It appears that Bitfinex already allow their clients to make LN deposits to their accounts. Quite a big development really, it perhaps got mixed up with the news that Bitfinex were running a public LN node? I'm not sure when client account deposits went live tbh

one way or another, you can be sure that Coinbase are preparing to influence Bitcoin's development (again).

Mark Andreesen and Brian Armstrong were entirely happy to propose a completely new development team (of their choosing) when they thought they could get away with it in 2017. Recent friendly stories in the newsmedia (about how a-political Coinbase LLC are) hilariously forgot to mention Coinbase's (failed) attempt to politicize Bitcoin itself. This kind of PR-style "advert-orial" just makes Coinbase look even more suspicious.

Andreesen and Armstrong are still a part of Coinbase, and so too are likely other nefarious backers and management. There's no reason to trust Coinbase in their intentions after their manipulative and self-serving record

there is an incentive. It's more long-term, but the reward is bigger.

The people that provide liquidity to those who need it most will be rewarded. Those who do not will need to hope they get lucky, and that a dissimilarly self-less person provides to them some incoming liquidity.

no-one's voiced any objections up to now. You keep saying it's going to be a problem though, like maybe 5 times already?


why would anyone care about a new scripting type that prevents choices in those scripts from being written to the blockchain?

• everything that _actually_ happens is written to the blockchain, for all to see
• everything that _does not_ happen is unrecorded

I'd be fascinated to hear the arguments that could possibly be mounted against excising unused script paths from transactions, all it does is make multi-path scripts more economical. Secondary effects of this don't change the fact that the chosen script path is still publicly available.

---

ot: You're very negative/pessimistic these days WindFURY, are you feeling ok?

Coins were (and still are) made of gold for thousands of years. Gold is the most successful monetary substance of all time, there are countless songs, stories & art from several millennia as testament (not to mention all the actual gold itself, lol). Coins are money.

It's true that people saved it. That's about the only tiniest scrap of truth I can glean from your post.

or "everyone"

those who refuse to provide incoming liquidity to others are not helping the network (including those who charge a fee to do so, but that's my opinion and their prerogative)

we can all help the situation by identifying nodes with low or no incoming liquidity, and providing it to them by opening a channel. I realize that there's potentially more fees to be earned opening channels to nodes with higher routing throughput, but ultimately, a better connected network is stronger (and more profitable in all aspects) than a centralized network. There will doubtless be a limit to how may channels it's useful for a single routing node to have, although I am unsure what that limit is (it's likely related to the amount of traffic on the network considered over a long timeframe, as well as how much BTC a node has to put into the network).

it's now merged

the schnorr/taproot code will be in 0.21.0, so it's almost certain that activation parameters will be released as a part of 0.21.1

to add to the criticism: don't be surprised if it reaches #1 in 2021, by this metric.

Everyone forgets that this is the only meaningful "like-for-like" metric to use: the M1 money supply (Bitcoin can only ever have the M0 and M1 components according to the "monetarist" classification brackets for money supply types, because it doesn't use credit-based expansion). If we included all the different extended money supply bracket (there are 6 brackets, designated M0-M5), Bitcoin would once again be the minnow (but monetarist purists can argue that it's not a like-for-like comparison, amongst other arguments)

still, I don't see why Bitcoin eclipsing it's competition in this way shouldn't be celebrated, but also perhaps I agree with bbc_reporter that celebrating the same milestone twice is not quite so exciting.

(maybe Bitcoin could also become more valuable than M2 or M3 component of smaller fiat currencies, I have no idea about the size of those figures, perhaps it already happened )

happy to help LVM is very useful, and surprisingly old tech for Linux (early versions are from the early 2000's era)

it's easy, simply think about someone other than yourself


1. Convert all your fiat to BTC as and when you receive any
2. Spend BTC


Or are you not so confident in BTC, economically or philosophically? Perhaps you don't like to spread knowledge of a concept that's making you (feel) better off than your peers?

Or are you more confident in fiat? 50:50 maybe?


sounds like gambling to me. Myself? all in, on BTC. Because it's the right thing to do, not because it indulges my self-image or flatters my wounded ego

LND is not the lightning network

there's more than 3 implementation of the Lightning protocol, this is only 1 of them


Also, LND is the most fast moving lightning software, adding newest features fastest and with more people contributing code. It's not a big surprise LND has critical bugs, they've had several already

I know.



in my posts above, I am outlining why I consider it to be not useful. You are replying to the posts in which I make the case that the number is not useful. Hope that helps.

Bitcoin's design means either you're protecting every previous block (and the transactions appended to them) from subversion, or none of them

The miner can:

• mine a new block on the longest chain with the most work -> every tx in every block becomes equally immutable corresponding to how many blocks/work they are buried under
• or mine their own chain -> none of the Bitcoin tx's become any more or any less immutable

There is no option to choose which transactions are conferred with hashpower protection, or by how much hashing power they are protected by. So what's the point of measuring such a thing?

a recent re-appraisal of this claim (in an article I read) suggested this may have been true, up until the year 1778

print some more cash, and lend gift it to mining startups at negative rates? certainly possible in Europe, and apparently becoming more politically feasible in the US. Go-go-GDP!

---

Overall, I think the gradual embrace of Bitcoin mining by electricity producers is in one way an unfortunate inevitability (as several people have argued already), but in another an important step on the road to Bitcoin's integration into the most fundamental layer of the world economy.

• the current world reserve currency is contract-linked to energy (this contract is, however, increasingly unobserved by big energy exporters)
• Bitcoin is the energy based currency

Being directly energy based was the innovation that set Bitcoin apart from the other attempts to create a permission-less & trustless currency. If energy producers begin to use Bitcoin mining as part of their business model, then one of the absolute root sources of economic production is a BTC stakeholder. To some extent, the energy industry becomes a rival to the central banking institutions. Where previously the banking & energy sectors were in a symbiotic relationship, this change now represents what I think is described as "vertical integration" of the manufacture of energy production with that of transaction tokens, where no possible such integration existed before.

Because energy producers are right at the base layer of the economic system (alongside food production), one of the basic premises for Bitcoin to become systemically influential is moving into place.

I would add to this that huge innovations in the diversification and distribution of energy resources are likely to take place in the medium term. Some will remain in permanent pipe-dream territory, but some will certainly become commercially and economically feasible. Even the past 10-15 years has seen significant changes in where energy come from and who owns the infrastructure to produce it. So, who is mining Bitcoin using their production facilities is set to change in a similar way.

We can calculate worldwide banana shipments for the same period of time, and  but it would be similarly fruitless (in b4 "banana is not a fruit", I did say "fruitless" )


There is precisely _zero_ power "burnt per transaction", it's a very easy calculation that does not require estimation. There _is_ an amount of power consumed per block solution computed, and the transactions included in the body of the block are completely irrelevant to this, they are not hashed as part of the solution, and (to demonstrate this further) need not be included at all (and frequently are not)



or by an increase in the BTC exchange rate. Or by a reduction in the hashrate. There are, as you allude to, several parameters to mining economics (not least that lightning will be much more reliable/mature by then, and miners can expect significantly higher quantity of blockweight to fill, as open/close commitment transactions can more effectively fill the maximum 4 Mweight units in a block, hence more fee income will be available to miners in this way also)

So the calculation you're suggesting doesn't provide a useful model for predicting transaction fees, not least because there is no relationship between transaction fees and the hashrate. You are only serving to further underline the fact

My suggestion would be to use Logical Volume Manager (LVM):

• setup LVM: one PV and one VG per physical disk
• setup several LV's inside your VG
• write your partitions to the LV's
• setup the file system you want for each LV partition

this method is very flexible, you can change the size of the partitions (impossible with the typical way of creating partitions) and add new partitions very easily. This will make it easy to experiment, to see what the best setup is for your hardware and how you want to use it, before you commit to the size of the partitions.

I'm not sure if the typical "Disks" gui application lets you use LVM, but I would steer you away from using that anyway. The CLI for lvm is pretty straightforward, and there's a good chance your base system is already using LVM by default

a military truism may be apt in this case:

"if you're taking flak, it means you're over the target"

both XFS and btrfs are newer than ext4, and sometimes still considered beta software. As is bitcoin FWIW, I use btrfs and XFS (but not for the same length of time), and didn't encounter any issues other than the processing issues I described (the performance penalty of using either btrfs/XFS it quite noticeable if you copy some huge file, or the swap file is using btrfs/XFS and in heavy use). In general, I'm using btrfs/XFS for data disks, not for system disks (because of the performance penalty). Perhaps a good compromise would be to use btrfs/XFS for the root partition, then set up a separate partition for swap that uses ext3 or ext4, as the error correction is less essential for volatile data (and performance penalty would be reduced), but I have thus far not tried such a setup


it's possible that btrfs is either badly supported or not supported at all on alternative operating systems, I would check that if you intend to use anything else (obviously, most other people are using Microsoft or macOS). I'm pretty sure (not 100% though) that ext2-4 are well supported elsewhere.

you forgot the most basic observation of all:

there is no relationship between the number of transactions in a block and the Bitcoin network hashrate


so there is no reason to ask the question in the OP, the answer tells you nothing of any meaning whatsoever, and so you entirely wasted your (and their) time