Speaking from personal experience, the number of merchants I use which accept zero confirmations for low value transactions is much higher than the number of merchants I use which use Lightning. I suppose this change will force them to adapt.
I don't really have experience with that, I use RBF even when I shouldn't really, so I am used to wait for confirmations. If the use of LN is that good, that's a good news. It's also bad news for user who only occasionally spend their Bitcoin on such services. It's unlikely they'll bother use LN wallet or lock their Bitcoin on LN channel when they only make transaction once in a month.
Good point. People will have to wait for at least one confirmation if they go on-chain. If I'd do that I would at least consider using a custodian LN wallet (like blue wallet). Not a perfect solution, but it does the job once in a while. |
|
|
|
The market appears to be controlled by a small group of people, which is the opposite of what bitcoin was about. However, this is the most perilous and terrifying bearish market I've seen since I invested in cryptocurrencies. Whales never cease selling their assets on exchanges. Everywhere sells panic.
I have the impression that it's you who's trying to spread "news" with potential to panic newbies. As the others said, 5000 BTC is not an amount that can make the markets go wild, especially if it's indeed from miners that try to cash in as good as they can. Of course, there's no guarantee that the market won't go lower, but that's not because of only 5k. |
|
|
|
I've found a rather interesting situation today on the trust viewer. I was trying to look up why I do trust (indirectly) a certain account. The way I use to do this is to look on that account trust list and see who is trusting him. It usually does the trick. But now the user doesn't have his own trust list, hence nothing is shown. I don't know if it qualifies as a change request (please don't do it only for me), but maybe even these accounts should show who is trusting them. ...It's just an idea. Even if you don't change anything it's already a great tool. But you know that  |
|
|
|
Am convinced that Bitcoin and cryptocurrency serves as a means of Exchange for trading.
I am not sure what you mean here. If you use translation for this, it may be a good idea to look for the subforum in your language, maybe somebody can explain there better. If you refer to trading/speculating and exchange between Bitcoin and altcoins, then you're wrong. If you refer to Bitcoin as being a coin (coin = a tool/helper for exchanging your work for various goods and services), you're not far from the truth. And I'll go on this path. Am still trying to understand the clear difference between the both and know how to place them in their separate parts..
Bitcoin is "the firstcomer". Bitcoin has the strongest network (so overly expensive to break it that it doesn't worth to even try). Bitcoin is accepted in most places. Bitcoin is the "base currency" in most cases one wants to buy altcoins. Bitcoin price is fluctuating a lot (in both directions), making many tell that it's a risky investment. Altcoins' prices fluctuate even more. Also the vast majority of altcoins are clonecoins/shitcoins, scams, project that bring nothing new or lie about what's there, just to get you invest (and lose) your money on them. Bitcoin is not only a coin, it's also an investment as you can see. And same goes for altcoins. But while people call them all cryptocurrencies (even though some are just tokens, not even proper coins), they are highly different. In the same way people were using sea shells as coins at some point in the past, just to find out that it's not a proper tool for the job, also most altcoins are not the proper tool for the job and should be avoided. This is imho what makes the difference between Bitcoin and crypto. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I would not do this.
If you want to make such long and elaborate posts you should use a text editor and properly save your work.
I think that the preview saving as draft is already a bit much and encourages bad habits that can lead to lost time/work.
So, again, better no such feature.
|
|
|
|
You mean the one where he went straight into the padded barrier? He was going into a turn so he wasn't going full speed.
If I remember it right, the announcer was saying it could of been worse. It looked like he was braking when he knew he had lost control because you can see his front tires locking up and stop spinning.
Yep, that's the one. It could clearly have been worse, but I think that they've underestimated the damage and didn't check some things properly. At I think that this caused the failure at the race time. |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for the idea and the link. I've tested it and it seems to do the job wonderfully. At least on the web page it seems to obtain the expected address. Too bad I cannot fully test it offline for my exact use case because I couldn't convince monero-wallet-cli accept the seed words in offline mode. Doing the same with a newly generated seed and the GUI Monero wallet (online) works though. So indeed, I am confident that for my use case this was the missing bit. |
|
|
|
I'm also curious as to what is going to happen when (for example) 50% of nodes have enabled full RBF, 50% of nodes have not enabled full RBF, and I try to replace a transaction which is opted out of RBF. What about if I'm using a hot wallet and not my own node? Will I have to connect to different servers to find one which will relay my replacement transaction? And then presumably some block explorers will show the original transaction while some will show the replacement, and I'll have no idea which one will actually get mined until one of them is mined?
I guess that for a while there may look like a lottery. A replacement transaction of a non-RBF may have a bigger (than 50%) chance to get rejected even if 50% of the nodes are using the new code (unless I misunderstood something). But it should be pretty much okay, we do know that if we want RBF it should be signaled and we do know that a transaction cannot be trusted unless it's mined. And I do think that after this implementation (when the vast majority will have it in use) the way the mempool works will be more predictable. Yeah, it's a somewhat bad news for the services that were boasting 0-confirmation deposits. But they can use LN now. |
|
|
|
Everything I can say was already said. LoyceV was completely spot-on. Royse777 has fallen into a scam and was a little slow in assessing the red flags and stop everything. I've had in the past (in completely different situations) the impression that he/she is a bit forgiving with people, but I never thought that this kind of disaster is at the horizon. All in all I don't think that Royse777 is a scammer, even if the handling of the problem was... bad... and even this topic came a little late. And, as I said, this mess will be costly to get cleaned. It will probably leave a stain on Royse777 reputation, whether people will or will not be reimbursed from own pocket (and may also end up reimburse scammers too, only because they're vocal). I am really sorry about the way all this turned out.  As o_e_l_e_o also said, the existing trust feedback already tell the story, there's no need to add anything there. @Royse777 good luck, you need it. I think/hope that the worse has passed. |
|
|
|
This is from the blog post revealing the news: – If you are a Ledger Nano S owner, the end of the production won’t change anything to your daily experience. Support will continue to be provided and device maintenance will be guaranteed, including for new features, critical bugs and vulnerabilities fixes.
This is not really unexpected since they still want to sell the remaining units and by European laws they have to offer support and warrantee for 2 years, afaik. The interesting part is that they don't give any time frame, nothing. So since I expect they will sell all remaining Nano S this year, .. let's see what will they say about this at the end of 2024. On the other hand, Nano S+ is, afaik, basically just a Nano S with bigger memory. If it's like that, keeping it updated may not be a big hassle even after those two years. And if they do it, they'll keep quite a big number of old customers happy. |
|
|
|
Are you ready to see $10,000 Bitcoin this year or early next year?
If you would have been asking in April, I would have been saying "no, this time it's different, you know..." Now I would not be surprised if the price falls to 10k this year. Next year it should be at least at 20k though. At least this is how I read the historical data. But: this time the ATH was not so high and we even had two ATH and maybe, just maybe, the low will not be as low as it used to be. Just thinking... or hoping? |
|
|
|
Ever since the events around the OP starting his other Microstrategy's thread ( MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’) Saylor has always been quite vocal regarding his having had gotten involved in Bitcoin and the reasons why, and of course, he likely considered it beneficial to his company to be very public about bitcoin .. and there was likely some positive feedback loop, too (he has even mentioned those kinds of ongoing positives to his company)... why not kill two birds with one stone? Even if many of us consider Saylor as a very quick study in terms of frequently being able to articulate bitcoin's investment thesis better than many of the bitcoin OGs, he still has been growing as he goes, and some of his ways of emphasizing certain topics have changed and even flip-flopped to some degree with the times and current events. There are some ways that Saylor expresses some bitcoin-related matters from a BIG company and rich-person perspective that might still be ok. and from time to time sill aligned with the interests of normie poor peeps.. but there are other ways that tensions exist between his perspectives and the perspectives of normie poor peeps.. .. so even if there may well be advantages that come (trickle down) from the abilities that poor peeps get from the lifting of all boats, there are als sometimes some advantages that are available in bitcoin in terms of poor people remaining unbanked and being able to skirt regulated systems. We are not tending to see Saylor speaking from such poor peep perspective and even there might be some tensions from time to time with various kinds of competing perspectives and Saylor is surely better able to articulate from his perspective, and every once in a while we might see some common man perspectives that are articulated well too.. but not through Saylor... Bitcoin does still seem to allow for quit a bit of abilities to do all the things, even if sometimes there might be trade-offs too.. and Saylor is no dummy.. but he might not find it a good idea (or use of his speaking skills) to talk much about the ways that bitcoin might allow the skirting of regulations and to potentially overthrow governments, even though he seems to know about those kinds of possible bitcoin features and sometimes even makes some references to some of those kinds of powers and bitcoin features. He just does not tend to emphasize those kind of angles very often, and seemingly subtly when he does if at all. I don't have expectations from him to show the perspective of the average Joe. His target are wealthy entities that would invest into bitcoin and, why not, into MicroStrategy. Of course that "certain details" are avoided in his speech. No problem with that, none at all. But the problem is that the average Joe doesn't know what he wants. Or each Joe wants something different. We seem to want governments stop scammers that create misleading products or do market (and media) manipulation, but when this translates into KYC requirements for example, we become angry. We want wild and free market (which means also allowing manipulation), but we also want the price never go down. A lot of odd contradictions. Of course that his business man views will contradict to some of the average Joe views. But if we want a proper market for Bitcoin, then he's right. If we don't care that some do wild things, if we don't care whether Bitcoin remains legal or not (!), then we're good as we are. This is how I see it. The problem is not what Saylor wants. The problem is that the rules and regulations imposed by politicians are more similar to throwing a bomb than doing some "surgical" changes like we would probably like (or don't mind). And another problem is that with so many countries in this world, regulations imposed by a couple of countries cannot change much of the overall situation, unless the example of those countries is taken by most. |
|
|
|
Its sad, daily information that appears online about cryptocurrency these bearish days are bad news. Recently, the Chinese most used social media with 1.1billion daily active users banned all accounts with cryptocurrency activities. Is it a way for China to execute their ban on cryptocurrency? The rule forbids public accounts on the platform used to finance, trade crypto and nfts etc, and, such activity tagged as an "illegal business operation" does this pose a threat? as social media is another strong tool that helps the dissemination of cryptocurrency projects or businesses online. Other accounts caught up in the noose are those, that carry out exchange business between digital and fiat currencies or between cryptocurrencies, those that provide pricing services for cryptocurrency transaction and many others. https://finbold.com/chinese-messaging-app-wechat-bans-accounts-involved-in-crypto/I've just read somewhere else that China expanding greatly the censoring over the online comments / social media. And since they're officially against Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, it's not so much of an unexpected move. Even more, if the accounts are involved in trading crypto or promoting the trading of crypto (which are illegal there) what would you expect?! Again, nothing unexpected, sorry. And no, it's not related at all to "these bearish days". |
|
|
|
Alternatively, copy chainstate directory somewhere else. It's easier and faster.
...Just if fresh / up-to-date values are important for OP he may have to do this either on every new block coming, either for each call he makes. It really depends on OP needs. From what I see OP wants to just do tests. If he goes on this route and wants to switch afterwards to full blockchain, and maybe txindex too, the effort done now may be for nothing. So now, with fresher head, I think that ardb should still consider going for full data from start. |
|
|
|
values and value are different categories.
I completely agree. I was talking about the economic value. think of the sentiment values(aesthetic/desire/demand/provenance) of art as the values(utility/function/features) of houses and bitcoin.
I've picked art because its economic value is questioned by many. (And Bitcoin value keeps being questioned, as you can see). I cannot argue that houses do hold economic value, but those value is not questioned (or at least not as heavily as art). |
|
|
|
What is the best method for DCA Bitcoin? What platform are you using?
It must be cheap.
I advise you use a trusted platform, not necessarily the cheapest. Some will recommend decentralized platforms like bisq or so, I have no experience with those. But if you prefer centralized exchanges, you can DCA on those too, just make sure you don't withdraw too often (withdraw only after your buys have passed a certain threshold the withdrawal fee no longer hurts s much). |
|
|
|
Bitcoin does meet the first three conditions.
You are wrong. Art holds value, although many don't recognize that (remember that for some a banana duct-taped to a wall is art, remember how expensive is an original painting, when a copy looks just as good). And it's not at all easy to exchange. Imho gold is so expensive not because its utility, but because of its scarcity and for being hoarded. In the history people have been using shells basically in the same way as (gold) coins or bitcoin. You seem to be praising the modern money. You know that it's only printed paper (or whatever) that has value only because the central bank of your country says so. I won't insist on the fact that they're lying and because of inflation the value you're paying for that paper (i.e. work done) is not the same as the value you receive for that paper when you spend it. But what if your country's central bank, for various reasons, cannot honor its word? I know, it's not very likely, but imho it proves my point: something holds value if you and a big enough number of other people sees it as valuable. As simple as that. And yeah, Bitcoin meets this condition. |
|
|
|
I had many difficulties understanding the speech word by word, but I am pretty sure he said UST, short for TerraUSD which was supposed to be a stablecoin.
I somehow thought it's USDT because he was also talking about Tether, but I've re-run it and indeed, he was talking about both (and you were right, it's UST there) As much as Bitcoin promotes freedom and decentralization but there must be a trade rule.
This pretty much summarizes all. Just since the world is big and human greed even bigger, it's not possible (at least not easily) to impose such rules. Plus a balance between proper trade rules and restricting the users is not easy. And every time somebody tries to impose rules he will have to face both freedom preachers and errors (intentional or not) in setting the right boundaries between big traders and the average Joe. You do seem to referring to a kind of unfairness that Saylor bought 17k BTC prior to his company and prior to less ambiguous and more direct public disclosures.. I personally would not conclude that he was unethical in those kinds of ways .
I won't call him unethical. He didn't really do different than the vast majority. Maybe I'm wrong, but he has become this vocal only after he noticed that this helps his company. Again, it's in the norms, or even better, but I think that he knew about most of these problems also in 2020.
Fully back on topic: I think that he cannot influence much the big exchanges running in non-"western" companies. But I don't think that anything stops him from making an exchange with more functions, lower fees and a real competitor to the more shady exchanges. The lower fees should attract the bigger traders that pay their taxes anyway and maybe this kind of moves could level the balance a little. Since Bitcoin is not ruled by an entity, it cannot choose sides and allow only fair players buy or sell it. And most countries won't care to adapt the legislation to the wishes of big American investors (in some case simply because they're american and "they should not teach us"). Obviously the exchanges will prefer those countries. |
|
|
|
Pruned node and "any address' balance" don't go together.
But full UTXO database is still kept in chainstate DB in pruned node, isn't it? If so, what is the technical problem of making a sum for a given address? My answer was based on the fact that whenever you change the wallet (not to a new one) in a pruned Bitcoin Core you have to download everything again. Also afaik getbalance returns 0 for addresses not in your wallet. However, when I've done more research I've found somewhat contradicting info. According to this answer, all UTXO are indeed kept in pruned data. While chainstate does contains the UTXOs, there are no addresses there, it's scriptPubKeys (and amounts) (see here and here) Clearly scriptPubKey doesn't necessarily translate to an address, but that may not be a big problem. Even more, a tutorial here tells how to extract the data. One show stopper may be the fact Level DB doesn't like concurrent access from multiple apps, hence you may have to use the chainstate while bitcoind is stopped, or keep a copy for the job... |
|
|
|
RFID [~snip~] is a device [~snip~] that can be used to automatically identify or track down softwares that have tags on them.
While a RFID tag is a physical device, software is not physical. You cannot place a tag onto software (you can place a tag onto a DVD, but you're tagging the physical DVD, not the software on it). So your question makes no sense. Bitcoin, wallets and so on cannot be tracked with RFID. Hardware wallets (those are physical, yes), can have RFID tag on them, but that's to avoid shop lifting and cannot be read from a wider distance. I hope this helps/clears up things. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
