And yet, some people insist there is no conspiracy against BTC to bump the fees...  |
|
|
|
I thought many BTC miners (over 50%) got electricity from renewable energy sources. The renewables are the problem. Just *how* do you think being renewable would help matters??? And what does that have to do with power shortages? Answer: Wind & solar power is highly variable and bad weather causes numerable problems such as what Texas is currently experiencing https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2024/01/16/green-wind-solar-energy-freezing-texas-power-grid-blackout/ Only Nuclear and fossil-fueled (gas of course - not coal) power plants are able to run regardless of weather (and at night). Sorry Greenies but your unrealistic goals of zero-emissions for the world just cannot work. Reality can be a bitch eh?  Considering the massive mining farms located mainly in Texas and a few in other areas of the US like Nebraska and Montana - all of whom have agreements with their power providers to cut back their mining when power is needed elsewhere in the state - of course the hash rate is way down. Are you dumb or what? I'm a Net Zero critic. Calm your titties. Regarding renewable energy and BTC mining, I believe it's a good combo, since ASICs don't have to run 24/7/365. It's not an industry that produces cars/food or something like that... You could have solar-powered ASICs dispersed all over the world and they would work only during the day. Not a big deal, since there's always a certain place that has day, while others have night. Hashrate would fluctuate a bit of course, but BTC can handle it. Wind mills also tend to provide plenty of electricity during the night, so that's another alternative to keep the ASICs running during night hours. |
|
|
|
Weather in the US playing a huge factor in the decline in hashrate across many pools. In what sense? In the sense that there were many farms and data centers under curtailment. What does "curtailment" mean? I thought many BTC miners (over 50%) got electricity from renewable energy sources. |
|
|
|
Weather in the US playing a huge factor in the decline in hashrate across many pools. In what sense? |
|
|
|
Instead of only mention the decentralized hosting and decentralized domain name system, you should recommend which the web hosting and the DNS you refer to, I don't think that's possible. Mirror site won't solve, you're only play hide and seek until they discovered all the websites related to Bitcoin. The only way is run the site in darknet instead of clearnet, if Bitcoin is completely got banned in anywhere. Somewhere in the future china (2027-2030) will be the most dominant superpower would ban / sanction bitcoin.
China completely ban Bitcoin since 2021, why Bitcoin and this forum wasn't get banned since 2021? If it is not available yet. We can create it. Don't tell me it is impossible. I'm not talking about China now. But talking about China when it will become the most dominant Superpower. China is bound to overtake USA somewhere in 2027 -2030. WEF agrees with you: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/india-will-overtake-the-us-economy-by-2030/Maybe that's part of the agenda... maybe. People just say whatever they feel like without thinking things through. The "de-dollaration" talk is one very exaggerated talk, but I guess that's what propaganda is. OP really believes the dollar would be dead in 2027, that's in 4 years. Laughable. Laughable why? Who's going to laugh when China invades Taiwan? Who's going to laugh when TSMC stops working, West will no longer be able to find high-end microchips and due to scarcity an iPhone suddenly costs $10000? Don't you think there's a slight possibility that this will trigger hyperinflation that will absolutely melt every single fiat currency? (perfect opportunity to introduce CBDC as a "New Deal") Before you dismiss this scenario, keep in mind nobody expected Russia to invade Ukraine. Nobody expected the EU to suffer 1.5 trillion € losses. Scripta manent, feel free to screenshot me for future reference and I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Η συμβουλή πάντως είναι σωστή, και σοβαρή, ανεξαρτήτως όλων των υπολοίπων (με περισσότερα από τα οποία συμφωνώ επίσης).
...Ούτε καν inactive account email δεν έχω σετάρει (το Google δίνει την δυνατότητα)... Λέω, καλά, θα το κάνω σε κάποια ευκαιρία... κουραφέξαλα...
Btw, και τα bitcoins του ίδιου του Satoshi κατά 99% είναι οριστικά καμμένα.
Εννοείς θα εμφανιστεί ο Satoshi (πιθανότητα 1 στο δισεκατομμύριο); Ή ότι θα τα αρπάξει κάποιος άλλος μέσω quantum computing; |
|
|
|
[...]
Still, I think the concept of Bitcoin as a currency of privacy is recently being tweaked to be in favor of mostly the government and elite wealth class.
[...]
Bitcoin has a public ledger, so I really don't see how it could have ever really been conceived as a "currency of privacy". Physical cash is still way, way more private than Bitcoin etc. Well, cash (banknotes, not metallic coins) is like BTC in a sense. Why? Because banknotes have unique serial numbers and they can be deemed "tainted" (if their origins are from a bank robbery, or a VIP abduction etc.) You won't have any issues exchanging tainted banknotes hand-to-hand, but if you try to deposit them in a bank, you're fucked. It's the same with BTC: tainted coins are fine in p2p transactions, there's no mechanism to freeze them, unless you try to deposit them in a CEX with KYC/AML. That's why BTC is called electronic cash in the whitepaper: it was modelled after the physical cash. So yeah, I agree with you that BTC was never really private (anonymous) to begin with. Just like the internet with IP addresses doesn't offer full anonymity. It's pseudonymous. I don't really understand people who set up BTC nodes to increase privacy, since every on-chain transaction will be settled in the blockchain. Tor & mixers are another thing (kinda like SELinux). On the other hand, Monero is private by default (built-in mixing via ring signatures). Just like OpenBSD is security-enhanced by default, unlike vanilla Linux.  Both Bitcoin and Monero have a bright future ahead, but for different purposes/use cases. |
|
|
|
Are people willing to fight the Great Reset? And I mean all aspects of it, not just point A or B... |
|
|
|
Generally, decentralized applications are lighter in weight Do you honestly believe that BTC is lighter compared to ECB SEPA payments (Target2 ledger)? BTC has to broadcast the transaction to every node, while ECB uses a single centralized computer to process the transaction. We don't use BTC because it's lighter or cheaper. Revolut offers SEPA instant payments for €0, while BTC is way more expensive and slower: https://mempool.space/I am not talking about BTC, which was a decentralized protocol that had its initial infrastructure built in 2008-2009. There's no point talking about Bitcoin as a modern decentralized application and at that, it is not even a decentralized application, it is an entire blockchain, built on an infrastructure that is not relevant to what we are talking about, being a forum application with more decentralization than what is current. So to answer your question, no, I do not believe that BTC is lighter than other solutions because I am already aware that there are many more solutions that are much more efficient. Payments was never a topic here. Using technology similar to that of Bitcoin to decentralize Bitcointalk was never a discussion here until you introduced it. Why people are thinking that we need to use technology similar to Bitcoin to power a decentralized version of this forum is beyond me, as the two are not even closely similar in their core use cases. I think you may be misunderstanding the point. He mentioned Bitcoin as an example of a sufficiently decentralized network compared to other payment networks. He is correct, though. A decentralized network can never be "lighter" than a centralized infrastructure. Why else do you think the entire internet is built on a simple client-server basis? The concept of decentralized networks wasnt invented yesterday, you know? And you are probably confusing the concepts of a decentralized network with a distributed network, which can be "lighter" with proper load balancing.  [https://blockchainengineer.com/centralized-vs-decentralized-vs-distributed-network/] Actually, I'm not misunderstanding anything, I am the only one who is trying to stay on-topic by relating the conversation back to what is meant to be discussed: Should Bitcointalk be decentralized. I did not introduce payment systems into the conversation, cryptosize did, and the relevance to building a decentralized forum application vs. a decentralized payment protocol are two completely different conversations. If you actually look at the root of the conversation, I was not the first to draw comparisons to Bitcoin, and it was wrong to do so in the first place. Decentralizing Bitcointalk is not the same as building a decentralized payment protocol. Payment protocols have no relevance to forum software, period. I maintain that it is possible to build a lightweight forum software that is decentralized. I maintain that decentralizing the forum's software and governance has not enough correlation to building a similar architecture to that of Bitcoin, due to both serving completely different purposes, and therefore is off-topic conversation. I also disagree that a decentralized network can not be lighter than that of a centralized one for the end user. We are in a new world of new possibilities as of 2023 and onward, as we are every year, and stating that decentralized networks can definitely not be lighter than that of a centralized network is an outdated opinion. No one is saying it's an easy feet, however if we take into account the amount of resources that Bitcointalk (should) have to achieve this feet, then it is definitely a possibility rather than it definitely not being possible. I want a decentralized forum more than you, but I'm not going to claim that a decentralized solution (whether it's for a forum or payments) is going to be lighter compared to centralized solutions. I'm afraid you don't understand the technicalities involved. The burden of proof lies on you... |
|
|
|
It risks forking the blockchain, and it did happen in the past, it really depends on what stage of the process was the nonce found
1- I receive a block notification from pool x via the P2P network or some relay network
2- I construct an empty block template using only the prev-block hash and start sending work to miners
3- I verify every transaction in that block
4- I exclude those from my mempool
5- construct a new block template with transactions and send work to miners
If a pool hits a block anywhere before point 3, then that's a huge risk because you are now possibly building on the wrong chain since the block you building on could have 1 bad transaction in it, the next thing you do is send your block hash to another pool and the network end up with a parallel chain that is invalid, I think the last thing something like that happened a few pools went ahead with 6 blocks or so and they were all invalidated later, pools who completely verified every transaction in that block rejected it and went on building on the correct chain.
If you mine an empty block post the 3rd point -- that's fine at least based on my opinion, but you must AT LEAST verify that you are building on a valid block. Interesting remarks. Would it require a hard fork to disallow empty blocks? I'm surprised this is being allowed. BTC already has a limited capacity (7 tx/sec), so there's no reason to waste blocks (no matter the pool). Security can be strengthened with full blocks too, even if it takes a bit more time to mine them. |
|
|
|
He says his empty block is actually a good thing since it adds security to the blockchain! LMAO! He is actually right, empty blocks do contribute to the overall strength of the blockchain, and does make a lot of money, h If you take it like that, yeah it's a found block that on it's own it does so. Does Ocean's empty rushed block add more to the blockchains security than a full block mined 3 seconds later by Foundry? No! (let's keep it simple and not go there;) What I was trying to say if that if Ocean wound's have existed, there would have been a full blocks mined 1-20 god know how minutes later with no diminishing capacity to the blockchain. So his block is not a net gain how he was trying to post it, it's a gain in security just how any other block would have been but a serious decrease in capacity. The fact is that in this case Ocean didn't think about security of the chain, it though about profits, simple, just as everyone else, there was nothing magically different that Ocean did, he just behave like every pool with $ on it's mind! alani123 is a leftist,
Well, alani123, this thing does make a bit of sense, since socialist will always care about somebody's else money than their own, and to me it seems you care far more on those virtual miners that would magically gains something moving to Ocean than real economics. Which brings us back to the questions you refused to answer - do you actually have any kind of proof, hard proof (!) it's more profitable to mine on Ocean? - do you actually mine there and since you have moved there have your profits increased? If the answers are as I already know the song of crickets, don't you think that before trying to convince us to move you should be the leading example? Mining is a business Unicorns farts about an utopia nobody wants while doing business is bankruptcy /end ps: As a pool operator I'm sure you know better than me that under these circumstances the options were to either throw a perfectly good block away, or to mine it empty because the previous one hadn't managed to propagate to all miners at such a short time period.
vs: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5475893.0Block number 818960 was mined completely empty by Antpool recently.
At a time of very high transaction fees, we're having this issue again. A large pool like Antpool just sabotaging the protocol... How times change! Thanks for the link, gotta love his hypocrisy/flip-flopping! Pretty typical for socialists... |
|
|
|
Is it possible to bring that innovation in the BTC blockchain? Yes, it is somewhat possible. Because it could require for example new sighashes. Which means, if you have a Pedersen Commitment, it looks like that: rct=x*G+a*H(G)
rct1=x1*G+a1*H(G)
rct2=x2*G+a2*H(G)
rct=rct1+rct2=(x1+x2)*G+(a1+a2)*H(G) You can compare it to Schnorr signatures to see, that those things are similar. So, it could be possible, to for example take H(G) as the public key, which is revealed in the Taproot address, and then take some "x1" out of that, by providing a valid commitment. And that kind of construction could allow detaching any M people from N-of-N multisig, if it would be done properly. By the way, some people from the mailing list think, that transactions can be smaller, than they currently are. For example, here is the latest mail about transaction compression: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2024-January/022269.htmlThanks again! It seems there's a lot of development waiting to be done in the BTC ecosystem, as long as it doesn't require a hard fork of course... |
|
|
|
I'm curious to see how you're going implement this without forfeiting self-custody. First, we have altcoins like Grin, that can show you, that it is possible to combine everything into one huge transaction, by using Pedersen Commitments. Second, we have Schnorr signatures, where N-of-N multisig can happen behind a single Taproot address, and you can spend by key to achieve that. Third, we have Full-RBF, which means, that if you have a chain of unconfirmed transactions, for example Alice->Bob->Charlie, then it is possible to write a replacement Alice->Charlie, and preserve the same fees and amounts. Then, the size of the transaction will be smaller, the fee will stay the same, so the feerate per byte will increase. Seems like an interesting solution IF it could be implemented in a decentralized manner. It can be done, but some things are needed before. For example, you need a working tools in Bitcoin Core, to handle N-of-N multisig addresses on Taproot. Thanks for the detailed response. GRIN (along with BEAM) use MimbleWimble, which is totally different compared to BTC. Is it possible to bring that innovation in the BTC blockchain? |
|
|
|
That's why the solution is to handle N users per coin. Which means, if you have 0.01 BTC transaction fee, and there is one user behind that, then it is quite high cost. But if there are 1000 users behind transaction of the same size, then each of them has to pay only 1000 satoshis.
And because batching N users behind N-of-N multisig is easier than combining N ordinals (because if you combine signatures, then their size is not increased), it should be sufficient to give regular users a tool to compete with Ordinals. I'm curious to see how you're going implement this without forfeiting self-custody. Seems like an interesting solution IF it could be implemented in a decentralized manner. Exchanges already utilize batching, even though their fees are absurd most of the time. |
|
|
|
being arguably the most decentralized pool Such an oxymoron...  pools are by definition centralized entities, since they reduce decentralization. You don't even have self-custody of the coins until you get paid. your conclusions on politics and current affairs are outlandish.
I then compared this to the fact that even Marx having been born 200 years ago thus having far fewer access to information and analytical tools than we do, came to better conclusions than you on several matters. Says the guy who wants the state to restrict Airbnb, instead of letting the market manufacture more buildings (I told you that only Bitcoin has artificial scarcity, buildings can be abundant). You never responded to my arguments, so don't act "offended" or that you're a "victim", because you're not and you know it. In YOUR mind, me recognizing that you've said things provably dumber than someone born over 2 centuries ago means I admitted that I'm a leftist. If you want state intervention, then yes, you're a leftist. If you believe that Marxism is still relevant, you're also a useful idiot. Probably though that only proves that you're allergic to literature and maybe reading as a whole.
Perhaps though, if you had read ANYTHING in the form of a book... Dear internet stranger, it's very easy for me to prove you wrong. All I have to do is post a photo of my chock-full library (mostly politics/economics/psychology books) and then you'll shut up. Are you willing to take a bet (1 BTC)? Put your money where your mouth is, I don't like cheap words, nor cowards hiding behind screens. |
|
|
|
OR if you have such good skills to be able to implement something like this yourself... I don't know. Maybe pitch it to investors and make your pool grow with some healthy injections of VC funds. Mining is quite big on institutional investment these days, OCEAN got started with a big investment too.
It's a fact, kano's pool does not mine empty blocks. It's possible that Kano pool doesn't mine empty blocks solely because with such low hashrate the chances would be very slim for them to mine any. Or perhaps the hashrate they have as part of the network isn't considered significant to do something with hash power between block propagation. So if the latter is true, it would mean that by choise Kano is opting to miss out on ALL potential block rewards if such circumstances arise. Not just those coming from Ordinals. Some napkin math says that if block propagation takes a few seconds and new blocks are found arojndy every 10 minutes perhaps by that standard there would be a ~1% chance to miss the entirety of a block's rewards mining in a pool that doesn't properly handle hashrate during these seconds. Seriously, if you don't understand bitcoin, don't bother making up garbage to promote a pool. Block propagation vs knowing about blocks, does not take a few seconds - that's rubbish. My pool also does transaction verification in less than 100ms. What you are talking about is when you know a block exists vs when you know the block is valid. FACT: Mining on an unverified block header is bad for bitcoin. PROOF: Antpoo and Fupoo went off on a bad fork for 6 blocks because of this, a number of years ago. The difference between knowing a block exists, and verifying the block, so you can produce valid work, is less than 100ms for my pool. So you are talking an extra block of mining time in every 6000 (or more) blocks. So that's a gain of 0.0167% for the loss of 16% in fees on that one block - yeah the math clearly shows that all these pools, mining empty blocks, are idiots. But alas this is to be expected where most, if not all pools, don't even undeestand the maths and statistics involved in bitcoin mining. alani123 is a leftist, he doesn't understand free market economics... |
|
|
|
Generally, decentralized applications are lighter in weight Do you honestly believe that BTC is lighter compared to ECB SEPA payments (Target2 ledger)? BTC has to broadcast the transaction to every node, while ECB uses a single centralized computer to process the transaction. We don't use BTC because it's lighter or cheaper. Revolut offers SEPA instant payments for €0, while BTC is way more expensive and slower: https://mempool.space/I am not talking about BTC, which was a decentralized protocol that had its initial infrastructure built in 2008-2009. There's no point talking about Bitcoin as a modern decentralized application and at that, it is not even a decentralized application, it is an entire blockchain, built on an infrastructure that is not relevant to what we are talking about, being a forum application with more decentralization than what is current. So to answer your question, no, I do not believe that BTC is lighter than other solutions because I am already aware that there are many more solutions that are much more efficient. Payments was never a topic here. Using technology similar to that of Bitcoin to decentralize Bitcointalk was never a discussion here until you introduced it. Why people are thinking that we need to use technology similar to Bitcoin to power a decentralized version of this forum is beyond me, as the two are not even closely similar in their core use cases. A centralized forum will always be more lightweight, just like centralized payment systems (ECB, PayPal etc.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
