Note that there are different kinds of values. There's market value, personal value, intrinsic value, objective value that's measured with usefulness etc. Mona Lisa does have a high value, but not necessarily intrinsic or objective. On the other hand, bitcoin does have usefulness and IMO, its objective value is higher than its market value.

Mona Liza and bitcoin is not a good analogy, in any case.

Let me sum things up.

We have transaction_1. It is non-RBF, it uses UTXO A as an input (along with others) and it's a CoinJoin transaction.
We have transaction_2. It is non-RBF, it has two inputs; UTXO A and UTXO B.
We have transaction_0. It has RBF enabled, it creates UTXO B, it's currently unconfirmed. We call this the parent of transaction_2.

We send transaction_1 in node_1 and transaction_2 in node_2 at the same time.
The network is split to those who have transaction_1 and to those who have transaction_2 in their mempools.

One of the CoinJoin makers wants to speed up the confirmation (of transaction_1) and does CPFP.
The attacker sees that CoinJoin is overspent in fees and reverses transaction_0.
Now that transaction_0 is invalidated (because it's opted-in to RBF and is double-spent), transaction_2 is also invalidated, because it's its child.

Now (all) nodes have transaction_1 in their mempool, but it's overspent in fees.

---

Is that correct?

If each of the inputs that are used in the RBF-disabled CoinJoin don't have an RBF-enabled unconfirmed parent, then what's the problem?

The CoinJoin transaction is consisted of some parties' inputs. One of those inputs might be an RBF-enabled unconfirmed parent, which can be abused by an attacker to disrupt mixing. Can't you give a solution to this if you make CoinJoin unavailable for RBF-enabled unconfirmed inputs?

I must have messed things up.

I confess that I'm still confused.

In this case, shouldn't the CoinJoin/Lightning software warn for unconfirmed parent(s)? I wouldn't accept a non-RBF transaction which has an unconfirmed RBF-enabled parent as "settled".

You mean can't be propagated and confirmed?

You mean Transaction B? You haven't mentioned of any Transaction 2.

Isn't compulsory RBF benefiting miners? Why wouldn't they want to change their policy accordingly?

From the very first rule of the unofficial list of rules,

"Low value, pointless or uninteresting posts" is a little subjective, though. Our best course is to report them.

Yes, but it could also be an alt account, to begin discussion about a topic that's supposedly interesting, to help fulfilling the post quota. Do we know if there's moderation in P&S?

You're wrong, because it's been 2 years and I'm using it normally as a currency. And so are millions of others. Therefore, this assertion is invalid.

That is also not true. We've developed off-chain solutions for this very purpose, such as the Lightning Network.

There's a big depends lying here. I'm buying bitcoin since the early 2020, and I can tell you that not only it has managed to store that value, but I'm also experiencing decent capital gains too. Someone who bought at $68,000 and wants to spend it currently has, definitely, not had the same luck.

This is false. I know no merchants that accept gold, except those who sell it (e.g., licensing pawnbrokers). On the other hand, bitcoin is accepted from a variety of merchants.

It's far better than fiat currency in a number of ways, few of which I've written in this very page:

Why don't we utilize first-seen-safe RBF then? If the problem is to annoy the other party/parties by cancelling the CoinJoin or channel opening transaction, we can give a solution by accepting only transactions that spend to the same outputs, equal or greater amounts.

I don't understand this part. Since you've let a non-RBF transaction been propagated, how can you cancel it with an RBF unconfirmed parent?

This sounds like you don't have all the answers yet. I'm aware that Proof-of-Stake is possible to implement in a sidechain, but the devil is hidden in the details. Anyway, if you've thought of a Proof-of-Stake-like idea that works better, I hope you make it real. I'm really interested to see how it'll work. Otherwise, you can try to debunk the disadvantages of Proof-of-Stake we've all remarked.

Which were?

If the block subsidy becomes lower than the reward from fees, then the basic reward will come from fees. Currently, the miners earn a ~0.1 BTC from fees on average. If we assume there'll be greater adoption in the future, it's highly likely for this to rise. In any case, a difficulty of 1 is, by no chance, justified.

The median fee will definitely decrease if most users transact off-chain, but there will always be on-chain fees.

How can you increase the block time from 10 minutes to 40 without a hard fork?

That was not my point. If no consensus is required, then, naturally, there's no agreement required either. All I meant was to make us comprehend your idea. The way you describe it is vague and foggy. (And that's why you probably haven't got the necessary attention)

The basic idea is very basic and vague, as I said. All you've said is that it's possible to create a separate chain wherein users can mint altcoin units by providing a valid bitcoin transaction. How is Proof-of-Stake implemented exactly? If the altcoin is inflated, how can you return to the main chain that is not Proof-of-Stake based? If there's a direct correlation between bitcoin and the altcoin, how isn't it completely dependent on Proof-of-Work?

Make a thread, explain your mechanism in a clear and detailing way. I'm sure there will be interest if you've thought of something that's significantly utilized somehow.

If the Proof-of-Stake concept is to get rewarded with coins for proving you own coins, then you can already achieve this in a modern-banking way; lend your coins with an interest, or invest in Lightning's capacity. Unless your no-fork idea includes sidechains?

"Good enough", how? If you have such difficulty it means there's very little work done. And if this internal-Proof-of-Stake system is dependent on Proof-of-Work, there's very little security.

How's block time relevant?

Here's a friendly suggestion: Let's talk about it. Don't implement theory if you haven't discussed it with others. There might be a "hole" you haven't thought of. You've only created a thread; make a paper, let us comprehend it.

Isn't this Merged mining Proof of Stake?

It is definitely backed by bitcoin, and since bitcoin relies on PoW, it's indirectly backed by PoW. Not something "environmental evangelists" like LegendaryK are going to support of.

So... Why don't you buy bitcoin?

I'm not anti-taxation, you're just too gormless to understand me correctly. I'm anti-fascist, and become aggravated when I read phrases like:
And:

If you think the government is consisted of somewhat Gods who can enforce their sentiments unquestionably, restrict people arbitrarily and encroach every kind of civil right, then you're as anti-freedom as is humanly possible. It's justified to not see any value if you don't value freedom, privacy - human rights in general. But that's just your opinion of how this world works; and you can keep it, thanks.

There are millions of other people who don't think quite as you do. Those who value these virtues acknowledge why bitcoin is valuable. I don't gain censorship resistance whenever I use a credit card; the transaction can be reversed if the merchant is disapproved from the government. I don't gain privacy (or even pseudo-privacy) whenever I use a fiat currency online; financial institutions sell you out the sooner that is possible. I'm not protected by arbitrary inflation with fiat currency. You do get these with bitcoin; you have your rights respected.

And that's before we even begin on how it works more efficiently than the banking system. I can now send money across the world, with no intermediaries, nearly instantly, with nearly zero fees in a privacy-oriented way. If you still find no value, you're willingly ignoring the benefits. The problem lies with you.

What package? Wasabi Wallet?

A local copy of the blockchain? This sounds like the blockchain, since... It's a copy? Where did you see this?

What are you trying to accomplish?

---

Are you sure you're in the correct thread?

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