Δε μπορεί να λειτουργήσει χωρίς WAN δυστυχώς (όπως θα μπορούσε μια απλή εφαρμογή με LAN). Μπορούμε να ανοίξουμε εμείς οι δύο κανάλι κάτω από το ίδιο δίκτυο, αλλά για να λειτουργήσει χωρίς σύνδεση στο ίντερνετ πρέπει να υπάρξει βαθμός εμπιστοσύνης (ότι δε θα κάνεις double-spend). Οπότε πρέπει και οι δύο να κάνουμε monitor συνεχώς τι συμβαίνει στο blockchain, το οποίο προφανώς κι απαιτεί σύνδεση στο WAN.

Πλεόν που είμαστε όλοι online δε βλέπω το πρόβλημα. Ίσως να υπήρχε πριν 20 χρόνια, αλλά όχι τώρα.

It's really nice seeing these old advertisements that contained WeUseCoins.org and LoveBitcoins.org. They signify whoever made the ad was a very early adopter. It's also funny to stumble across the term "bitcent", which is 0.01 BTC, and not used anymore. One bitcent back then was the same as 100 sats today. Crazy rise.

I've seen you've visited the Ark topic, so you know very well this isn't about a shitcoin. It's Bitcoin. Nothing to do with this "ARK" on CMC.

Ark is a brilliant name. It's one syllabe, and you don't need to know much beyond that it is a second layer of Bitcoin. Sort of how "Electrum" doesn't have "Bitcoin" in the name, but it's easy to understand that it's a lightweight Bitcoin L1 wallet.

BTW, Ark takes the name from Noah's ark, which was used by Noah to save himself, his family and pairs of every kind of animal from the great flood by God. In this case, to save plebs from forfeiting custody and privacy to third parties.

It is like lightning. In fact, its founder started it as an alternative lightning wallet, and it was later observed that it fits better as another L2. It's like lightning, but it moves complexity to servers.

To understand the background? Of course. Bitcoin has a complicated background as well. The goal is to have a simple UX, not a simple background. You don't need to know the exact structure of a debit card payment, you only need to know the UX.

Not necessarily. All these people can gather and batch their transactions into one through the use of rollups, either by using a coordinator or even a decentralized mechanism. You'd have a transaction creating thousands of UTXO, not thousands of transactions.

And yes, it's still bad if such an activity occurred often, but as I said, the burden lies on the server. It'd be like boarding on the Wallet of Satoshi, in terms of lightning, instead of creating triangle channels with strangers who are likely to be experimenting with the protocol and are not reliable.

• I just recently revisited Ark, and I haven't invested much time into it.
• Every project at the beginning is hard to understand. There are no guides for wallet installation etc., just documentations. You're alone at the start.

At this point, I want to quote the prophetic Hal Finney.

98, 99. Thanks!

Username: blackhatcoiner

48 and 49, thanks!

ID: 35021766

I entered in the wrong epoch then. I want to go back in 2010 and talk about overthrowing the government with this new BitCoin.

"Kinda" is the key word here. It doesn't actually do it. It does it only under the bold assumption that people will be opening and maintaining their channels, which we all know how difficult and unappealing it is.

In my opinion, the goal is to scale the system in such a way that every person has the option to own an UTXO, but be disincentivized from creating more than that. For example, in Ark, you wouldn't need more than that. You might not even need an UTXO. You'll just download an Ark client, choose a server, generate an address and you're ready to go. You give it to anyone, create your VTXOs, and if you ever want to leave for some reason, you can exit (either unilaterally or not). But you would be disincentivized from doing so.

No inbound liquidity problems, no channel maintenance, no backups, no computer running for 24 hours a day, no bullshit. Just a pair of keys, and that's it, as it should.

I would love seeing Binance and Coinbase delisting Bitcoin. It'd be way too fun.

A tweet from 2023 explains how Ark can work non less interactively without softfork: https://x.com/SomsenRuben/status/1681442410348576772.

In this write-up, he explains Ark in simpler terms: https://gist.github.com/RubenSomsen/a394beb1dea9e47e981216768e007454?permalink_comment_id=4633382#file-_simplest_ark-md. Once you read this, you can scroll down and read the second post, "Reducing Ark Interactivity Without Soft Fork".


As far as I understand, it goes like this:

• Alice wants to send money to Bob, but Bob is offline.
• Alice requests from the Server to sign a new REDEEM_TX_AB with script: B+S or A+S or A in 1 month, which is the same as her previous REDEEM_TX_A but with different timelock and the addition of B+S.
• Alice forfeits REDEEM_TX_A (which means the Server can claim her funds if she ever publishes REDEEM_TX_A)
• Alice can perform the swap for Bob (since he is offline), and she can get the proof of payment from the Server.
• The Server is incentivized to be cooperative (i.e., notify both parties that the payment completes) along the way.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood. I'm still trying to grasp the concept.

This will be doable. Ark is just like lightning, with more burden placed on the ASPs, rather than the users. It's just a better tradeoff, IMO. Lightning will still be used for money transfer between the ASPs.

Even if just 1% of the hashrate remains anti-censorship, it has a high chance to produce 1 block everyday. That's enough to clear the mempool from all blacklisted transactions every day.

The only way to censor Bitcoin is to attack it, which incidentally will affect your own income either directly through waste of electricity or indirectly through capital devaluation.

Suppose regulators force the miners of their country to blacklist certain transactions. What happens with miners outside their borders? They cannot force their behavior. The anti-censorship miners will normally mine any transaction, and the pro-censorship miners have the choice to either accept the chain with the most work (which would make their blacklisting pointless and financially damaging), or blacklist the most worked chain if it contains blacklisted transactions.

Since the former is not an option, good luck with convincing the miners to attack the very essence of Bitcoin.

This is strange, because the images are proxied from ip.bitcointalk.org. Therefore, if your ISP was indeed blocking them, it'd make sense to block the entire forum.

I don't have a problem with the "loophole", because I know they can re-create another protocol after the loophole is fixed. For example, store their Ordinals in the UTXO set, which would be even worse for us then. It's like beating the air. As for the scam part, I am not the sole arbitrator of truth. If some people find it funny, entertaining etc., I have no right to trespass their freedom. I can warn them, but that's the most I can do, and so should everyone else.

If you don't have the freedom to make mistakes, then what kind of freedom do you have?

I mean, let's leave asides principles for a moment. How are you thinking of doing this? Suppose that I'm a miner. Please convince me that I should censor Ordinals.

Here's mine.

Bitcoin is a hell of a lot things. It's peer-to-peer cash, it's a decentralized computer network, it's a living organism, it's sound money, it's digital scarcity, it's an idea, but more importantly: it's money separated from the state. It's not prone to human corruption. Please take a moment to comprehend the significance of this property.

Trade is what keeps us civilized. Because I can trade with you for what you have, I don't have to kill you for what you have. To facilitate trade, we need money. Therefore, money is extremely important for the human species. However, all the money we've had so far has been prone to corruption, often controlled by an entity, a government, or the elite. This control allows them to manipulate money for their own benefit, which takes us back to primitive times. When money is corrupted, the free market becomes corrupted as well. Trade is then based on false positives, and the signal of prices becomes distorted.

You might have heard of Bitcoin being peaceful revolution, or freedom money. That is what it fixes. And it'd be unforgivable if we started experimenting recklessly with that invaluable property. If you simply want to experiment with a new payment system, there are altcoins for that.

I now see that you don't just want to increase the block size. You want to change more than that.  

That doesn't change the situation. We could argue that it'd discourage ordinary users, but it doesn't discourage miners since that 1 sat/vb goes back to them. Ordinary users could still come to an agreement with the mining pool and get their money back. (Or just pay them off-chain to include it with a 1 sat/vb)

"EThe Bitcointalk Times 18/06/2024 Larry brings the forum into the chain". Here you go, that's the genesis message for if it is ever archived in the blockchain. 

Jokes asides, it takes a lot of money to store it in the blockchain. I just copied and pasted every post above mine, and compressed it. It's 5.6 kilobytes. With 10 sat/vb at low priority, it'll cost 56000 sat just for this single thread (until this 21th post).

It isn't worth the money.

Back in 2009, certain banks were charging fixed transaction fees. It was a common practice for ATM withdrawals, wire transfers, and foreign transactions. This is probably what Satoshi was talking about. I can't tell the same is true today. I can neither tell that Bitcoin is in the exact same form as it was in 2009.

Here we go again.

Just because a fool thinks his satoshi is more valuable, it doesn't make the currency non-fungible.

Bitcoin block space is auctioned every 10 minutes, based on the law of demand and supply. And Ordinal users are very demanding. I see no problem with that.

Bitcoin Layer 1 is far from a perfect payment method, regardless of the presence of Ordinals. Transactions can take hours to settle and incur variable fees depending on the current demand and supply for block space. These factors alone make it an unattractive medium of exchange for point-of-sale transactions.

This is why I prefer calling it an asset layer. You don't move assets every day.

Pretty much.

Exactly. Minimum relay fee. That's the default local policy. You can change it to 0.5, or 0.001, or even 0. This is done for DDoS protection I think, but it's totally possible to adjust it if there's demand for it. In the worst case, they can send their movies directly to the mining pools.

(I missed him too  )

Lost != Burned.

I think you should clarify this on your main page, or even better remove "Lost keys" category once and for all. A "lost" bitcoin is still a spendable bitcoin. Satoshi's bitcoins are very spendable, and even though it's unlikely to ever be spent by him, it's likely that they'll be stolen sometime in the future, given the resources.

Same goes for "Burn addresses".

I was having this impression that in 2009, banks did charge a lot more than today, and the whitepaper made a lot more sense back then. You'll remember better. Did they?

The reason Greek merchants don't want to accept debit cards is to evade taxes, not transaction fees. Truth be told.

The minimum fee is not 1 sat/vb. It is 0 sat/vb. And the minimum after that is 1 sat per transaction. Then 2 sats per transaction, and it goes on and on.

Property sent through cyberspace within minutes. Overseas. Pseudonymously. Unstoppably. It was, still is and will always be magic Internet money. 

If the fees are not enough, it will be because there are not enough transactions to compete for the block space. In that case, the system will stop operating:

This will have the following consequence: Ordinals will switch to another protocol, with transaction structure that is not biased by the Bitcoin protocol.

We should never censor or discourage any valid transaction that does not fit our description of Bitcoin, no matter what. The only objective factor that defines which transaction gets into the next block is the law of demand and supply.

Or a few spammers who want to store 4k movies on-chain. With 700 MB block clearing up the mempool every 10 minutes, you could store gigabytes of movies for a nickle.

In my place, they do hate it when you're asking to pay with card for anything lower than 5€. They'll find an excuse that their POS is broken, and accept only cash for the moment.

Edit: 12 sat/vb high priority, consolidate!

From these quotes I understand that Satoshi wanted to convey that the costs of mediation and the oligopoly of financial institutions is what makes micro-transactions impractical. You must have noticed as well that some merchants will hesitate to accept card payments for a soda drink or cigarettes. The cost of the transaction fees may significantly cut into or even exceed the profit margin on such low-cost items.

However, if we take into consideration the fact that Satoshi was thinking of the blockchain growing by 100 GB every day, then it's probably plausible to assume he'd envision cheap on-chain transactions. As I have mentioned before, Satoshi is not the ideal figure to be regarded as the unquestionable authority or ultimate arbiter of truth for Bitcoin.

And Ordinals send dust from one address to another, which is perfectly legal from the protocol's perspective. They don't abuse anything.

You can neither prohibit someone from using the blockchain as a storage.