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.

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.

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;

Είναι εφικτό αν αποκτήσουν περισσότερο από το μισό της επεξεργαστικής ισχύς που ξοδεύεται για bitcoin mining.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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 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.
.
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

Just a parenthesis; me and "my buddies" form the overwhelming majority.

This is not what I think, nor what I said.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)