Εγώ ακούω κάτι καλύτερο: ότι οι τράπεζες θα φτιάξουν νόμισμα που θα το εκτοπίσει. Το οποίο ισχύει ότι θα φτιάξουν (νομίζω World Bank και World Economic Forum έχουν ανακοινώσει W-CBDC), αλλά να περάσει το Bitcoin σε τι; Lol.

Νομίζω πως είναι υπερβολή το χιλιάρικο. Αυτή τη στιγμή παρατηρούμε τεράστια fees γιατί κυριαρχεί hype για τα νέα Ordinals. Όταν εξαφανιστούν αυτά (που θα γίνει όπως και με τα NFTs), δε παίζει να έχουμε πάνω από 50 sat/vb. Δεν υπάρχει τόσο τρομερή κίνηση on-chain όσο ακούγεται. Το 90% του block space πάει στα Ordinals.

I was so close on this one. I figured out how to go backwards from C1 to S1, but I never understood how the rules are encoded, so I was quite just brute forcing by mind. The big problem was that I neither understood how the word position is translated. For example, "wE~T" which I found as "seat" is in position "1" ("wE~T1"), but it's the third word in the phrase.

We were solving it at the same time! You didn't need to pay $300 for a mining fee, though.  

Challenge accepted my friend.

You only need the first 4 characters for each word. "prop", "tool", "semi". I think he has clarified this already.

I also doubt that the words are scrambled, like "property" -> "pr_o_p", "seminar" -> "se__mi". He's bragging about the puzzle's simplicity, and that's too complex.

But, he tells you that S1 is a seed phrase, and particularly this one:

Maybe I didn't understand exactly what you meant, but I cannot see the doubt of what's S1.

As far as I can tell, there's an arbitrary choice to which he refers as a "starting point", and information about this is onto the cards. And it normally has to happen at first, so yes, before everything else.

Edit: But, don't take my word for it. Let's wait and see what he has to say.

I never said it isn't a serious problem. What I said is "it's a feature". Here's another feature: 21 million cap. "But this might not sustain the miners' income". I know. It might not. But, it's a feature nonetheless. Same applies to a fixed-sized block limit. It's inevitable that rich people will outweigh the poor sometimes, in terms of confirmation priority.

You're a father figure! I wish I had a father who taught me about Bitcoin and Monero. Congratulations.  

Agreed.

Doesn't prevent the problem, perhaps discourages it by a little bit. What if they mint these tokens through centralized platforms with enormous amounts of UTXOs? I also don't like coins days destroyed, because it's anti-fungibility. A coin with value 100 days is more valuable than one that was just created.

The sooner we accept that Bitcoin cannot handle the entire populace on-chain, the better. Free markets are trial-and-error based. If Bitcoin has erred as electronic cash, then it's down to us to see which change in a crypto-protocol would make it look more like cash. Maybe there is none. Maybe it's dynamical block size. Maybe it's tail emission. Or even a compression method we haven't even thought of. In practice, we can see which is more recognized as cash.

---

A lot of Monero proponents on Twitter are bragging about Monero, and how it's better cash. Do they have any idea how bad the system works if the network was clogged up with gigabytes of monkeys every once in a while? I know, it'd still be cheap, but to finish syncing you'd have to verify like a million of monkey-ring signatures, which would slow down it by orders of magnitude.

Here are some important reminders for the lot of us: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5493652.0.

---

There is no revenge, and even if there was any, it is simply not worth the money. It is just greater fool's theory 101. People risk millions of dollars for more in return. Not idealistic reasons, not BS. Just human greed.

Why do people throw coins in fountains and make wishes? Why do they send coins to Satoshi's address? Why do they pay outrageous amounts of money for baseball cards? Because it's not reasoning that drives the market. It's emotions.

I may be hated for saying this, but what's currently happening in the mempool is a feature, not a bug. The fact that we have a fixed-sized block limit means that the current clogged up state would inevitably happen sometime.

Another important reminder: Censorship won't prevent monkey jpegs. Let's leave asides if censoring monkeys would undermine one of the important properties: It just technically doesn't work. People who spend dozens of millions of dollars in monkeys everyday can bypass every censorship measure and save them straight to the UTXO set, which would be a lot worse for the rest of us.

Here's another: As long as the law of supply and demand defines the price of block bytes, we can never on-board billions or even millions of people on a layer-1 solution, unless we undermine another important property; being practical to verify the ledger.

Final reminder: The free market decides the ideal tradeoff. "Is it better to have a dynamical block size?", "Would it be worse if we traded 'being practical to verify' with 'being for the poor'?", "Would a tail emission save the situation?". These questions are not easy to answer. However, we have a lot of cryptocurrency options, each tailored to meet different needs. It's up to us to determine which option suits us best and to refrain from complaining about the shortcomings of a single solution.

I can think of nearly infinite "simple" ways, that's the problem.

Your wording is a little ambiguous. Do you mean that it's five the letters that reveal information about the seed word and one letter that's irrelevant to the word? For example, the first four characters of the word, and one character for its position ("aren1"). This is what I understand so far. First five are related with the word, and the last one perhaps has to do with the silver card placement.

The difference is that the drawer and safe are yours, whereas if Google decides to ban your account, or even shut down their Drive service, you can no longer access the data.

Nope. The record of the day is easily this: https://mempool.space/tx/2bb85f4b004be6da54f766c17c1e855187327112c231ef2ff35ebad0ea67c69e. 3.6 million satoshis per vbyte. This person paid more than 6.732 bitcoin in transaction fee. It's the top transaction of the halving block. I guess you can call it the rarest Ordinal, or whatever they're called.  

I'm curious as to who will give more than $400,000 (!!!) for an Ordinal.

It's quite impossible to go from C1 to S1, so I guess going forwards is even more difficult to figure out than that.

Why not? Say you have 12 rows. In the first two, you use 12 letters to note the rules (as it seems needed). The rest of rows are consisted of 60 letters. Given that we only need the first four letters of each word and its position, we would need 4*12 letters + 12 positions = 60.

But, I think you've said that we need more than just the words and their positions. Right?

Again, I can tell the security of this setup. However, I believe it is more complex than needed, and complexity is the enemy of security. I think that a well-setup multi-sig could provide about the same levels of security, but with less complexity.

In my view, if your setup has to rely on third parties, it isn't an ideal setup.

I hope you don't mess with me, and that I'm indeed on the right track.  

That's a good point. For example, the word "brisk" comes with position "2". But, what do you mean with "can be placed out of order"? I understand it as "if we have a word and its position, then the order is irrelevant to us". For example, LwE~T1 could be the word "property" along with the position "10".

OK, so there's more than just word and position. I can think of a third piece of information.

But, we only have one black card with two sides. Not entirely sure why you would want sets of such cards.

A little bit off-topic, but do you feel confident that having your seed phrase in ciphertext is a wise choice? I think it's extremely unlikely that someone can steal your coins, but with a slight loss of memory, you might get locked out of your funds.

Not entirely sure what you mean in here. Yes, it is enough if we have the first four letters of a word, because they are unique. So, we have more room to introduce information that will obscure these letters? For example, could URU/Yw be "aren" followed by another input that is used in your rule to help us go figure out the next word?

I've been looking at it since yesterday, but it's a loss of time until this point. We know absolutely nothing about your rule. It could be anything, like take the first cipher-letter ('U') and use it to find potential letters that it points given a combination using the silver and black cards (e.g., from the first of the twelve combinations, it points to 'h', 'j', 'n' and 'm'). That's just one of the nearly infinite rules I can think of.

I checked an account under the nostr post you shared, from BitCat, which I presumes is yours, because they're describing a very similar patent of securing passwords. As far as I can tell, it's infeasible to achieve reversal; our only hope is that you've used a "simple" rule, which could be utterly subjective.

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time".

You mean you can't tell?    Big yes.

Because, "halving sats" are more precious than "ordinary sats". Just as the very first Ordinal sat is deemed as rare, I think. It doesn't make any sense, but often times, people don't use their reasoning when buying and selling stuff. Probably why billions of dollars are gambled every month, or coins are thrown on fountains as wishes.

The altcoins market cap is about a trillion dollars. That's what you're looking for.

Hopefully, "a fool and his money are soon parted".

Pardon me, but did the halving return the block reward back to where it was? 

Δε με νοιάζει τι νομίζει ο απλός κόσμος. Αν μας ένοιαζε τι νομίζει ο απλός κόσμος δε θα είχαμε Bitcoin σήμερα.

ΟΚ, κανένα θέμα. Ο καθένας έχει την ελευθερία να επιλέγει ό,τι θέλει. Κι εγώ για μικρής αξίας συναλλαγές χρησιμοποιώ XMR. Δε μου τρώνε ούτε cent οι συναλλαγές. Δε βλέπω το Bitcoin να προορίζεται για ανούσιας αξίας συναλλαγές. (Αν και το $100 fee υπερβολή ακόμη και με Ordinals)

Το καλό με τη Revolut, τουλάχιστον απ' όσο ξέρουμε, είναι ότι δε μπορεί να δημιουργήσει χρήμα από κοπανιστό αέρα, κάτι για το οποίο μπορεί να γίνει στο Solana ανά πάσα στιγμή.

Επίσης, ποιος σου λέει ότι δε θα αρχίζουν να λογοκρίνουν συγκεκριμένα coins, αφού είναι centralized; Πως είσαι σίγουρος ότι δε θα λογοκριθείς και θα σου κατάσχουν τα χρήματα, όπως και στη Revolut;

Interesting! A few blocks before the halving, and I was thinking of grabbing a snack, chilling and watching the countdown. But, let's solve a puzzle!

I have never solved a "reverse deduction puzzle" or even "cipher problem", so I'm already in a disadvantageous position. I can see from the short ciphertext that each cipher-word is 6-letter long, which must be important. I've been looking the card combinations for quite a lot of time, though. No ideas. 

And, believe me. A malware that does only that is one of the good malwares! 

Storage isn't evil. It's the software that accesses your storage. If they're evil, a brand new hard drive isn't going to save you.

You can use persistent storage to save important files, such as wallets. This means that the files are written in the USB drive, but encrypted using a very long password by default, like a seed phrase.

We are talking about the same thing. One participant uses the whirlpool client and changes identities when signing input and output.

I found this discussion in their github repo: https://github.com/sparrowwallet/sparrow/issues/1328.

So, as it turns out, nightjar is kind of depreciated, and replaced by a direct dependency of Samourai libs:

This is the code that changes identities: https://github.com/sparrowwallet/sparrow/blob/9d0c35bc750091abdca2769b4ff6fde819d7503e/src/main/java/com/sparrowwallet/sparrow/whirlpool/tor/SparrowTorClientService.java. You can see that it imports the relevant libraries for this purpose.

At this point, if you're still having trouble understanding what it does, we can continue the conversation, but note that I'm not a Sparrow contributor, so you'd be better asking themselves by opening an issue.