I had seen that the thread had some activity, but didn't get involved into the discussion. Nice review! I'm glad you have the time, money and passion to buy these and show them to us.
So, to summarize, it's a full node, lightning node and ASIC miner, all-in-one? It, sure, looks cool, but is there an essential benefit I don't see? If you want to mine, which is required otherwise you wouldn't buy such thing, doesn't it get cheaper if you purchase the ASICs directly from the company that makes them?
|
|
|
I confirm that the onion site is down.
|
|
|
αλλά μετατροπή Bitcoin σε Monero και πάλι πίσω (θυσιάζοντας φυσικά και το επιπλέον κόστος που απαιτεί η διαδικασία). Εννοείς, ουσιαστικά, mixing. Δεν έχει νόημα, γιατί θα στα μαρκάρει ως "taint". Εάν δεν σε αφήνει να συναλλάσεις με Monero πάει να πει πως θα έχει την ίδια, ανούσια συμπεριφορά και με το bitcoin. ενώ εσύ το προχωράς και λες ότι αν θέλουν μπορούν να καταστρέψουν εντελώς το bitcoin με double-spending Ναι γιατί περιγράφετε και οι δύο ένα σενάριο στο οποίο υπάρχει 0 ελευθερία και οι Ελίτ έχουν επιβάλλει τη χρήση Euro-shitcoin. Δηλαδή δικτατορία στο μεγαλείο της. Και ρωτάω, εάν κινδυνεύουν μη τυχόν υπάρχουν κάτι άτομα σαν και μας που μπορούν να κάνουν "μαγκιές", γιατί δεν το κλείνουν το ριμάδι να ησυχάσουν; (μπορούν; ). Είναι εφικτό αν αποκτήσουν περισσότερο από το μισό της επεξεργαστικής ισχύς που ξοδεύεται για bitcoin mining. Για να το θέσω αλλιώς, πώς θα πιει ο Μήτσος του παραδείγματος τον καφέ του εφόσον θα έχουν θεσπιστεί νόμοι εναντίον των (μη αποδεκτής προέλευσης) νομισμάτων του; Είναι παρόμοιο με το να λες ότι, από το νόμο, ο Μήτσος πρέπει να παραδίδει όλα του τα προσωπικά στοιχεία, όπως που μένει, ονοματεπώνυμο, τηλέφωνα, πιστωτική κάρτα, ιστορικό συναλλαγών, προσωπικά μηνύματα, ταυτότητα κλπ., κάθε φορά που αγοράζει κάτι. Σε αυτήν την περίπτωση, βασίζομαι ότι θα αντιδράσει ο ίδιος. Σίγουρα δε θα λύσει κάτι τέτοιο η κρυπτογραφία.
|
|
|
the fact that Bitcoin is finite doesn’t by itself make it a value. Scarcity does not determine whether something is a value or not. But, it's not scarcity that makes it valuable; it's the scheduled inflation, the transparent monetary policy, part of which is scarcity. Bitcoin could, normally, operate with tail emission which would mean, it'd inflated to infinity. It's the absence of arbitrary inflation that matters. The US government requires traders to give them US dollars whenever a trade occurs (i.e., taxes). This requirement is forced at the point of a gun. The US dollar is, at its core, a type of ticket that you must give to the government to allow you to live. Don't take this personally, but the way you've formed how this world works is honestly gloomy and hopeless the least. It's not a surprise you don't find value in bitcoin, because you neither find value in freedom, privacy and censorship-resistance either. Fortunately for the rest of us, this world is consisted of people who perceive things in a different way than you do. There's an admiring number of people who disagree with your assertion. Bitcoin is, therefore, valuable for those.
|
|
|
The whole concept of bitcoin is to be anonymous so if this can benefit that goal, why not. It's more private in the sense that there's no financial institution to record your transactions, but the concept of bitcoin has nothing to do with this. If you use bitcoin cautiously, then you will preserve privacy, something you couldn't with a Google Pay or PayPal. To quote the founder: The possibility to be anonymous or pseudonymous relies on you not revealing any identifying information about yourself in connection with the bitcoin addresses you use. If you post your bitcoin address on the web, then you're associating that address and any transactions with it with the name you posted under. If you posted under a handle that you haven't associated with your real identity, then you're still pseudonymous.
|
|
|
Δεν υποστηρίζω ότι μπορούν να εξαφανίσουν το bitcoin (προφανώς και δεν μπορούν) Προφανώς και μπορούν θα έλεγα εγώ. Δεν βρίσκω σωστή αναλογία το BitTorrent με το bitcoin, που έχει υποθεί πιο πάνω. Το ένα είναι πρωτόκολλο διαμοιρασμού αρχείων που μπορεί να γίνει μεταξύ δύο peer και μέχρι εκεί. Το άλλο βασίζεται σε fairness theory, ότι δε θα επιτεθεί κάποιος στα ίδια του τα χρήματα ξοδεύοντας την ίδια του την ενέργεια. Δε σημαίνει ότι δε μπορεί όμως. Έρχομαι λοιπόν στο προηγούμενο κείμενο σου: Αν λάβουμε ως δεδομένο το γεγονός ότι οι απανταχού κυβερνήσεις (χούντες με τεχνοκρατικό μανδύα όπως σωστά λες) προσπαθούν να περιορίσουν τις ελευθερίες των πολιτών όλο και περισσότερο με το πέρασμα του χρόνου, για ποιόν λόγο να αφήσουν να χαθεί μέσα από τα χέρια τους μία τόσο μεγάλη ευκαιρία σαν αυτή που προανέφερα (πλήρης έλεγχος με ταυτόχρονη επιβολή δικού τους ψηφιακού νομίσματος και παράλληλο περιορισμό ενός πραγματικά αντισυστημικού και απειλητικού κρυπτονομίσματος); Αν οι Ελίτ κινδυνεύουν από το bitcoin, γιατί είναι οι μόνοι στο κόσμο που μπορεί πράγματι να κινδυνεύουν από αυτό κι άρα να αποτυγχάνει η θεωρία παιγνίων, τότε λογικά θα επιτεθούν. Εάν δε συμβεί ποτέ, τότε σημαίνει ότι τους χρησιμεύει. Μην αποκλείουμε το πρώτο σαν σενάριο όμως. Μερικά δισεκατομμύρια χρειάζεται για να γίνει double-spending και να αποτύχει πλήρως το concept στην πράξη. Το θετικό με το PoW και το bitcoin, είναι ότι δεν προσφέρονται αρκετά μηχανήματα στην αγορά για τέτοιο σκοπό, οπότε και να θέλεις πρέπει να τα φτιάξεις μόνος σου (ή με τη βοήθεια κάποιας ASIC miner εταιρίας). Και γι'αυτό το λόγο τρώνε 51% attack μόνο κάποια αδύναμα shitcoins όπως ETC, BSV κ.α. Το γεγονός ότι συνεχίζουν να έχουν θέση στην αγορά ένα πράγμα δείχνει: 0% utility, 100% speculation, σε αντίθεση με το bitcoin. . "Μας συγχωρείτε κύριε αλλά το σύστημά μας λέει ότι η προέλευση των bitcoin σας δυστυχώς δεν ήταν δυνατό να εγκριθεί. Δεν γνωρίζουμε την αιτία ή τις τεχνικές λεπτομέρειες αλλά μπορείτε να ανατρέξετε στον νόμο ΧΨΖ-82638/ΑΒ3 της ΕΕ όπου αναλύονται όλα διεξοδικά" (ΥΓ. Αντιλαμβάνομαι ότι ένας τρόπος παράκαμψης των ανωτέρω ίσως να είναι η μετατροπή Bitcoin σε Monero και αντιστρόφως. Ίσως πάλι και σε αυτή την περίπτωση να υπάρχουν πιθανοί τρόποι περιορισμού που δεν έχουμε σκεφτεί ακόμα) Το BTC πιθανότατα μπορούν να το ελέγξουν καλύτερα από το XMR. Νομίζω κάνετε ένα σφάλμα λογικής. Όταν ένας εργοδότης δεν συμπεριφέρεται στο bitcoin σαν να είναι fungible, υπάρχει πρόβλημα με τον εργοδότη, όχι με το bitcoin. Όταν κάποιος δεν σου δέχεται τα χρήματα επειδή θεωρούνται "tainted", δεν προσπαθείς να τα κάνεις "clean", αφού είναι εξαρχής αυθαίρετος ο προσδιορισμός τους. Εάν λοιπόν το πρόβλημα είναι "Η κυβέρνηση μας αναγκάζει να μη δεχόμαστε ορισμένα coins" τότε σίγουρα δε λύνεται με κρυπτογραφία, δηλαδή με XMR. Ποιος σου λέει ότι δε θα το πάνε ένα βήμα παρακάτω και θα ρωτάνε το view key σου; Ή ας πάρουμε ένα επίκαιρο παράδειγμα: Πόσα centralized exchanges δέχονται XMR πλέον; 0, επειδή όλα τα XMR είναι "tainted" κατά τη γνώμη τους. Γενικά, δεν υπάρχει τεχνική λύση που να ικανοποιεί ένα πολιτικό πρόβλημα. Η μόνη λύση που μπορώ να σκεφτώ στο "σενάριο πιθανής πραγματικότητας" είναι: Μη συναλλάσεις με άτομα που δεν βλέπουν όλα τα coins ίδια.
|
|
|
While paper money is private, instant and costs nothing to transfer, it suffers from inability to be sent across a communication channel, hereby the Internet. Since the kickoff of the World Wide Web, people have got the comfort to enjoy goods and services using the Internet. Therefore, we have a problem in the way we will carry out transactions online, in a private, cheap and nearly instant way. More info: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
|
|
|
nope there are thousands of people in loads of topics that want bitcoin scaling but cant get it because bitcoin core devs have a different goal/agenda/plan If the Core developers have an agenda you disapprove of, it wouldn't make sense to run their software. Running Bitcoin Core means you've acknowledged and approve the rules those developers have included to it. just accept it. i am not going to bow down to the "LN is the solution" agenda. I couldn't care less of convincing a fascist psychopath. The only reason I attend "discussing" with you is to convince those few newbies, who may have the bad luck to read your miserable posts, how obnoxious you are and how wrong your way of perceiving reality is. Loser.
|
|
|
The one unknown is how Bitcoin will do in a financial crisis... Actually, that's known. Bitcoin was born in the 2008 financial crisis (a year later to be precise) as said above, and got away with it pretty neatly. You can look on the charts, it's been one of the astutest investments since the beginning of the crisis. It has also experienced financial cathode, which began in late 2012 IRC and it is now experiencing depression. The only thing it hasn't yet experienced is prosperity.
|
|
|
i know you pretend your version of OPEN is where the core devs get to control the core and everyone else can have their own layers/branches You're the only person who feels oppressed that way. I have, personally, comprehended that developers such as Peter Todd, Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Andrew Chow, Satoshi Nakamoto etc., know more than I do, and therefore some of their actions might make more sense if I take the time to study better, but there's absolutely no way they can enforce their opinion to my client without my permission. If I come to realize I disagree with a change, or just don't like on running Bitcoin with 1 MB blocks, I have the power to fork myself off, and I ought to in that case. or better yet just take a look at the far far far many more topics and far more people in those topics wanting to discuss BITCOIN scaling. Bitcoin scales. With Lightning. But, besides that, what's the people's want is irrelevant. What matters is the solution. Propose it. If you don't have any, stop whining.
|
|
|
[...] Πέρα από αυτό, το bitcoin κάνει το ακριβώς ανάποδο από αυτό που λέει στο Indymedia, ακόμα κι αν θέλουμε να του δώσουμε πολιτική χροιά. Δεν υπάρχουν κεντρικές τράπεζες, ολίγοι που ορίζουν την νομισματική πολιτική. Όλοι έχουμε την ίδια δύναμη στη λειτουργία του. Ο φασισμός χαρακτηρίζεται κατά κανόνα από αυταρχισμό, όμως το bitcoin είναι το πιο φιλελεύθερο είδος χρήματος, γιατί δεν υπάρχει κάποιος εντός του συστήματος που επιβάλει αλλαγές. Αντιφάσκει εντελώς. Μπορούν να το χρησιμοποιήσουν όλοι κι άρα μπορούν και οι φασίστες. Όμως, το να βαφτίζεις και τους υπόλοιπους φασίστες είναι όσο χαζό είναι να βαφτίζεις φασίστες όσους ακούν Σφακιανάκη.
|
|
|
Τσίλι χρηματιστήριο. Δεν χρειάζεται να δω κάτι άλλο. Όποιος παίρνει στα σοβαρά αυτούς, είναι χειρότερος από αυτούς.
|
|
|
there are thousands of topics from thousands of people wanting bitcoin scaling. And yet, there's no better proposal than Lightning, as much as you hate it. People might want scaling, but that's the best we have, whether they like it or not. If they want bigger blocks (which doesn't mean they want scaling) they can have them. The fact most don't is because they don't form the majority. The Bitcoin Cash team attempted to make this change and failed miserably. your "community" consists of core devs and their loyal fan club No, it doesn't. It's consisted of people who run the code. Period. If the Core developers make a change we disapprove of, there's nothing changed. now go do a topic count on how many people ask and talk about BITCOIN scaling and how many are involved in your altnet solution You avoid the big picture. Topics do not take part in bitcoin. Topics don't tell me what I'm allowed to propagate and what not. Running a bitcoin full node does. And if I don't agree with propagating 10 MB blocks, it doesn't matter what the topics say, nor what you're years whining about; I'll simply reject them. Oh, and my "altnet" solution, which is neither mine nor of an alternative network, makes things scale. Raising the block size doesn't. The transaction capacity per megabyte remains the same. i can find more examples. but you get the point I'll skip the fact that you quoted me in a humorous post, no surprise you have zero sense of that either. I have never said that if you have a different, innovative idea, you should fork off. But, raising the block size, which was my reference there, has only proved to make things work weaker, and does contributes nothing to scaling. If you, though, still want to raise the block size, even if you're part of a small minority, you have the power to do it. But, you're forked off. That's the beauty of decentralized systems I was saying.
|
|
|
blackhatcoiner.. YOU and your buddies Just a parenthesis; me and "my buddies" form the overwhelming majority. that think if someone has an idea they should fork and start a new network and see who joins. This is not what I think, nor what I said. you forget the emphasis that the core devs DECIDE what code gets ACK'd into core But, you decide to run their software. Just having the upgraded client is pointless if you don't use it. You, therefore, matter. You action has a consequence. If the developers make a change you disapprove of, they have no power whatsoever. In the same way the miners don't get to dictate you what are the protocol rules, just because they have a certain percentage of the hashrate. stop social drama protecting human influencers that you admire. and instead think about the code and protocol the random real community of users are reliant on. The people you hate outnumber you. Stop thinking of how you can make us think different and realize that you are the problem.
|
|
|
If the transaction has been flagged as RBF, I will likely succeed. If the transaction is flagged as RBF (full-RBF to be precise) then the double-spending transaction has to raise the fee. But, if the fee rises and the inputs remain the same, then the outputs have to change. So, those two transactions can't be exactly the same. If two transactions are the same, with a different ID, then the signature is the only different part. RBF is irrelevant, because you don't replace by fee anyway.
|
|
|
[...] This perfectly summarizes surveillance capitalism. Anyway, all of the speech restriction is the least of my concerns as far as Facebook is concerned; the reason I don't have a FB account is because of their horrendous privacy-violating policies. You may not have a Facebook account, but do you also avoid Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram? If you don't, it's the same as having a Facebook account. All of Meta's products have the same privacy policy, which can be described shortly as: - We store your data, whether you have an account or not.
- We sell your pictures, videos, texts, identity ultimately to advertisers.
- We can read your private messages.
- We know, and sell, your browsing history.
- We store deleted content.
I don't know how anyone could upload personal stuff to that site, but millions of people do, and it's baffling to me. Personal stuff such as stories, selfies and videos? Indeed. But, stuff like private messages (which aren't private, lol) are needed, to contact your friends, co-workers, employers etc. I don't say there aren't alternatives, but since that's what most people use, you're, essentially, forced to have it too.
|
|
|
and they do not like random(decentralised) people having idea's that differ from theirs. This is definitely not how it is. The Bitcoin Core developers are no close to dictators, which is what you make it sound like. If someone has an idea, they're free and welcomed to propose it. If there's consensus found on the idea, the developers will start implementing it. And a developer has no power over me. If they want to enforce their idea by implementing it themselves without further discussion, I'll simply deny to run their software. Simple as that. and to try to force the outsider into making an alt rather than integrate the scaling into bitcoin You're the only person who sees "outsiders" and "alts". I only see people who've understood there's no further future for scaling on-chain, and try to accomplish it off-chain. One advantage of SegWit was to increase transaction capacity per block, but it was never intended to completely solve scaling. If you have an idea on how to solve scaling, feel free to say it. But, to catch up with you, changing the block size makes no difference to scaling.
|
|
|
Why work all your life for a tiny amount of money, while central banks create a million times more money than you earn in a lifetime in a millisecond? Because you don't know there's an alternative, and if you don't know that, then you will, rationally, fall back on thinking that's the only solution there is. No matter how unfair it is, if you can't imagine of something better, your brain will, automatically, stop thinking about the problem. You will get to admit it, sooner or later. But, it's time to change this. We do have a better alternative now. Bitcoin, that eliminates dishonest human behavior. There are no words in this system. Words are empty, they take no part in the way we construct consensus. Action is what matters. There's no faith in this system. Proof-of-Work is self-authenticating. Bitcoin is, ultimately, more fair. And that's before we even talk about the efficiency aspect.
|
|
|
The signature is part of the unlocking script and cannot be modified by a malicious actor, but it is still possible to modify an unlocking script itself by adding additional opcodes that do nothing. Transactions with added unnecessary OP_DROP codes are non-standard and therefore, aren't relayed to the network, though. Transaction malleability can happen in a more efficient and shady way, by re-signing the same transaction with a different k value. Also, that this can't happen in a SegWit transaction, because changes of witness do not affect TXID.
|
|
|
Username: BlackHatCoiner BTC Address (SegWit): bc1qkt6d7tsffuf9zwnvwqywt406h2slg5tgtf8ydh
It is important to mention that the minimum amount required to participate in Wasabi's CoinJoin is currently 0.10584712 BTC, something I don't cross my fingers most users own. (And are willing to test)
|
|
|
|