If you live in a country of a population of 7 people with 2 running for president, your voice has a strength of 1/5, if there were 5 miners each running their node, your voice/code would have the same voting power, so where do things differ?

-In government elections, you can't legally and honestly buy more votes whereas in BTC you can buy them with $
-In government elections, you only have limited options, usually two jerks whom you know are going to fuck you over, you chose the one who is less likely to **** on your face  , whereby in BTC, you may just run a node that says you own 99% of the supply.
-In government elections, if your guy loses, you can try again in 4 years, nothing major, whereas in BTC if enough people oppose the current "rules" you break the community into two (ya elections do break community in some cases in some countries)

So ya, not sure what you guys are trying to get to with this government stuff, but you can find many similarities as well as many differences, to me, the main difference between the two is that the winners in BTC election are likely to have good intentions after all, they invest a lot of money and time and they would want what's best for BTC even if it goes against my point of view, I would still somehow benefit from losing, whereby in government elections, there is a huge chance that those getting the votes (including mine) are actually going to screw me over, steal my money and make my life worse.

This is one of the reasons why I am not all-in super maxi YOLO shit, I don't attack those who think blocks need to be huge, I mean aside from the sick minority who want to destroy Bitcoin that exists on both sides, I believe the majority of them are genuine people who want what they think is best for BTC, it just so happens that their view on things differs from mine.



That is an interesting point you have right there, and I would personally say I care more about the value of BTC than the "utility" BUT, only after defining what "utility" actually is, you may think utility is BTC being a great medium of exchange, cheap and instant like credit cards, and that's fine, someone else may say the best utility for BTC is the store of value or the ability to transfer it without going through one or more centralized entities.

Interestingly enough, if I asked you the same question, I would be very surprised if you said you care more about the "cheap and fast" aspect than you care about the "value", because I know you are someone who perfectly understands what bitcoin is, and what are its limitations, it's technically not possible for BTC to beat any traditional medium of exchange in terms of speed and price.

The reality is, BTC was never intended to do such a thing, I don't understand why many people think BTC took a different path, it's probably people's different ways of interpreting the white paper.


Every single aspect of the abstract of the white paper still holds true, you can still transact BTC without going "through a financial institution", the white paper doesn't say you would transact for dirt cheap, does it?  

Obviously, it doesn't mean BTC can't be a lot cheaper to use than it is now, so none of that does justify why blocksize shouldn't be increased, all the arguments against that are rather weak today, so whatever excuses some people had back then and were somewhat valid -- are probably totally meaningless and useless now.

The real question however is, can we keep the same level of security, reliability, and smoothness with a block size increase of say 300% where blocks become 12MB on disk, will that break the bank or burn the hardware of any node out there? certainly not, but will 12MB solve all the scalability issues? also no

So now it becomes a matter of what people who own Bitcoin actually want. are the majority of people upset about the fees? are there enough people ditching BTC for its high fees? these questions are hard to answer, if I were the BTC's CEO and had to take action, I would cut block rewards and time in half then increase the block size enough to suck the volume of all major altcoins and stop there.

That is true, but hard in practice, if the U.S wants certain addresses to be banned, they have no say on a miner node that sits in China, that node will still include the transaction and broadcast it to U.S nodes.

There is no way that all governments and all countries will impose the same rules, it will always be one country and its pawns, so IMO if x country wants to go full retard, they would force the ban on all nodes running in their country.

 I don't think not moving to other coins/blockchains has anything to do with the number of merchants accepting them, I hardly believe that there are enough people who use BTC for any sort of merchant payments, it just doesn't make sense to me, the way I see it is that almost nobody uses BTC for "merchants payment" if we talking merchants, how many accept bitcoin? 15,000? 30,000? against 350M + who accepts credit cards? what does that give you? 0.00x % ? you round it to the nearest whole number and you get exactly 0%.


I do however agree with the first part of your post,  leaving BTC isn't as easy as leaving your country, and the main reason why people are not leaving BTC is that they treat it as a store of value, and they think it has the best and most guaranteed chances of growth compared to any other coin. if it was not for the "store of value" concept, why would anybody buy BTC today? it's the most expensive coin to spend and the slowest to move, which proves the above point, in the grand scheme of things -- nobody uses BTC to "transact".

And yes, someone will quote the white paper "P2P electronic cash system .................", spare yourself the efforts, nobody cares.  

So now begs the question, is BTC on-chain even feasible to use for daily payment? will it ever be? The answer is simply put - NO!.

It's now Ordinals to blame, fine, let's ban them, will that solve the problem forever? will there be enough room for 5% of the world population to transact on Bitcoin's main blockchain for cheap? NO!

is there any technical solution that we may implement in the future that would keep BTC as secure as today and process millions of transactions per second without breaking something? NO!

So what should we expect? what are we waiting for? it seems like our only hope is that the "others" would stop using it so that "we can", those "others" will differ from time to time, it could be BRC-20 junk shit, it could be banks settling their payments, pools spamming the blockchain to keep fees high, rich people paying for coffee using bitcoin, we don't know-- but there will always be "others" to fight.

What is the right thing to do?


We need to accept that we can't expect BTC to

1- Make us ultra-rich, allow us to transact for dirt-cheap, stay as secure, not to be regulated, and cure cancer. That's just too much to ask and seems like we want everything!

Transacting for cheap on the blockchain will not be a thing in the future, I can't stress this enough, without other layers/sidechains that actually work we need to start to treat BTC for what it is treated by the majority of people who don't seem to be complaining about fees because they hardly spend any of their BTC anyways.


What does currently mean for the website you posted? you can only know the pool's real hashrate if they report it publically, other than that it's just guesswork, I opened the link right after you posted your post and it's now showing 152.34 EH/s, there is no way the added 1.3EH in 10 seconds, what you see here is estimated hashrate based on how many blocks they found during x period of time (seems like last 100 blocks for the website you posted), those figures are highly affected by pool's luck, i.e, it's possible for a pool with 10EH to show as 20EH if they had 50% luck for whatever x period the website uses.

With that said, I believe currently through their API (assuming it's correct), foundry reports 155EH.

Exactly, anyone who knows what crazy is would see it in this "doctor." I feel bad for him. I believe the problem isn't only him; it's also those who keep arguing with him in an attempt to win an argument, which isn't even remotely possible. The more you argue with him, the more aggressive he gets. People need to understand that he is "sick," and sick people need help. You don't help him by cursing him, not by banning him either perhaps. The best help we could offer said doctor IMHO would be to ignore him.

citb0in and paid2, the two of you are correct, it is so annoying lol, I would imagine someone who doesn't understand how mining works would really struggle to understand the difference between the two statements you both made despite both being perfectly correct.

I really think the simplest way to explain all this would be to imagine yourself hunting in the dark, the number of bullets you shoot is always the same (your miner's hashrate), and the number of animals you are trying to shoot also doesn't change "blocks per time unit", the number of bullets other hunters shoot doesn't directly affect your chances to hunt something "more network hashrate doesn't mean your hashrate is suddenly worth less since every bullet has the exact same chances of hitting a target as any other bullet", but eventually, every now and then, those animals "blocks" becomes smaller in size and thus harder to hit "difficulty increase".

Which means; if you want to maintain the same chances of hitting one of those animals' "blocks" you will need to up your fire rate "hashrate". The smaller the animals get, the more bullets you would need to keep the same chances.

Here is an example of a transaction that was sitting in the mempool for long enough but was not picked by Ocean, it was paying 321 sat/Vbyte, here is a transaction they did include to replace some of those taproot transactions paying 83 sat/Vbyte


mempool rates this block at 85%, which is a very terrible rate, the calculation is rather simple


The total fees that were available to extract on that block were 1.306BTC, the actual fee after the censorship turned out to be 1.162 btc, which is roughly 11% loss on fees, or 0.144 btc to be exact, that would be pretty similar to your calculation above.

Of course, this could have been a lot worse if there was a whole BTC of Ordinal fees sitting in the mempool like there was a few days ago, I think it's for their best interest that they did not hit a block when fees were skyhigh.



Of course, it's not, which is why I made the compassion with full nodes, every time a node receives a transaction it becomes fully aware of what the transaction has in it, the same concept would apply to a pool.

If the pool creates the blocktemplete they would include
Transaction A > legal
Transaction B > legal
Transaction C > Illegal

This means the pool has purposely included the transaction.

If the pool does nothing but broadcast a block found by miners, and the block is

Transaction A > legal
Transaction B > legal
Transaction C > Illegal

The pool can't just remove transaction C as that will invalidate the block, and given that the pool has no control over what the miner includes, legally speaking, it would be at least a bit more complicated to regulate this scenario compared to the first one. 

I understand it's possible for regulators to state that "As a pool you must not broadcast a block that includes a sanctioned transactions", but I assume it's easier to state "As a pool you must not include any sanction transaction in the blocktemplets you send to miners".

I also understand it's perfectly possible for regulators to impose these laws on every node, not only miners' node, something like "Anyone running a BTC node must blacklist the following addresses".

I could be wrong, but i would assume something like that would be a lot more difficult.

An address that starts with "3"  could be "assumed Segwit, however, That is not necessarily correct, it could be a multi-sig address(not Segwit), you can't tell unless they spend something from that address.

Of course, given that he is the owner, he probably knows -- but we don't.

For more info, read this.


** would be better to specify in the OP that addresses must be "Native Segwit, not just segwit.

Username: Mikeywith
Segwit Bitcoin address: bc1qllsppyglhc04ec84kqu9sh6fa7a9f7g28apn4z

Ok, I see your point now, and I think it is based on this assumption you made in the first post


You base your assumption on what seems to be rational actions, whereby, with profits this tight, you would expect higher difficulty would drive some miners away, but mining is far from rational.

Look at the previous epoch, we had 7% increase, does it seem like there are fewer miners today? Nop, in fact, it seems there are 6% more hashrate, so we are finding 6% more blocks than what we should, there is no guarantee the next diff would be any different.

As I said in my previous post, it is crazy American money, you can not predict anything, large corps could be mining at a loss and still manage to get investors to fund them, i see no end to this madness, the halving will stop some of it, but not all.

Your question is not clear, please elaborate.

يوجد موضوع مترجم في قسم المبدئين يمكنكك الاطلاع عليه https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5130449.0

يحتوي الموضوع شرح كامل حول انواع المصنات, طبعا الموضوع قديم بعض الشي وربما الامور تغير في بعض المحافظ ولكن الفكرة بالمجمل هي نفسها فأنواع المحافظ لم يتغير منذ انتشارها, عليك اولا تحديد نوع المحفظة التي تتماشى مع احتياجك وبعدها تقرر باقي التفاصيل بناء على امور اخرى مثل مستوى الامان, السعر ان وجد وغيره من العوامل التي سوف توثر في قرارك.

ولكن تذكر ان المعرفة والفهم اساسين في اي نوع من المحافظ, يمكن لشخص محترف استخدام محفظة ذات مستوى امان متندى بكل امان وبدون فقدان امواله, ويمكن لشخص اخر لم يقراء ويتعلم ان يسخدم اكثر محفظة امان في العالم ويسخر كل امواله في اول يوم.

Whatever issue Gholly reported probably has to do with outdated pool code that doesn't support ASICboost (although, I always thought those T15 had Asicboost enabled by default so why did they work fine?). Some people would argue that certain miners might not be able to find shares large enough for a block and thus getting valid shares on the pool doesn't necessarily mean they can hit a block(they even block firmware that were not proven to find blocks), but then again, finding blocks on the testnet doesn't mean the miner is capable of hitting a block on the mainnet either.

TL;DR

Is your hashrate reporting fine on CKsolo pool? if so -- you are good to go, there is nothing more you can do.

Tell me about it -- I haven't been taking these screenshots for a while. However, last week, I really wanted to record my 6000 score. I was at 5998, and all I needed was 2. But, alas, someone ruined the party for me. We should request a feature that allows us to delete our own merit just to record these impressive figures, as they are really hard to hit.

That's a terrible idea, why would you delete PMs just because someone might publish them, like how often does this happen? is it even bad enough? most others would prefer PMs to stay there, I do some business on the forum and my PMs have some order details either me selling or buying something from other forum members, while I do keep all this info somewhere else "safer", I would like for them to stay there just in case something goes wrong both parties could go back and check since none of us can change the content of the messages (except the Admins obviously).


There is no such thing, you can't control people's hardware, they could always take screenshots, and videos, doesn't matter how hard you try to restrict that on a software level, they could always just use another phone to take a picture.

There is no point in automatically deleting them messages, besides forum's PMs aren't exactly private, they are sent in plain text, Cloudflare sees them, the receiver's email provider sees them, the forum admins do, and moderators can "if PMs are reported", also god knows if other devs who maintain the forum code (if they exist) can also see them.

It's fine to request an encrypted PM system just to stop those parties from viewing your PMs.

Of course, regardless of these messages not being exactly private, I still think it's wrong to publish them unless there is a strong purpose and that would be person A claiming that person B said something to or about them in a PM, person B denies that and asks person A to prove it, Person A is left with no other option.

In this incident, Royse could have said "GazetaBitcoin is PMing my clients and making x claims about me", without revealing the whole content like this, I also think GazetaBitcoin's PM to Royse's client is wrong, he has the right to complain to that client for sharing the message with Royse, but the accusation in the PM makes it seem so his goal is just to stop the client from doing business with Royse.

I now wonder, what started all of this between the two of you? I know that you two are reasonable folks, neither of you is a proven scammer or a troll, and neither of you used the trust system to punish the other person, so was it worth it to go this far? and how far are you willing to drag each other into this? I don't think any of you would manage to "destroy" the other person's reputation with all of this, you are probably just going to make things worse for both of you, maybe it's about time for peace talks?

I strongly believe that this is the main driving factor for difficulty. It's easy to forget how things were a few months ago when you look at the current profitability. With fees still higher than average despite the huge drop and BTC at around 43k, the increases now may make sense. They didn't a few months ago, but they kept on adding gears.

I think where the U.S differs from other countries is that to a small group of the elite, money is literally printed out of thin air, and it's money that counts ($$$) unlike most other countries' money  . It's too easy to make a few million dollars just by circling around the right politicians. I sure don't doubt the business skills of fellow Americans; I know they have great entrepreneurship. I am talking about the person whose uncle is in the decision-making/cooking room, invited to an expensive dinner by some defense contractor offering him 10M to convince his uncle to sign a firearm deal with some country somewhere on the other side of the planet.

Such a person doesn't understand anything about business, or BTC. He meets someone from Foundry—they offer him a great business deal where he could invest 2M in mining gears and hit ROI in a few months. The foundry person gets his 0.5% referral, and the money spins in.

There is no doubt that many of these multi-billion corporations will take a massive hit after the halving. I can't, for the sake of me, think that all this money they invest is the result of a rational study on the market where risks are taken into consideration before "potential profits." To me, it seems like a bunch of rich folks who got rich by accident being "scammed" by mining companies for temporary gains.

Hey phil, the price for jan batch has increased (since we are pretty close to January, it has gone up 2$ per TH

Also the DDP shipping of $200 is for 2 moq, we pay pick up fees in hong kong and a minimum weight of 25kg is imposed by the shipper, so 1 pc would cost nearly as much as 2 pcs for shipping.

Anyway, PM, i will try to sort it something out.

Fees now have dropped to 80~ sats/Vbyte, if nothing much changes, in a few more hours you may get away with 40 sats transactions, there is a large wall at around and above 40 sat (almost a whole day's worth of transactions) so I think 40~ sats would be a good level to consolidate if you are rushing and don't want to wait, I think we would eventually in a few days get to 10-20 sats, but probably never again see 1-2 sats unless something major happens.

Not even that, the only reason why would someone buy Nerdminer is just probably just to "learn" a few things about BTC mining, as far as luck goes, there is just no chance in heaven that a single Nerdminer would hit a block, with that hashrate it would be almost impossible to register on the pool you mine to if it doesn't allow super low difficulty, probably only a pool or two that would do that.

That would be somewhat similar to regulating P2P nodes, is it not? If your node receives and relay a banned transaction, they take you to jail?

When the pool no longer operates in a centralized manner they become just a pooling service, just like a bus driver, if someone carries something illegal with them on the bus -- the bus driver can't be held responsible in the same manner as if they found those illegal stuff in his pocket.

So I run a pool service which I have no control over, how can I be responsible for what happens inside? Similar to the bus driver analogy, the worst would be shutting down the bus service or the pool.

But when you are the owner, and the operator of the pool, you are at a greater risk, because now, not only that you facilitate illegal transaction a byproduct, you intentionally do so.

It is a lot easier to regulate a pool that create their own blocks vs pools who work as a medium between miners, it's also easier to regulate centralized exchanges and force them to ban or even seize funds of certain addresses, but it is nowhere near easy to regulate bitcoin nodes.

Obviously, it's not impossible, it just a lot harder.

الموضوع: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478824.0

تم اليوم, او الامس اضافة 2FA للمنتدى "اخيرا".

طريقة تفعيلها بسيطة جدا

1- تظغط على profile
2- Account Related Settings
3- تقوم بعمل Enabled للمصادقة
4- تقوم بسكان الQR الكود من برنامج المصادقة في هاتفك او نسخ الرمز يدوي في حال عدم وجود كاميرة
5-تقوم بادخال الرمز وايضا كلمة سر الدخول للمنتدى

ملاحظة مهمة, هده الخاصية تحمي حسابك فقط في حال تحصل احد ما على باسورد دخولك للمنتدى, في حال تحصل احد على ايميلك يمكنه ايقاف هده الحماية والدخول لحسابك بدون مشاكل, لذلك فأن تأمين ايميلك امر مهم جدا, تأكد دائما ان ايميلك صحيح وانك تمتلك الوصول اليه وانه لايمكن لاحد الوصول الى كلمة السر الخاصة بالايميل.

بالتوفيق.