I think that both miners and pools will face legal problems in case of sanctioned funds move . Not to mention core devs . But what do i know .
It's time to understand that this space isn't a place where you only have rights , but also obligations . And by coding or hashing or creating templates you're not not outside the law . The "it's decentralised so we can do anything we want" mentality starts to fall apart .

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29137

'With this Issue being posted to the official repository for Bitcoin and with this Issue being closed/dismissed by an official representative of Bitcoin Core, sanctions violations on Bitcoin have now moved from "negligent" to "culpable mental state greater than negligence." Thank you for your service.'

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.6.htm

Sec. 6.03.  DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.  (a)  A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b)  A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist.  A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c)  A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.  The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d)  A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.  The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

What do you think the merchants that receive funds from you marked to be from a mixer and possibly even from criminal activity think?  Your beliefs might be cute in your head, but when you're doing things that can get other people's businesses caught up in criminal investigations that doesn't make you a hero for privacy, it makes you an asshole.



My perspective is that a privacy solution shouldn't setup someone to be investigated for accepting Bitcoin or land the service provider in jail while having all the service users' funds confiscated.  If all transactions are private, then we're all accepting the same consequences and fighting for privacy.  Your solution leaves the service provider and the unknowing recipient to take the fall for your privacy.  Again, not a hero fighting for privacy, a weasel that leaves others to take the fall for the sake of his privacy.  I don't want to support weasels, I want to fight for real privacy.

Good luck with finding a new signature after the 1st.  Hopefully then you'll stop shilling money laundering under the guise of privacy for a paycheck.

I'm not talking about merged mining, ser. I'm asking if BCash and BCash SV miners will actually STOP mining in those chains, and start pointing their hashing power to mine Bitcoin.

The point why I'm asking is, because of the high fees, then would it be more profitable for miners to, probably temporarily, start pointing hashing power to Bitcoin.

yeah, i think we all realize there's some altcoins with tiny fees. but to some people that kind of makes them feel like a traitor to bitcoin. they thought they could use bitcoin for all their banking needs. well, if you're willing to pay then i guess you can! but lesson #1 is the blockchain doesn't care about how expensive it is for people to make a transaction it really couldn't care less. otherwise it would have been designed such that the fee could never be more than a certain amount in US dollars. I realize that doing that would require an oracle of some kind and people would be against that though...

With bitcoin the way it is right now, that doesn't seem logistically possible to do, aka, micropayments. Unless you as the node operator accept Litecoin. or some other altcoin with low fees. but that would be like encouraging people to use Litecoin instead of bitcoin...

But technically in an exchange it's not actual Bitcoin that you're buying, but mere numbers in their ledger. It only become actual Bitcoin if those units are transferred in a public address with a private key that's under your custody.

In the subject of Ordinals and transaction fees, have we seen the network maintain such high fees that users are willing to pay more than one month? I believe not, but if it does, wouldn't it make Bitcoin more profitable to mine that BCH and BSV miners would start pointing hashing power to Bitcoin?

Fair enough.  Those are paying around 3x higher than I was estimating the top of them to be.. I was thinking that earlier some people were proclaiming that Chipmixer was paying $300 to possibly $400 per month for the top of the earners... so yeah a bit higher than i expected.

Even if this was true, how would BlackRock benefit from large fees, immediately after doing this? They are not miners, they are asset managers.

In fact I strongly think that most people in BlackRock do not even know how to make an Ordinal.

Although you said there is a risk of it becoming a "settlement network for banks", to be honest, is there any bank interested in using Bitcoin for that? Jamie Dimon just said he would like to close Bitcoin down if he could.

Back in May I had written a FB post about how in the future you will have to pay $1000* for an on-chain transaction. BTC mainnet will basically become a settlement network for banks. The Average Joe will be forced to use CEX or Lightning (if he's lucky enough to have a channel already).

One thing is the number of users that can usa a thing, like IPv4 which is still sufficient as we speak but won't be if we reach 20 billion on this planet and 99% internet adoption

Done!

Btw , this is anime, not porn! Trust me!

But I don't see people complaining about not getting a public IP address. Do you see why you are doing apples vs. tomatoes here?

my view,
bitcoin 2009-2013 was western liberal democracy
but dev politics and business politics got in the way after 2013 and bitcoin has changed

I did and I ignored it because I didn't see where the argument was, IPv6 adoption was at 45% last sep, and is very likely to go past 50% next year, where BSV vs BTC is just a long shot, also, the reason why IPv6 exited in the first place is fundamentally different than the reasons BSV existed, so you are comparing apples vs oranges here.

What do they gain from raising the fees?

I think a simple explanation is that people are paying fees for ordinals and such because they either hope to make profitable trades, or because they are rich crypto investors who can afford to burn money on collectibles.

And I doubt that nfts can drive the fees up to $1,000 but they can certainly drive it to $5-40 for short periods of time, and that's already highly annoying. We talk so much about Bitcoin helping the economies of poor countries and banking the unbanked, well good luck convincing them that they have to pay their daily salary for a single transaction fee.

You definitely can't distinguish between Bitcoin and Altcoins (Cryptocurrency), there is no monkey jpegs in BTC even tho Bitcoin blockchain can be used to make NFT, but most of the time it was used for .btc domain. Bitcoin is very different with any democracy that exist today, most of the democracy nowadays are still very centralized all the policies executed and made by central entity, this means that all the policies need to secure the interest of the entity, while bitcoin is ture decentralized everything that is happened and is going to happened is because the market and community. What you are describing is centralized altcoin and we know most of the bitcoin enthusiast is against that centralization used of blockchain

Allow me to quote you just for reference:



You could say


But then again, you comments cleary show that you use that big blockers as in insult, at least you think of it as such, it's very common here to consider anyone who asks for bigger blocks to be an enemy of BTC, and as it stands right now -- you too seem to have issues with big blockers, so my question is simple, if core devs raised the block size, do they get a pass or are they going to be harassed just like everyone else?

Ban coffee transactions and you will be good to go. but ya all jokes aside, I have a very hard time believing that all these cries are actually related to the fact that they think "jpegs actually hurt bitcoin" because I am convinced that -- it's only because those jpegs are increasing the fees.

I mean two different scenarios with different outcomes. 

Scenario one: magically Ordis and BRC-20 transitions could actually reduce transaction fees for "normal transactions" would we get the same volume of complaints? sure not, most people don't even run their own node so they can't even be bettered with more disk space or anything of that nature, they just want to transact for cheap whenever possible, despite the fact that they very seldom use BTC anyway.

Scenario two: No ordis, no Apes, but we start writing news on the blockchain

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" X1000

Scnerio there: People have started to actually use Bitcoin, there are roughly 2 billion credit card transactions per day (no counting every other payment method on planet Earth), 1% of that would be 20,000,000, or 20M transactions, compare that to the current transactions of BTC which are roughly 0.5M transactions, that's 3900% more transactions, even with the assumption that all of these will be "normal transactions" with a single input and two outputs, the fee floor for such volume with probably be the 1k sat/ Vbye range, which is a lot worse than all these Ordis can do.

What is going to be the argument then? what is average Joe going to complain about in scnerio 3? You want adoption -- there you go, but now you have to compete with the rest of the world, so your 2 sat/ Vbyte transactions are something from the past, how are you going to solve it? what are you going to censor?

I have said this a dozen times, BTC will always be a store of value and not something fit for daily transactions, this is how the majority of people view it, nobody is willing to spend dear sats for a cup of coffee, they would always use their bad money and preserve their good bitcoins, I treat BTC as a store of value, I am not ashamed of saying it out loud, I know most people treat it as such but they just want to stir that "P2P e-cash" concept to attack everyone else who wants to use BTC differently.

People could keep on daydreaming about BTC being widely adopted, worth 10M$ / BTC while transaction fees are 1 sat per byte, but these three things can't happen together, you will have to least sacrifice one of your dreams, transactions can only be cheap if nobody uses BTC, if nobody uses it -- it can't be worth 10M.


I like these debates, and I do want the best for BTC, but it seems like in this forum, every time you raise a reasonable concern, you will be attacked and viewed as an enemy, look at the comment above "YOU BIG BLOCKERS DEVILS" , you can't even propose or support the idea of raising block size, I wonder -- what will these people do when core devs actually raise block size, are they going to insult them and call them big blockers scums?