If you put the tx id into https://mempool.space and click onto the red circles of the left (ancestor) addresses/transactions you'll see you have unconfirmed parents. Also https://mempool.space tells that because of this your tx is considered CPFP and the Effective fee rate is only 18.3 sat/vB |
|
|
|
"If theymos censors Mixers, this is ONLY the beginning of further Censorship."
Sadly this doesn't come to me as a shock. And this quote indeed sums it up nicely. Somehow I tend to believe that theymos may be trying to protect either the users from potential unpleasant questions, either the very existence of bitcointalk. And that's why it is this unclear, somehow contradictory and open to this level of questioning, especially as this forum used to proudly consider itself one for free speech and, more interesting not moderating scams. Still, I think that theymos could try to express better - if possible (!) - the background of this... mess... But never forget, everybody, we are only guests here. Wake up calls like this will always remind us about this reality... |
|
|
|
Whirlpool work great.
Woah. I've missed that and I was under the wrong impression for... quite some time. Thank you for clarifying. |
|
|
|
What are the best coin join wallets? Great thinking, I was about to start a similar topic. You should have been asking though also about their pluses and minuses. Wasabi Wallet, Trezor, and BTCPay Server offer coinjoins that give you complete privacy on your entire balance.
Make sure to avoid Samourai/Sparrow's Whirlpool if you don't want your coins to be trackable Samourai case is not new. And I've also read that Wasabi's Coinjoin coordinator can check the inputs and may block certain transactions. (I don't know if Sinbad funds are on their list though, I don't know how paranoid one must become.) All in all, the quest for Coinjoin needs some homework to avoid the cases it brings nothing useful. Edit: It seems I don't know the whole story, hence I'm wrong. Please read below. |
|
|
|
|
19 - NeuroticFish
LOL @ TopTort777! I also like the hoodie a lot, but I fear XL is probably a bit small for me.
Just I'm not worried, since it will be good for my bigger son in a very small number of years.
However, let's win it first and worry later. Good luck everybody and thanks Humble Bitcoiners for the great raffle!
|
|
|
|
Intram in spiritul Craciunului!  [FREE RAFFLE] 2023 Christmas giveaway - 100 Slots/3 pieceshttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476156Organizator: Humble BitcoinersSe poate castiga: 1x Hanorac Bitcoin (bineinteles, portocaliu), marimea XL 2x postere Modalitata de inscriere: se alege un numar liber 00-99. Transport gratuit. Din pacate alte detalii nu se dau, deci mi-e frica sa nu intre 1001 de conturi facute zilele astea doar pentru acest scop. |
|
|
|
it behoves Scrypt to clog btc block chain so that people will say fuck it I WILL send it in LTC
I don't say you are wrong. It makes a lot of sense. I will say something else though: in 2013/2014 I was into Dogecoin. I was thinking that Bitcoin is too expensive, I've lost the train and Dogecoin makes a lot more sense as every day currency. After Mintpal went down I've left Dogecoin and after a few small stops in other altcoins I've settled for Bitcoin. We are in December 2024 and afaik Dogecoin still has almost 0 usage as currency (and this compared to Bitcoin, not USD). Maybe LTc stands better, I don't know. Still... something has to change, I don't know what, to get to that change of perspective. Until then, Bitcoin seems to "take it all" (well, I know it's not all, but I think that you know what I mean), no matter the costs. |
|
|
|
I've also watched Andreas Antonopoulos on YouTube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9scIevuymZM) telling that probably the old Ledger Nano S has too small memory to hold any threat Somehow he tries to minimize the potential evil Ledger can do. On the other hand he said or implied that such functionality (API) can be done (or already exist) in theory in any hardware wallet, so we are pretty much going nowhere. Of course, some HW are fully open source and that helps.
Since there are some holidays around here, I had time to make a test. I wanted to setup a cold storage with an encrypted Linux on an USB stick. After spending almost a full day with Ubuntu, Debian and Mint all failing on me in various ways (i.e. I was unable to install without errors and start), I was left with the good ol' Tails, where, as I suck at Linux (nothing new here), I was unable to install Sparrow, but I was able to follow ETFbitcoin tutorial with /dev/urandom and IanColeman page (thanks!!) and make myself a new seed. Generating new seed with Ledger would have been more convenient, but... I am still unconvinced (well, the seed made with /dev/urandom is still a test, no funds sent yet). |
|
|
|
Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it is for the good. I'm pretty confident we can fight this Ordinal wave of transactions by just setting these as non-standard (without even invalidating them on a protocol level with softfork). I doubt there will still be demand, but what if there is? We frequently notice people who are obsessed with the idea of injecting their data in the blockchain.
I'm generally opposed with ideas that delay the problems instead of solving them. That's probably why I'm in favor of developing second layer solutions instead of just messing with the block size limit. Same applies for Ordinals, more or less. If you impose a tapscript size limit, or any other such, for the sole reason of delaying Ordinals, then I'll oppose it.
I agree that certain limitations are necessary.
I'm not sure how would this fix the issue (or make the Ordinals speculators less interested in bitcoin network, which is a powerful name), but I see we are no longer that far away as ideas/direction, so I'm fine with your conclusion, for now. And if the issue remains for too long (which is never clear what it means), the community can think on a good solution. After all, all I can do is emit ideas and hope for the best... And after all it was a good talk. Thank you.quite frankly you are deciding it has no value.
who the fuck are you to do that?
I say this in the spirit of friendship not meanness.
I hated Andy Warhol's Campbell soup series back in the 60's I was a kid but I used to go to the metropolitan museum of art often as a family outing. I liked the Italian Renaissance painter and realism. I thought Warhol was trash and garbage.
Pretty loft opinions for a 10 year old Italian American from Brooklyn.
Well I turned out to be completely wrong about Andy Warhol.
So in that spirit I am just saying who the fuck are you or who the fuck is anyone to say it will be worthless in the year 2056 or 2066.
I am just saying what I think. Maybe I am wrong, I've never claimed to be perfect. And yes, you are right, they can become of value (especially historic value) after some (imho rather long) time. But in my defense, I strongly believe that most of these buyers hope to get rich in 5 years or less (but again, I may be wrong, I didn't conduct a study). Imho paying 1$, or maybe 10$ for a lottery ticker is more than fine. But if somebody pays thousands... hmmm... in my head that doesn't feel right. Sorry if my words offended or disappointed you or anybody... PS. Art's beauty and value are very complicated to decide, and all can change over time due to personal experience(s); at least on that we're on the same page. Just I would not be so eager to put NFS in the same jar with the more traditional art. Back to the real issue. Scrypt makes 12 blocks every 10 minutes sha256 makes 1
so LTC/Doge are 12x better to move small moves.
ordinals may be how they are doing this now. They will find other ways to do it later.
the 12x to 1 volume advantage is not being addressed which is why ordinals are doing a job at the moment.
You mean/propose moving ordinals to another blockchain? That could be a nice thing as transport/storage, but I don't think that will be coming soon: Bitcoin is a strong name and a powerful advertising. Maybe even the expectations the ordinals will stop working on bitcoin network after a while could make some consider them a good investment?! |
|
|
|
Legat de aceasta "clona", cred ca este foarte strans legata de faptul ca Sinbad are probleme legale, am citit undeva printre randuri ca ar fi confiscat de catre autoritati (nu stiu daca serverele sau altceva), iar cei care faceau reclama aici pe BTT nu si-au primit ultima transa de bani pe acest motiv. Si exista sanse faorate mari ca nici castigatorii ultimei runde de la acest concurs Sinbad nu isi vor primi premiile. In rest, mersi pentru noile postari si bafta sa avem! |
|
|
|
you know you can afford monthly payments of $1621/m
meaning the difference of the 1162 vs 1621 means if you put as an extra $459 ontop of the $1162 to
Actually even if this trick would not work, this approach is always advised imho because although you know you can pay 1621 today, things can change for the worse (recession, loss of job, technical unemployment) and then this $459 difference can do wonders to the levels of stress you'll go though. |
|
|
|
... But I will still continue: how about the feature that allows the ordinals? Is it really useful, compared with the "disturbance" it causes? Depends on which feature. Tapscript? Yeah, it is useful.  There is a limitation which can be imposed, such as "Tapscripts above X size are invalid", but we're just starting to bury ourselves there. Why? Well, it might put an end in Ordinals, sure. But, it might as well not. The system is designed in such a way that Ordinal transactions can be made indistinguishable from regular transactions. Meanwhile, we will have enabled censorship, or at the very least moved one step forwards to that direction. Let's avoid that, please. Now we start getting somewhere. I don't know the internals as good as you, but at a first look, a "common sense" size for the script could be for the good. And I think that you're exaggerating a little. After all, some could say that 1MB blocks are also censorship. Yes, now I am exaggerating, but in order to try to prove a point: limitations can help in preserving sanity. You can call it censorship and you'll be right, still... in some cases it can be useful (the limitation and its benefits, not the censorship per se). |
|
|
|
Cardul arata foarte bine si este atat de lucios incat este greu de fotografiat, din cauza luminii reflectate. Din punctul meu de vedere este un obiect de colectie de care se va bucura orice posesor, mai ales tinand cont ca numarul acestor carduri este foarte limitat.
Eu zic ca te-ai descurcat mai mult decat rezonabil la facutul pozei, iar cardul este intr-adevar frumos. Felicitari! Sper sa prind suficiente sanse cat sa castig si eu unul  |
|
|
|
To treat all transactions equally, that's what's beneficial.
You do have a valid point here. ... But I will still continue: how about the feature that allows the ordinals? Is it really useful, compared with the "disturbance" it causes? |
|
|
|
Greed is human. I really can't argue that. Everyone is responsible for their actions. This can be somewhat debatable (not everybody is mature, and I don't talk about the 18 years limit). However, let's not go too much off topic, in most cases you're correct. The reason pooya wants this thing banned isn't to protect them from their foolishness, but to lower the transaction fees.
Well, this is (sadly?) my point too. At least to a certain extent. I mean, dumb or not, is this ordinals business beneficial to Bitcoin and its network? I tend to believe it's not. And if so, why allow it with so much benevolence? If it is beneficial, then, yeah, I am wrong and this logic too. |
|
|
|
I think that you are way too zealous on throwing stones. I don't see any part that tells that people will not be paid at all. It only tells about a delay because of the talks / certainty he needs. I can understand that it's an unpleasant situation (plus bad timing because of the holidays), but this kind of situations need mostly patience. I think that Royse777 will come - sooner or later - with updates and probably also with the payments (from that wallet or from another). |
|
|
|
I say everyone has the freedom to burn their money.
That's true, however I agree with @pooya87 in this: it's all about greed. Many of those people don't comprehend they are burning their money, they think they invest it into something others will buy very expensive someday soon. |
|
|
|
Have you experienced the same thing..... please share your story with us.  This kind of stories are very rare. (PS. I am genuinely happy for you!) People who are for this long crypto aware (to say to) know that it's not safe to keep money for long at exchanges, hence if there was something valuable, it was withdrawn. On the other hand, I am certain that I've left a long trail of worthless altcoins (lower than the minimum to withdraw) along the exchange I've used, especially in my early years of my crypto adventure, but I am not aware that any of those would suddenly become of any value (and I will also not start now to hope or look for that) |
|
|
|
Nu am avut probleme, poate s-a schimbat ceva acum.
In primul rand intrebarea are 5 anisori, deci s-o mai fi schimbat una-alta. In al doilea rand, nu stiu cum e acum, dar acum cativa ani era o limita de 20 min pentru trimis bitcoinii. Dar limita aia, daca imi amintesc bine, era pana cand se vede tranzactia pe blockchain, nu pana la confirmare. Stiu ca prima data am incercat sa cumpar cu bani de la un exchange Dar si daca se depasea limita, exista o metoda sa ii contactezi si sa ti se ia in considerare transferul (stiu de la aceeasi patanie). Dar cand am facut transfer din portofelul meu, nu am avut niciodata probleme. Iar daca de atunci s-a imbunatatit sistemul, cu atat mai bine! Nu ar strica sa scrie cineva cum mai merge treaba acolo, ca pana la urma sunt printre cei (prea) putini care accepta bitcoin ca metoda de plata intr-un magazin online din Romania. |
|
|
|
|
7 NeuroticFish
As usual, big thanks for this and all the raffles you've made and keep doing!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
