not helping the economy of the countries that surround them in the world actually.
Don't confuse bubbles bursting with the conflict calming down. It is quite the opposite, the conflict is getting worse every day. Just recently US gave Ukraine the permission to attack Russian soil and Russia armed its nuclear missiles that could reach both US and Europe. Basically the world got used to this war which may be why you think it has calmed down; the 24/7 coverage during the first days is now a barely mentioned thing that people specially in EU react to as "what else is new" considering all the economical problems they have themselves. |
|
|
|
If you don't like the feature, just fork Bitcoin again. There is nothing any of us can do to reverse course. This is the decentralized consensus after all.
This is misleading because RBF is not a consensus rule to need any kind of fork to change. It is part of the standard rules which is how nodes treat the transactions they receive in their mempool. Kind of like fees. |
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, right that's why most open source wallets are the most targeted apps of any hacks, scams and phishing, e.g. Electrum. I remember millions was lost and got phished not once[1] but twice[2]. Well, there are lot of hack cases happened in an open source apps too including the smart contracts[3].
It is not impossible to see any vulnerability in open source software. The difference is that such vulnerabilities are extremely rare and are almost never in security critical parts. For example the example you used about Electrum was not a vulnerability in Electrum that led to any funds being lost by Electrum itself, it was a mistake by users who installed another malicious software from elsewhere and lost their coins to that scam. Your smart contract example is also a bad one because from day one we knew that Ethereum protocol is flawed and can be exploited. So there was no surprise there. And we knew that because it is open source! We also know that they never really fixed it either. Also, i bet there is no way you can verify that the code published publicly as open source are the same actual codes that were deployed on their live servers. Unless it was compiled by you to build the application from being open source, or from github it self.
Good projects like Electrum and bitcoin core are using deterministic builds which means whoever compiles the source code will get the same exact binaries. So we can be sure that the binary that they publish is the same as the source code. And talking about the coinomi, the lost amount of money
were too little compared to electrum.
You should also consider that Coinomi is far less popular with a lot less number of users. See, either its open source or closed source, hacks and scams happen. While being open source has huge advantage, but the fact that people still need to trust the developers who make the code and conduct the code audit because not everyone can read source codes, so you still need to "trust" someone/developer for your safety and fund security while most people who conduct this scams, hacks, phishing are developers as well.
That's true but based on popularity of the project you can be more sure that enough number of people have looked at the code to not have any backdoors. Regardless of how popular a closed source software is, you can never reach the same level of certainty. Where later on you can sue the business for what incident happen, while you can't to open source developers because they are excluded if people read open source license particularly the MIT, ISC and other no liability open source licenses.
I don't think you can sue any of them. There is always some sort of Terms of Services that protects them from being liable. For example Trust wallet that is closed source is released under GPL! See Liability part of TrustWallet or Limitations of Coinomi. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
No country buys gas for rubles. None! Is the price of gas set in rubles? NO ! IN DOLLAR or EURO!
