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)
|
|
|
|
Running a bitcoin node versus running a bitcoin node with a lightning node differs, indeed, in difficulty, because, besides setups, you also have to be aware of re-balancing your channels often, being online at all times, creating new channels etc. However, I think we need to settle down how much willing a "simple user" is, and should be, during their involvement with bitcoin. For example, I don't believe a "simple user" is willing to devote a part of their disk space and RAM for syncing the chain or for buying extra hardware, let alone to run their own lightning node. But, that's their loss. If they don't like trusting an SPV server, the tutorials, papers, github pages, internet boards are there to help them achieve it, whenever they decide to. You gain financial sovereignty when you have, disciplinedly, taken the time to study the subject. Just knowing what bitcoin is said it offers makes you a potentially financial sovereign. But, you gain this individual consciousness only if you do study it.
Now, when it comes to Lightning, a "simple user" has two options; - Losing custody of their money, but being able to use Lightning in a simple manner. (e.g., BlueWallet, Phoenix etc.)
- Deciding to study what's the Lightning Network and act accordingly to their benefits.
It's obvious that the latter is a difficult thing to do, objectively. But, that's how it goes. Simplicity, custody, efficiency; pick 2. Maybe there's some better network-proposal in the future, but currently that's what we have. |
|
|
|
Banks offer a stable or floating rate for your investment/deposit every 3/6/12 months. Yes, but it's not enough. Offering me ~3% in returns when there's a nearly 10% inflation in my country does only make me poorer. Bitcoin on the other hand, doesn't guarantee you a certain percentage of performance, but the possibility to rise in the future. And nobody guarantees you that the value of the dollar, the euro, the pound will continue as is. It might rise, it might fall. But, nobody knows for sure. Same goes for bitcoin. However, during the last 10 years, bitcoin has risen by more than 180% in every year, on average, while the fiat currency I use has a cumulative inflation of 18.58%, from 2012 to present. |
|
|
|
send RPC call has a parameter in the JSON dictionary of the first argument to allow you to specify arbitrary hex data for an address (which I assume represents a locking script). Yes, but you can only input an address there. P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH and P2TR (that I have forgotten to mention in OP). Not a custom script. As you can see, it does not specifically define the function of "data", nor gives any examples that use it, so this is my best-guess assumption. The value of data is taken as OP_RETURN data. (network: testnet)
input: 46f1bfbe99e12841841e131b8ce04c4708881d8facc4729c16c97d78bcfad3c8
vout: 0
data: aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d619000000000087 (OP_HASH256 OP_PUSHBYTES_32 6fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d6190000000000 OP_EQUAL) createrawtransaction "[{\"txid\":\"46f1bfbe99e12841841e131b8ce04c4708881d8facc4729c16c97d78bcfad3c8\",\"vout\":0}]" "[{\"data\":\"aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d619000000000087\"}]"
0200000001c8d3fabc787dc9169c72c4ac8f1d8808474ce08c1b131e844128e199bebff1460000000000ffffffff010000000000000000256a23aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d61900000000008700000000
decoderawtransaction 0200000001c8d3fabc787dc9169c72c4ac8f1d8808474ce08c1b131e844128e199bebff1460000000000ffffffff010000000000000000256a23aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d61900000000008700000000
{
"txid": "b5a051fa0281d3f6b1023c8517f47011faef9e2de6e315cd71ed60ded9aee8f0",
"hash": "b5a051fa0281d3f6b1023c8517f47011faef9e2de6e315cd71ed60ded9aee8f0",
"version": 2,
"size": 97,
"vsize": 97,
"weight": 388,
"locktime": 0,
"vin": [
{
"txid": "46f1bfbe99e12841841e131b8ce04c4708881d8facc4729c16c97d78bcfad3c8",
"vout": 0,
"scriptSig": {
"asm": "",
"hex": ""
},
"sequence": 4294967295
}
],
"vout": [
{
"value": 0.00000000,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_RETURN aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d619000000000087",
"hex": "6a23aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d619000000000087",
"type": "nulldata"
}
}
]
}
See? My assumption is the "data" key-value pair in the output is just OP_RETURN, it wont process scripts;
Reason is, it automatically prepend 0x6A to the value which is OP_RETURN. Exactly. If you want to spend a custom script's UTXO [...] I don't want to spend a custom script's UTXO. I want to create the custom script's UTXO. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has NEVER seen an era of rising interest rates and tight money before. This time IS DIFFERENT !!!!! Ignore this fact at your own risk Higher interest rates favor the savers and disfavor the borrowers. It reduces, first, productivity and, later, consumption. However, I'm not sure there's a strict correlation between those two and bitcoin. Aren't many using bitcoin as savings and/or store of value? Bitcoin has ZERO intrinsic value, it is only worth what someone else will pay for it. That's true for everything. Food is worth what people are willing to pay for it, gold is worth what people are willing to pay for it, cars are worth what people are willing to pay for them. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value. |
|
|
|
|
It is unbelievable how far the bitcoin economy has changed since last week.
|
|
|
|
Yep, I confirm; it happened to me today and I had to remove the "<? .php". It's weird, because any text that's written to a post is recognized as text from the forum software, and so should from Cloudflare. I don't think the problem has to do with "attack with back-end execution". It's rather just a bug. How do I know? Try previewing this post which includes the php format intro and runs normally, and now try previewing this post, which is the same plus the next sentence; it will fail. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
