the reason was back in 2011. although silkroad was drugs related. it was mainly libertarians who didnt give a crap and thought drugs should be legal and authorities cant do crap about it so they didnt mind sharing delivery addresses because receiving drugs was not a big deal crime for personal use amounts in many area's, where only the seller needed to stay hidden and not reveal location
however these days we have the extremist tin foil anti-gov conservative types that are "privacy" "dont use centralised services" kings who even with legit products dont want to reveal home delivery locations out of fear that one day if laws change they could be locked up for just using bitcoin or not declaring taxes on their bitcoin income "coz services log everything and government watch everything"(facepalm)
to me i laugh and feel the second(more recent group) sound more drug induced paranoid than the first group
but basically these days no one really used services that tried(openbazaar, crypto emporium), so they fizzled out quickly.. (by this i mean they didnt get high user viral sensation/utility)
|
|
|
never invest due to what someone says purely because you recognise the persons name as some one famous and automatically think "well he is famous so he must know what he is talking about"
instead take what that person says and the research it. and see if what he says checks out, also find an opposing view and then research that, and then come to a conclusion of which one is right and choose based on the right information
and by research it means find actual data/code/sources.. not popularity contests of how many followers some one has that have merited or liked a certain topic
its not about ignore famous people. its not about blindly believe.. its about listen and take what they say and research its accuracies
some days they can be correct about one thing and not so much about another. so dont just blindly trust forever a guy because at one time he said something you agree on.. always do your own research on each subject
|
|
|
collateral was kept in account to sway users from just making 1000 accounts a day and scamming 1000 a day
it helped to keep both buyer and seller to keeping one account occupied and used else they would lose that value. or cost them multiples of value just to generate multiple accounts.. it was on both buyers and sellers (dont hold me to that response, but it makes sense if both sides had something to lose)
and if there was unresolvable dispute then the collateral was used to resolve dispute. thus it forced parties to agree on something to avoid losing collateral
|
|
|
All great points franky - thanks for your thoughts.
I am tempted to advocate for a process that I believe the notorious Silk Road used. Silk Road had an escrow Bitcoin wallet that would pay vendors once the buyer said they received the good. Obviously this would allow the buyers to scam the sellers. You'd have to come up with a way to stop that fraud.
I think a customer/vendor rating system would work just fine. The vendors would not be able to have anonymity, but the buyers could. I am not entirely sure how to stop the buyer from committing fraud, but the vendor would be making more profit per transaction on the Bitcoin network without credit card company fees. Would this outweigh MASS fraud - No.
I'm trying to imagine an online market model where the marketplace isn't making money by gauging the vendors with huge transaction/processing fees.
yes although i didnt like the produce silkroad was advertising... however, the method of keeping dubious criminals from scamming was novel by using the deposit system (deposited collateral used as reputation) was a feature.. aswell as the escrow. it wasnt perfect but it also was better than nothing. however more is needed to offer a good reputable product listing site that doesnt cost a high middleman escrow fee to counter any losses made by scamming because if the fiat scam rate is 1% even with all their middleman features and protections. then the scam rate in crypto would be 10x+
|
|
|
the issue with marketplaces for goods is not what you might be thinking at first.. its not the centrality. its not even the listing of goods.. its the whole scamming and scheming on both sides EG sellers that dont deliver and just run away with the funds.. buyers that pretend goods not received and demand refunds where they just set up new bitcoin addresses for payments and pretend to be a new business every day, or customers pretend to be different everyday and scam the same seller over and over
things like ebay have buyer protection which makes it harmful to sellers. other sites have seller protections which makes it harmful to buyers. but these fiat sites found they needed something to alleviate the fraud/scam risk
but in a system of anonymity and no desire of KYC it becomes a hotbed of people trying harder to scam and scheme a system
market places have a headache with this stuff which is why they charge fee's for offering a listing site. because they become the mediator of disputes about sold goods not being sent or customers saying they didnt arrive where both sides are trying to run off with goods or funds for free
ebay/etsy work better because they are clear accounts with names and addresses and ratings systems where seller get to rate buyers and buyers get to rate sellers where its slightly more difficult to just create reputation if your just going to use a no ID system
it would be great to have a market place where people can advertise goods and novelty gifts to sell. but it requires a highly invested middleman to mediate/escrow deals, so that fair trade can happen with punishments for abusing said deals
|
|
|
yes developers make changes... bitcoin is not AI (self generating code) after all
the issue is not "developers"... its the "centrality of certain developers" forming one sponsored mindset/roadmap in a niche community of a subset of sponsored dev hierarchy that are IN CHARGE of bitcoin commanding development..(central point of failure)
thats what we should be careful of
where they "SHOULD BE" be open to independent peer review and critique and open to being challenged. where there "SHOULD BE" different brands of "reference clients" to spread out the decentralisation of development. where by even other brands can make proposals. and if a proposal solves something the brands support it and the wider node community support it by upgrading their nodes (of whatever brand) and then when majority is ready to support verifying the proposed change of ruleset.. THEN it gets adopted/activated unlike how things are now where things can be slid in without consensus (requiring nodes to upgrade first to support a change before a change occurs)
the consensus mechanism of upgrades to support change, before the change is a security mechanism to ensure the network supports it.
and also if majority dont like/need or see a change will be detrimental, they can avoid it being slid in by not supporting it thus it not activating.. thus means devs actually have to bother to listen to the needs of the community to appease the community to get things the community want and need to get bitcoin to evolve by community consent
by solving things the community want in a consensus mechanism (solving the byzantine generals problem) things get activated yes consensus is consent by census (survey of population)
rather than one commander(brand) that shouts out orders and soldiers just follow politely
|
|
|
anyways
he plead not guilty and trial set for 2nd OCtober 2023 and so the drama will die down until then
|
|
|
We always thought that BTC is the future of money but that won't happen anymore. Regulations are known to be a bad thing for currency which are decentralized like bitcoin but if ever the government demand this in exchange of allowing bitcoin in their country then I think people will just agree on it.
bitcoin 2009-2014 was undefined legally so treated as private property (like trading cards or auctioned art) thus regulators had no remit/jurisdiction as soon as it was defined as currency it allowed regulators to the licence businesses wanting to "swap" currencies to be treated as money service businesses now they dont want to see crypto as currency, but instead a commodity (elemental/raw product used to create other products) basically mainnet used to lock value for underlying subnetworks of iou/pegged tokens which is a different set of regulators now its being deemed as a crypto asset instead of a cryptocurrency (government deciding to change terminology) other regulators can jump in. as a currency for instance only the SEC could regulate us businesses using crypto.. as a commodity the CFTC can get involved and control trade quota's classify investor types, set circuit breaks on trade volitility.. and it also means the EPA can then mandate miners get a licence to be more ecological/efficient or be banned but with all that said there is movement in the BIS(banks of international settlement) are proposing to let central banks hoard crypto assets of upto 2% of banks combined collateral reserves in 2025. sec and cftc are trying to classify crypto to allow commercial banks access to hoard crypto so although there are some worse case scenarios that have happened and could happen. there is also some positives that could occur too
|
|
|
to expand on the peer-to-peer exchanging using de-fi and bank transfers
(this is not about illegal scenario by government this is a warning to those in current legal currency setting.. ) even now governments see bitcoin as a legal currency and as such that means banks see transferring crypto as a service for a fee/commission, as a financial service/money business.. if people are abusing their personal bank accounts to do multiple wire transfers to strangers(of any value) a bank can flag that as operating a business or suspicion of money laundering and request answers or just freeze all services(no more wire transfers) where the bank account holder has to withdraw their cash/ask for a bankers cashiers cheque, close their account and seek an account elsewhere.. or confess/admit they were operating as a service, draw up a business plan, get a business account and get licenced as a money service business to continue operating
yep even when bitcoin is a legal currency be careful doing decentralised exchanging using a unlicensed personal bank account too often
many times you will also find your 'customers' doing transfers with you, will then scam you by saying their account was hacked and money was falsely used to buy coin, and they want their money back. which then puts a flag on your account. where you then have to start doing due diligence to prove you are handling customers correctly by doing KYC on them to get photo Id proof of who was transacting with you.
currently lack of trade/volume on DEX/defi has not shown major instances of the above. but the more populate traders get, the more it will happen
|
|
|
new law for UK 2023
every new house build has to include a car charging port on the external wall of the house
so instead of a hole in the wall to have a gas pipe into the house there is no a hole for a electric cable going out of the house
but yes supermarket car parks is a way forward and see an end to "fuel stations"
trucking industry will have truckstops operating "pitstops" where they have batteries fortlifted off the truck cabin and swapped with a charged battery (like a F! racecar pitstop where they swap tires in fast pace time)
these pitstops will be at most distribution centres and "major truckstops" thus trucks are not stuck having to wait for charging they just have batteries swapped out while they take a 30minute break or have their haul off/onloaded at a distribution centre
|
|
|
The story about mining is not something people don't know about it. The governments always prefer to keep an eye on people's transactions and control than ever they have whatever they transfer that's why they try to make it centralized making bitcoin mining centralized is just part of their plan, but we all know this would fail and they are able to do that in at any time.
take your tin foil off governments are politicians that sit in "the capitol" or "parliament" they are not sat in offices typing away at computers watching everyone star bucks purchases you are confusing politicians with ex bankers now puppet mastering regulatory agencies its the banks and financial service industry watching transactions and reporting the juicy stuff to regulators
|
|
|
he has done many interviews expressing his views
he says its like digital gold(deflationary asset) but with the extra security of being an asset itself but digital.. rather than a certificate of an asset(like digital gold) thus better than digital gold
also for years gold has been stuck in the $1k-$2k window of trading where as bitcoin too has a non-zero bottom(real value($15k currently)) that will slowly raise up over time to new raised bottoms, the tops(premiums(ATH $70k)) can also go up hugely, meaning there is more room for more profit and growth
other things are that bitcoin has its own utility. and also underneath as a bridge to other sub layer iou/pegged tokens that could offer more novel utility. in essence the options of utility could expand into things we are not thinking about today.
current sub networks of iou/pegged tokens are still sandbox testing and yes saylor is motivated by the obvious promoted ones, but he sees alot more opportunities in others yet to come that can expand deeper and deeper down in sub of sub networks thus offering more to the mainnet capital locked for those subnetworks, thus raising the bar for all coins in the mainnet
|
|
|
lets imagine all countries tried it.. here is the result bitcoin will go brown (not completely dark)
less miners asic farms and more independant hobby miners in basements (secret mining where authorities cant shut them all down in one swoop)
less legit exchanges for people to openly buy and sell coin. (more blackmarket decentralised trading for coin)
but to absolutely abolish bitcoin. well.. look how well the international "war on drugs" or the 1920s "alcohol prohibition" went
people got drunk then and get high now.. and authorities cant be in all places at all times to stop it
the more decentralised the network is by having usernodes with full node(archiving) set to distribute the ledger, the more miners scattered in multiple locations, the more services scattered and set to run remotely where there is no physical "office" the less chance authorities have to make bitcoin go brown
|
|
|
the four area's of concern are (A)mining (B)development/protocol direction (C)custodians/service/exchanges (D)user nodes
my personal concern is more on the BC vs D
miners cannot change the rules independantly, they need cooperation with the econonic nodes(C) or/and (B) where by if (c) is running code handed to them by (B or A) which can change the network without (D) consensus(consent)
so miners have a few leaps to jump to have power to change the network.. all they can do alone is maybe re-org the blocks back a few blocks to make a few spents become unspent again. which unless they have transactions worth a couple $million is not worth undoing ... however (B) can work with (c) and threaten (AD) much more easily and in most cases (B) can just slide in any changes they want now without (ACD) .. many people rely on C as a "bank" and if there are too many (c) brands all under the same umbrella parent company.. if one card falls the whole stack falls. meaning lots of custodians close and lock customers away from their funds
C is a easy fix. just dont hold coins on exchanges for long periods A is a easy fix. miners just jump pools if a pool if gaining too muchblock solving rate
B we are stuck with the CORE centralisation with its hierarchy and moderation and their hate of being critiqued and reviewed (unless its done by their own clan) although they 'should' be open to independent/outside review/critique as they are a critical component of the network.. and they 'should' be open to having different competing brands of full nodes offering proposals and user adoption
D well user nodes that are not (c) dont have much power or sway either way. its just now being treated as "following" rules rather than consenting/consensus deciding which rules should be followed(i dont like the sheep follow game. but thats what it is)
|
|
|
google: "The rev*. dat files (the "undo files"), contain all UTXOs spent by the inputs of a block. It was introduced in Bitcoin Core 0.8, and contains a concatenation of records, one for each block. This mimicks the structure of the blk*"
it basically holds a copy of txs that are spent tx....(opposite of a utxo set) incase there was a re-org/rollback the node doesnt have to go around requesting old blocks that got previously spent to be relisted as unspent, to then update the utxo database
its more of a internal time saver in cases of rollback
and yes many advise its helpful to copy the rev files too
(my personal node had full blockchain but i edited it to only have a certain amount of other files like rev files as its not often needed to re-org that far back, but still helpful to have recent rev files to speed up any re-org)
i have not personally messed to much with my version. so best to try to copy as much as possible to save as much time as possible rev files should be ~60gb total
if you are only copying the first 50% of blk's then just copy the reciprocal first 50% of revs so they can correlate to the blk data
copying over just blk may save time of having to re download the initial block download process. but without the other files like rev, your system then need to read each block again the create the utxoset and rev sets. which is a bit extra of "rescan" time as they call it
|
|
|
the bit about gentoo(linux) and "they got it all" is about that he said he found malware that was script kiddie made but made to target his system(s) specifically
this means its the same people that were hacking him since november exploring his systems and then editing their malware to follow a path they seen so that they can get deeper into his system with each attack and get more access to things .. manually hacking and exploring takes time which means more time for victim to spot an attack. but if you make a bot do most the work and you add on new paths per attack to automate the process so that you can get deeper each time before getting spotted then you have better chance of getting valuable data sooner with less attacks needed to explore the system
|
|
|
hydrogen you skipped one economy of the bulldozers
you mentioned scrap metal which is pointless economy when it comes to transport cost of said weight
however. selling PARTS to other miners is lucrative
Try looking at shipping prices of items on ebay. It is possible high cost of shipping is restricting everything. i simply mean instead of you driving to the mountains. to then drag the dead dozer back to your location, to then repair it into a working vehicle to then sell as working vehicle to another guy in the mountains... or instead of you driving to the mountains. to then drag the dead metal back to your location, to then sell as scrap locally have you thought about. researching the dead dozer holders location in the mountains for other companies IN THAT location. to just get for free the bulldozer and just drive it to his neighbour to sell it to them as a dozer for them to use for spare parts EG if the dead dozer only needs 20% of parts to make it work. it means its already got 80% working parts already. so you can sell it for like 40% of full value as just a cache of spare parts for the mountain mans neighbours and all it has cost you is some fuel between neighbouring companies in the mountains EG your plan you--------->mountain┐ | repair<---------------┘ sell for hopeful 60% working second hand | └----------->buyer┐ but cost you more fuel parts and time to repair └----------------------┘ instead of you--------->mountain┐ | | sell for hopeful 40% as mostly good parts. └-----------buyer<----┘ zero repair time and less fuel
|
|
|
if you are born rich and then mis-manage money. it can bring anxiety
if you are born poor and then manage money. it can bring security
i was more of the second scenario. and i am more relaxed, i have no anxieties anymore.
most of my 'wealth' is in crypto and i have enough to no longer even care about the whims of the daily price movements. im secure, bills get paid and i get to travel without having to check my balance.
if you reach a point where you have more funds than expenses, where you no longer need to count pennies or look for ways to accumulate more for necessity/survival. then you have security
|
|
|
Given the current market capitalization, they are hoard much more than the total value of Bitcoin and pretty much all altcoins, right? So basically, they can engage with the crypto market as much as they desire in terms of how much to buy, but a $10 billion market cap actually limits the choice of coins to 7, 3 of which are stablecoins. Doge might make it when the market improves, and same for Cardano. Being allowed to invest is good, but doesn't mean that they actually will invest. We'll see if this has any impact in the future. I suspect that banks will largely stay away from the market anyway.
again commercial banks are different category to central banks. commercial banks can do as they please.. its their business, the report to SEC/fca/finra and are family of banks becasue regulators are ex bankers most of the time .. so can easily make rules fit.. so commercial banks can and do invest already central banks are a different category they have higher restrictions/standards its actually the central banks that WANT TO INVEST. its why they are negotiating with the BIS the BIS initially said 'ok 1% limit" .. the central banks responded with "no, 5% please" and BIS responded "ok compromise 2%" so it looks like the banks want to invest upto 2% of bank collateral/reserves in crypto. but the BIS are the ones limiting them much like the IMF wanted to limit el salvador
|
|
|
windfury have you seen lukes religious beliefs recently.. one way or another luke is compromised. but the threshold is.. what? im not saying he should be removed just for religious beliefs i was making a plain comment that someone else was hinting IN A TONGUE IN CHEEK manner that gavin got removed for "keys compromised" and dubious funding/commentary..
and now in this post. i am now saying.. so whats the threshold for removal from core team?? again not saying remove him. just a comment about whats the threshold(and its rhetorical not actually requiring an answer)
if you cant get satire/rhetorical comments. then please stop pressing the reply button to go streaming into 20 rants about how you adore things and think everything else is gaslighting you
(i feel your about to take a sly-small satirical comment made by someone else, and then me highlighting the cheekiness of said comment.. to go into a massive defend a dev debate that lasts weeks.. so lets just pre-empt all your lil digs and resolve it all in one post.)
edit above comments to address windfurys responses below(ending debate before he goes left field)
firstly i didnt say he was compromised. to the same extent as gavin.. YOU were having a dig at Digaran when HE suggested in satire to remove luke I said digaran was making a tongue-in-cheek comment(aka satire). (i guess you didnt get the hint) YOU then(post below) acted as if i was saying what digaran said.. without you understanding what i or digaran was saying. in short you took things too far to cause more social drama
edit above comments to address windfurys responses below(ending debate before he goes left field)
anyways (only edited below the underlines to my points about compromise) as for decisions of doing things to defend BITCOIN against compromised devs.. requires seeing if a devs PGP keys are compromised and ensuring that no one aimlessly downloads software containing a compromised keys signature post compromise of said keys..
however then adoring a dev just because "they are core", ignoring their flaws as humans, treating them as gods just having a bad day.. is not good for the decentralised security of bitcoin. defending a dev above the security of bitcoin is also not a good trait to have
trying to be part of a kiss ass team wanting to break bitcoin rules to ensure bitcoin only follows a business sponsored roadmap is not good for bitcoin
and when a dev that was sponsored to implement a "feature" but is found later on not even using the feature they were highly involved in implementing.. says alot about the whole situation
you admiring luke due to a implementation involvement. yet then seeing luke himself doesnt use that feature in the last 5 years of opportunity to use it.. should make you probably want to call luke out for gas lighting you into a implementation you thought he truly wanted.. but later found out he doesnt use.. right?.. correct? or are you still just going to kiss ass a dev as if devs never make mistakes.. as if he is a god having a bad day just because of some social drama team of dev idols you are in.
just because a dev wrote some code for bitcoin does not mean it requires blind idolism of them as gods. we actually should be critical and review devs regularly to keep them on their toes to ensure they dont keep putting trojans into the code.. not idolise them and pretend they can put anything they like in and dont need review and no one should criticise them
|
|
|
|