|
1. US is the IMF reserve and the manager of international loan policy.. they can rig their own credit rating.
2. defaulting to other countries can be cured by a few things, such examples are:
a.the loans it makes to other countries can be cancelled out against the loans other countries made to the us. 1for1
thus bringing the amounts down. (writing off debt)
b.rigging the forex rate to change how much breadloaf/labour value of money is owed to other countries
EG if $1 =€1.10 they can change that to €2.20 and half the debt owed by measuring the debt in €expected back to the eu
3. the US can just QE new money domestically without needing to get loans from any countries
..
with all that said fiat is a scam.they can create as much as they like and dont need a vote from their populous to loin in or out more either.. they tax you where taxes are suppose to pay for public services for the populous to benefit from.. but they are now finding excuses to not pay for public services (road/bridge repairs/emergency services) and instead want taxes to pay the rich corporations that dont offer public services. yep the populous pays into the tax treasury but no longer get the same amount out in public populous benefit/services
bitcoin however is not tethered to US economy even if its priced in it. bitcoin has its own international community where bitcoin has its own usecase and functionality meaning its own price discovery,
that said if we use a breadloaf value/labour value EG $7.50 was min wage now moving to $15... $1.25 was bread now $2.50. bitcoins growth has exceeded that in deflation in less time. so dollars inflation doesnt pair to bitcoins deflation
when people hate the dollar they cannot exactly move 100% to another currency for daily life because fiat still controls things like wage requirements, taxes, bills, debts. however some will try to find ways to lock value up from their savings into crypto investments.
however the large traders that could affect the crypto market price substantially will do OTC trading, meaning not directly affecting the bitcoin price.
there will be some price drama. but it can go both ways
people losing daily spend fiat lifestyle ability will sell their investments to survive a fiat life. or those already settled in a cozy fiat life with no debts/payments to make to survive will invest into crypto
...
however the downside is limited.
bitcoin has a fundamental infrastructure "bottom" which aligns with the lowest most efficient mining cost on the planet.
no one wants to sell for less than anyone on the planet can mine for. so unless there is a mega hashrate drop. there is a bottom that is non zero. at the moment this bottom was $15k moving to $20k. which means the downside can only go to $20k but the upside this year so far can go upto $130k due to same fundamental measures of the same, for the tops
no one knows the amount, timing or price it can be in the future but the signs are there would be more of an upside chance than a downside chance in the near future. but no one knows for sure.. it can go both ways
|
|
|
|
Bit of a simplification don't you think? What about the miners who secure the network who no doubt in favour of increased revenue (overall)? What about Bitcoin maxis like Michael Saylor who recently came out in favour of data inscription on Bitcoin (generally speaking), that includes ordindals. In his examples, this included things like will & testaments that could be inscribed for a VERY cheap $20/30 right now.
saylor is not a bitcoin maxi. he is a msat maxi he loves another network called lightning which is where middle men get fee's he wants people to move away from bitcoin and use another network. so ofcourse he doesnt want bitcoin exploits fixed the thing is many have used LN seen its flaws and moved out of LN. there are more people using other subnetwork bridges. becasue of the simple fact that LN is flawed and limited and doesnt meets its promises/purpose/function that people were told it could LN will never handle bitcoin value amounts. its always going to be a small niche service for the penny pinchers to borrow value between each other and steal that borrowed value from others Anyone can think in the poor El Salvador people who use BTC in her normal day?  el salvador was scammed/duped into using LN because they were told "it was bitcoin".. after 3 months. they seen the flaws and liquidity issues. they instead went with something else the promoter that duped them then ran off and tried his game in africa. who also seen the same flaws.. they too are trying something else i do hope devs dont waste another 6 years trying to force people over to broken LN and instead try to plug the bitcoin exploit or start afresh on a different subnetwork bridge that is actually useful.. because the solution/salvation is not going to be LN |
|
|
|
OP, you have to lock this topic, because it's factually incorrect and it's going to give people false hope about the mempool situation being resolved quickly.
I just did an interview with DL News they asked me for, so it will be beneficial to get the facts out here for all to see.
What I can say is on the edge of happening is that I have to step up my Lightning game. And probably a lot of other devs as well.
in short you want to abandon fixing bitcoin bugs and waste time fixing LN flaws and hope everyone moves over to LN... shameful oh im pigeon holing you back in the idiot camp along with doomad and his troops again you do realise that LN has a liquidity issue right. its not something devs will ever solve to make LN function like bitcoin does. LN will always be a system for the penny pincher small value stuff. no design change will make LN handle bitcoin traffic but you will learn the hard way.. in i expect another 10 years of delay to scaling while everyone waits for the promises of devs.. see you then also funny how your commits to bitcoin core are very very limited (adding a print statement to a log script) yet you want to tell media an opinion as if your the dev spokesperson.. sounds to me you are trying to push a narrative that nothing should be done to bitcoin and everyones only hope is another sub-par broken network that cant handle bitcoin value amounts.. seems you have gone full anti-bitcoin pro altnet |
|
|
|
Will the shitty meme coins or whatever that crap is already going down? I just seen some tweets of people saying that their tokens vanished from their wallets! This is already from yesterday but I only saw it today. https://twitter.com/m__btc/status/1655818523887689728?s=20Please, that all crap disappear from all wallets... i know i should feel sympathy for scam victims. but these brc were even from day one obvious scams.. and so it makes me laugh reading the tweet examples of people saying they lost their scamcoin which cost them $100-$300 and then ask who do they contact rule one know who your handing funds to BEFORE handing them funds. then you can slap them if they rip you off i see its idiots spending money on things they dont understand and spending it with people they dont know. those people are not investors, they are victims that learn the hard way ask yourself if someone you dont know walked upto you on the street and offered you something you never seen before and dont know what it is for $100-$300 would you give them the money, knowing you will never see them again people really need to do their research and learn what they are getting themselves into |
|
|
|
|
your soo fixated on letting devs loosen consensus for their benefit of not having to wait for the community to be ready to activate a new opcode/ruleset.. and not fix their stupidity. that you will let them make more future stupid implementations that allow newer future exploits
ever heard the term bug fixes, patches, .. i guess not
you do realise that things can be fixed without halting genuine progress
devs own message about enabling lots of opcodes was that they would when utility of such was needed they would then apply rules to opcodes.. thus avoid a activation process in the middle by flipping the paradigm
however guess what these unassigned opcodes that had no rules are being used so devs should now be assigning rules .. BUT THEY ARE NOT. thus breaking more promises
take your scripts and shred them. and then go do some research, learn the code learn how things worked and how they work now. stop reading some cave dweller chest thumping words and actually learn bitcoin
you are putting more care into what certain devs should be allowed to do unhindered rather than thinking about BITCOIN that should protect itself from human exploitation of code
dont defend a dev. defend the code from devs
if devs make a mistake they should undo that mistake
there are ways to code rules that dont hinder development.. its called rules.. yep code is rules.
the current bypass and assume valid lack of rules is a flaw not a feature
|
|
|
|
i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from, drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama.
but here is the thing
segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable
yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through
I don't think I'm going to hit a finger in the sky if I assume you're from the old guard of futuristic retrogrades who are against any development of bitcoin at all - hands off self-sufficient ideal perfection and let us croak peacefully in our cozy little swamp. You are mistaken, this problem existed before the 2017 update, but before that there was no attempt to use it on a mass scale. you are reading the wrong scripts. whomever is spoon feeding you needs to so their research and hen YOU need to do your own research away from them (i can tell you are script reading because you use the same narrative and buzzwords that is spreading around, to coincidentally) so here is my response before segwit there was no 3mb witness area to exploit nor was there hundreds of opsuccess unassigned opcodes that had no rules. thus these ordinals and crap happening in 2023 was not able to happen in 2016 GO learn oh and back in the day when small random data was added to opreturn. the emphasis was on SMALL and it was useless for anything thus no ONE BOTHERED using it for junk to any mass scale, thus wasnt a problem worthy of fixing these NEW opcodes and unassigned space that is being exploited DUE TO RECENT UPGRADES is causing a concern its like the difference between an itch throat once a day. vs not breathing due to covid. there is a big difference between the types of junk invading a system another thing. even if you now want to follow the lame script of "soft activations happened decades ago too" the rebuttal of that is simple back when things like multisig opcodes came about those opcodes HAD format requirements, had rules.. rules attached of what content was expected to be found when using such opcodes.. thus they were not lame unassigned opcodes that allow any random junk. opcodes should have rules if they are to be used. the unassigned ones should be deactivated until PROPOSALS are made to assign rules to opcodes. and then when pools say they are ready to validate such becasue they have upgraded their nodes to validate such then they can make blocks containing such. thus keep integrity aligned.. unlike the situation in the recent years yep recently DEVS said to pre-activate opcodes unassigned. and later add rules to them.. well guess what unassigned opcodes are being used so its time devs get off their asses and put the rules inplace they said they would do, or deactivate them until they do and if you are still delusionally sticking to the script i dare you to add a ordinal jpeg meme to a legacy transaction.. oh you cant... well ask yourself why then go do your research |
|
|
|
so how about you stop sucking up to them and realise their lame excuses to evade fixes is them not doing their role as maintainers of bitcoin security
The security of bitcoin is threatened only by a sharp reduction in the hashrate and nothing else. As long as the network hashrate grows or remains stable, then everything is fine with security. But any attempts at censorship can seriously threaten the future of bitcoin as a censorship-resistant system, and the developers are well aware of this, and therefore are inactive. This Pandora's box is not to be touched. If shitty pictures can bring the bitcoin network to its knees, then the place of this network is already in the dustbin of history. the shitty pictures only were allowed due to a BUG core devs were calling a feature, which THEY enabled a feature they promised would enable people to do multisig using only 1 signature space (thus their promise is broken by not doing as intended) - thus not a feature they also WEAKENED consensus which allowed the snowball growth of exploits if you want to let the devs continue tinkering and weakening bitcoin then knees are not the problem. falling on its face into a pile of shit will be letting it continue unfixed is making bitcoin worse. if they make it so its exploitable, but unwilling to fix it.. then that is a bad premiss to make years ago when bugs were made, devs fixed them. so we should get them to fix their latest bug they enabled they already opened pandorers box. so you are too late in the "dont touch" but now you dont want them to close the box reversing an exploit is not breaking anything. its fixing it. before the exploit(pre 2021 inception of lots of new crappy opcodes) no one was crying that it was hindering development. it was the updates of 2021 that really weakened consensus further to the point of letting these shitty things happen now going back to 2021 standards wont hinder development. it would just mean devs will need to think smarter next time before enabling shitty opcodes and to reinforce the rules of consensus a few practical things can be done to other changes too from the past. where rules actually need to have conditions. and validations checks actually do their job of validating content You are mistaken, the problem existed before the 2021 update, but before that there were no attempts to exploit it on a mass scale. The patch may make exploiting this vulnerability more difficult, but it won't help to get rid of it completely - and will give rise to a host of other negative side effects, the full extent of which is currently difficult to determine. Perhaps the most insignificant of them is that it will cross out the bitcoin development roadmap. i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from, drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama. but here is the thing segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through |
|
|
|
 But there is still hope... that particular thing is not a fix. thats just a zero-confirm tx relay filter. it doesnt stop ordinal scum from their current process of just pushtx their zero confirms directly to mining pools and evading he network relay of pre-confirm a real fix is to set rules for opcodes where contents of witness that use opcodes need to actually fit the rules. EG signatures that actually associate and validate to the spending inputs whereby if blocks put tx with random data that does not fit rules get their blocks rejected. thus they stop putting random crap tx into their blocks |
|
|
|
There is no war. Just a bug being exploited. Lets kick the spam out. they can go elsewhere, no one is stopping them to make their own spam blockchain. Ordisrespectorthat is not a fix but a weak bypass. it just makes nodes not relay zero confirms p2p. yet most of the ordinal scumbags are doing pushtx direct with mining pools, evading the zero confirm p2p relay. so it wont stop it a true fix is to have devs actually only enable opcodes that have rules and conditions of use. where if the content after the opcode doesnt fit the rules then its rejected. thus no random data can be put into witness whereby blocks can be rejected if they put in tx that dont fit the rules.. as bitcoin should be (having proper consensus rules) |
|
|
|
so how about you stop sucking up to them and realise their lame excuses to evade fixes is them not doing their role as maintainers of bitcoin security
The security of bitcoin is threatened only by a sharp reduction in the hashrate and nothing else. As long as the network hashrate grows or remains stable, then everything is fine with security. But any attempts at censorship can seriously threaten the future of bitcoin as a censorship-resistant system, and the developers are well aware of this, and therefore are inactive. This Pandora's box is not to be touched. If shitty pictures can bring the bitcoin network to its knees, then the place of this network is already in the dustbin of history. the shitty pictures only were allowed due to a BUG core devs were calling a feature, which THEY enabled a feature they promised would enable people to do multisig using only 1 signature space (thus their promise is broken by not doing as intended) - thus not a feature they also WEAKENED consensus which allowed the snowball growth of exploits if you want to let the devs continue tinkering and weakening bitcoin then knees are not the problem. falling on its face into a pile of shit will be letting it continue unfixed is making bitcoin worse. if they make it so its exploitable, but unwilling to fix it.. then that is a bad premiss to make years ago when bugs were made, devs fixed them. so we should get them to fix their latest bug they enabled they already opened pandorers box. so you are too late in the "dont touch" but now you dont want them to close the box reversing an exploit is not breaking anything. its fixing it. before the exploit(pre 2021 inception of lots of new crappy opcodes) no one was crying that it was hindering development. it was the updates of 2021 that really weakened consensus further to the point of letting these shitty things happen now going back to 2021 standards wont hinder development. it would just mean devs will need to think smarter next time before enabling shitty opcodes and to reinforce the rules of consensus a few practical things can be done to other changes too from the past. where rules actually need to have conditions. and validations checks actually do their job of validating content |
|
|
|
|
doomad im not saying is impossible. im saying the core dev is finding excuses to not make it possible
by the way you are the one that took one word and extremitised it to mean what you thought it meant to then cry like a baby. you did not read the contents of the whole sentence i said
heck you even in your post just doubled down by throwing more silly excuses why that cant, wont, shouldnt do it.. proving my point
they use excuses like pretending rules cant be made to fix it. by saying if they just shorten witness space to 20 sig lengths then people will still use the space.. however what they are not capable of admitting is that they can put rules inplace to say what data would go into such 20 signature length space.. EG actually have rules to validate the content
so how about you stop sucking up to them and realise their lame excuses to evade fixes is them not doing their role as maintainers of bitcoin security
realise one thing
you spent so many years sucking up to them, presumably for free hoping they pay you one day. but by your penny pinching of sigcampaigns have you not realised yet your ass-kissing wont get a pay day, or it would have already
care more about bitcoin and less about the monarchy controling bitcoin. one day when you had enough of kissing ass you will realise they are the authoritarians.. not the community
|
|
|
|
|
just like how "mainstreaming" hyped up turning bitcoin from a private property into a currency resulted in regulators being able to control aspects of crypto
this topics conversation is trying to hype up how a EU country is implementing something .. which end result would be to make crypto taxable..
too many people pump the hype but never understand the consequences.
understand what they mean by paying for government services(tax)
imagine it this way do you really want to have to create transactions where part of the destination addresses is a tax office address. where you have to pay sales tax or cap gains tax on transactions
EG
have 1btc you bought at $6 in 2012 . but because you never used it its still sat as a utxo realised value of $6 but then you move it 11 years later at $29k knowing you have to pay 30% of it to a tax office just for moving it becasue you have realised 28,994 of value increase so have to send them 0.3btc just to move your coin
yep once they are apply tax acceptance law to crypto they will soon after, be wanting to grab tax revenue from it
|
|
|
|
Personally, I find the central idea of ordinals quite elegant and true cypherpunk.
you are joking right ordinals are junk. its not something cypherpunks would ever waste time on you do realise that the crap junk of json data has no real proof of transfer within the json data that has rules to stop counterfeiting or double spending right.. .. do you even know why cypherpunks spend decades trying to make good money. becasue idea's like the json data fake tokens are not a currency. so they did not even bother with json crap as for the previous versions of ordinals like the deadweight memes, those too had no proof of transfer within its system and the 'first sat' version is broke. there is a miscount of inscriptions and such already. so please actually learn that ordinals is junk of meaningless value/rule/proofs of cryptographic transfer and realise cypherpunks wont even waste time on that crap.. because they never did |
|
|
|
@notatether seems the main core team answered and they want to do nothing. pretending its impossible https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-May/021625.htmlfunny how they orchestrated many soft forks in the last couple years but now pretend its difficult they even orchestrated a major hardfork via a mandated mining pool blackmail of block rejecting 6 years ago.. but now they are pretending they cant do it again they argue that they cant reject data space of more then 20 signature lengths because it would cause issues like pre taproot.. yet they know that they can implement rules that what goes into witness area is an actual signature because the CONTENT has to meet a rule of being a signature that matches the signing key. and reject anything thats not a signature/doesnt meet a rule of association with utxo rules of spending they are stupidly coming up with stupid excuses not to change things to fix the problem also taproots "promise" was a new way for multisig thats just 1 signature length. so their talk of 20 sig lengths becomes meaningless if they actually did meet their promises they want to keep the space open but not implement rules of what goes inside that data.. that is what i define as a trojan horse saying the gates of the castle are open to horses but we wont check that its a real horse or whats inside the horses satchel or inside the horses belly(wood or meat looking horse) they like the lack of rules even though code should be used to make rules not break rules they know they can set rules for each opcode. and enable unset opcodes to be disabled until true consensus is reached, where true consensus would only be reached when a unset opcode gets proposed to have certain conditions and nodes have the code of those rules conditions to THEN activate it (as the old way was).. but they simply dont want to do it
as for the civil war its core maintainers(corporate sponsored devs that are messing with bitcoin for last 7 years), casey (ordinals idiot) is part of that chum group. and a few of their acolytes vs everyone else Luke JR has been a high contributor to core but he was always sidelined. when he is usefull to the core roadmap they let him code. when he is not usefull to their roadmap they ignore him. luke had some fixes but could not even get them listed as BIPS. thats how much control the maintainers have of bitcoin |
|
|
|
I know it's getting fashionable to assume that is going to happen right now but please read this topic and also understand that dashjr can't just say whatever he wants and it gets implemented. In fact, nothing has been decided upon yet (I was part of the discussion but the news doesn't credit me for starting it and in fact it even clipped out my message). luke already had some fixes coded months ago but core didnt even want it listed as a bip on bitcoin core github so he had to implement it in his own 'knots' full node. it just goes to show that the main core team of merge/maintainer capability dont want to fix it. the main team(sponsored devs) of bitcoin core (with maintainer keys) were paid to change bitcoin to allow these opcodes that are now being abused |
|
|
|
If this can be voted for and immediately implemented, then it's a very welcome development. This is just to fix the bug; it will not affect the BRC-20 token holders since they already have nearly a billion dollars in market capitalization,
BRC is not a real proof of transfer system with proper security to lock value. its a json junk of text even cypherpunks that spent decades trying to create currency would not design or think basic json data passes the simple monetary policies tests also the market cap is false measure too. someone creating 21m numbers and scammed 1 person to buy it for a small single unit amount creates a large cap anyone can make a better altcoin of a blockchain premined 21m real tokens and sell 0.0001 unit for $100 and cause a market cap of $210billion they can then sell back to the seller and the seller sell back to the buyer(becasue both are same person with 2 accounts) 1000 in a day to make a volume of $10k volume. and then make other accounts to move other units of the same token with no real fiat cost to increase the volume |
|
|
|
Or the Lightning Network for those people like us who want to use Bitcoin.
you do realise that more individuals are avoiding lightning and instead using other subnetworks that peg to bitcoin for there transactions already realise many have used lightning for a bit and realised its flaws and moved on. the lightning network has less liquidity than other subnetworks bridges. plus most of the liquidity on lightning is locked as reserves of services rather than individuals.. LN cannot handle regular peoples bitcoin transaction value. it fails with amounts less than a months wage. plus there are many ways partners and routing path participants can steal and use up peoples value. it just doesnt do what bitcoin does so people dont use it apart from the same shameless promoters that try to talk about it all day |
|
|
|
|
remember folks trade volume and market cap are meaningless. anyone can manipulate those numbers
remember its a small group of idiots with thousands of different 4 letter word jsons they spam and spend to themselves to appear as a real market but its all fake.
any other idiot handing over value for these is being scammed
|
|
|
|
|
random users rejecting zero confirm tx at relay wont stop it.
what needs to happen is the economic nodes (businesses/services which users want to stay connected and viewable by) along with pools need to stop accepting blocks that include them..
its like 2017 but in reverse. where at a certain date a mandated threat that pools will get their blocks rejected if they accept non standard tx (use certain opcodes that dont have any rulesets set). thus after that date it goes back to a system where if bew features are wanted then proposals are needed to say what the rules will be for a new opcode. then devs will release it and a activation system would occur once majority is reached. like it used to be
if it was just a uahf then users will just be splitting themselves off he network by rejecting alot of blocks if mining pools continue building with blocks containing spam junk.
its become a system where the main exchanges and devs can threaten pools. but users have become the followers or leavers
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
