Here's a feedback: Make the next game available using a countdown. I figured out there's a bitcoin crossword a little late, and couldn't find the time. It'll be interesting to have some Lightning invoice exchanging this time.  |
|
|
|
Quoting your project's "key points": The main key points of this project will be cheap and fast money transfer with also the implementation of global energy exploration and worldwide commodity import and exportation.
Hello we have a new project that is in need of project developers and helpers. Helpers? You mean investors? Why do you want people to fund you?
Perhaps a little explanation besides some buzz-phrases like "cheap" and "fast money transfer" would be rightful. |
|
|
|
|
There's nothing to educate about cryptocurrencies in such young age, referring mostly to 9-year olds. They should do their homework, meet their friends, play some video game, but 'til there. They can't think critically yet. Their brain isn't developed enough. And they don't have the appropriate social environment either.
Save in bitcoin and gift it to them once they grow up. Trigger them to find out what's about it.
|
|
|
|
So anybody buying it back then would have been taking a much bigger risk that anybody buying it today that bitcoin is 13 years old, has a strong network, is adopted in multiple countries as a legitimate currency and a legal tender in a country or two. And more importantly, there are, now, much more resources to study and figure out what the hell is it. If you weren't into cryptography, programming etc., in 2009-10, you would have a hard time understanding what's bitcoin, what's the problem that it tries to solve and how. Plus, how many of the 2010 Bitcoin holders held their Bitcoin up until today without ever selling? Probably only those who forgot some sort of password and got access years later. We witness such cases every once in a while. |
|
|
|
Is this normal or am I doing it wrong? Depends on the niche and the audience. If you sell computers, gadgets, other tools, web services etc., then it's reasonable to have customers willing to pay in bitcoin. Oppositely, if you're oriented towards people who may not have an idea of what's bitcoin, then they will simply not pay in bitcoin. Every time that I've offered Bitcoin as the only payment method available I've ended up losing the customer. But, you shouldn't force them pay in bitcoin if they don't want to. If a person doesn't know what's bitcoin and is forced to use it, he'll probably just choose another store. |
|
|
|
Why would any country even want to do that? I suspect, to get advantage? I don't know, speaking from a government's perspective. Definitely a CBDC makes much more sense. CBDCs make sense because a government could keep track of who's spending what and where, so it would severely cut down on tax cheats, extortion, money laundering, and a whole bunch of other financial crimes. Yet, there's still money laundering, tax cheats and extortion with using fiat currency electronically currently. Not sure what would change with a CBDC, or in what percentage. One thing's sure; with a CBDC, there would be a massive upgrade to mass surveillance. Then there's the question I have about government spending. Is the government going to be using bitcoin as well? If that were true, it would be a security nightmare, because then everyone in the world would be able to see what the government is spending their money on. Which sounds like... The way things should be? National budget is a public document, for everyone to see. Governments post this to their official site anyways, usaspending.gov, ukpublicspending.co.uk, european-union.europa.eu etc. |
|
|
|
Checkpoints protect all transactions before it, not even a 51% attack could change it. Exactly. A 51% attack can't happen if the nodes don't accept to change their past blocks, but this, ultimately, ruins the thing the entire game theory is dependent on; decentralized decision-making. Consensus is produced only if everyone's following the chain with the most work. If one denies to change their past block, because they believe they've been attacked, then you can't tolerate the Byzantine's fault, which is the problem you're trying to solve. The only way, for the Byzantine generals, to agree on a concerted strategy is by following the most work, objectively. If there's subjectivity, then there's no true blockchain. One node says that their chain's true, another might disagree. This is essentially Proof-of-Stake; and that's why I believe it's less secure.
If Algorand has a new checkpoint on every block, then how does it bear with stale blocks? |
|
|
|
Wasabi is also not transparent about the fact that they are no longer a privacy improving tool. They still believe they're the best privacy-oriented wallet. Their home page hasn't changed, it still has that "reclaim your privacy" sign. They haven't updated their FAQ. They should warn for possible input denial warnings. But, they don't. And it's obviously justified. Nobody would bother to install a mixing tool knowing their inputs can be rejected. The only thing they did is a small announcement in their blog and a tweet. |
|
|
|
Feel free to deny it, but reality will be unaffected by your false belief. I'll deny it, thanks. Checkpoints protect against a low difficulty flood attack. They can't protect the system against a 51% attack, which is the kind of attack that overwrites transactions, unless they happen on every block. If they do, as in the case with Algorand, there's no decentralized decision-making. If you start "locking" blocks by inserting unnecessary checkpoints everywhere, denying the existence of a chain with more work that isn't complied with your chain, then you fail to produce consensus. This isn't a technical problem, but a logical. If your coin is so insecure that you have to update the checkpoints in each block, then it fails at being decentralized. Here's a discussion, 6 years ago, regarding this matter: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7591And: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5276774.msg55225123#msg55225123 |
|
|
|
Everyone else is moving to proof of stake or anything but PoW. And nearly everyone's using Facebook, Instagram, Tinder, Windows, Google products, PayPal, other financial institutions etc.; that doesn't make them good. is why do people driving old model T car (BTC) believe they can out perform a Corvette (Algorand). Because they think they're driving a Corvette, but in reality, their car is worse than Hyundai Atos. True security only happens with transaction finality, Algorand has it after only 1 block , bitcoin does not. You have no idea what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Was there ever a bad time to start accepting bitcoin? It's an extra payment method. This means there are more customers who'll be willing to buy your products. For example, me. Whenever I want to buy something via the internet, I check if it can accept bitcoin instead, and if it does, I choose to. Even if I don't for some reason, I will feel a preference to that store; accepting bitcoin shows you respect my privacy.
If you sell products that don't cost a lot ($1-$50), consider accepting Lightning payments as well.
|
|
|
|
if all people in the world started using bitcoin, will lightning be able to handle the rate of txns? Yes. Lightning, currently, can handle dozens of millions of transactions per second. And it's reasonable to have increase of both channels and channels' capacity if more people install a Lightning client. This is the problem that's trying to solve after all; scaling. will the amount of channels need to increase? Yes. It's needed. |
|
|
|
When considering an investment, take your time to read the project’s white paper before venturing into any There's no way an individual who's never worked with cryptography before - or computer science as a whole if you want - to understand those hard-to-grasp concepts that are written in a whitepaper. Bitcoin's whitepaper is far more simple to understand than " The future of oracle networks" or " Proof-of-Useful-Work" and it still contains concepts such as "Timestamp Server", "Proof-of-Work" and even poisson distribution math that isn't understandable by the most. You'll be far more safe if you invest in things you're sure you understand. |
|
|
|
but in trying to understand the standpoint of WasabiWallet, I also believe that what they are doing is a necessary trade-off for a segment of users in Bitcoin Land. Which are the users who, thereupon, make this trade-off necessary? Shouldn't all the people have the right to keep their bitcoin activity private? Yes they should, and as said, zkSNACKs is proud of following this principle. So, what's the problem? Apparently, profit. They choose to introduce "a little" censorship in exchange for a sweet profit. This is the actual trade-off. The trade-off from the devs' perspective is money for censorship. From a user's standpoint, there's no trade-off. Only loss. Let's leave the users/community to decide if they actually think Wasabi is good for their own usage of Bitcoin. Sure, but this is like blaming users for "not being educated enough". Of course and there's individual responsibility, but who's going to educate newcomers of what's what? We, the community. Wasabi is part of it. It's listed in the available wallets of bitcoin dot org, the place that I suppose is greatly visited by them. And Chainalysis knows about this. I can't imagine how did this change influence their work. I presume a lot. It was down to the Wasabi developers' dignity to accept their offer. And they made their choice, putting asides this little principle - which is was, by the way, their project's focus - for profit. |
|
|
|
Why would anybody even care to use a decentralized payment system in the first place? Privacy, censorship-resistance, fast transaction settlement, lower costs, irreversible transactions, half of which are written literally in the first page of the whitepaper. Please read the replies before making one. The fees also don't depends on the amount but size of transactions and many average Joe's are paying with it don't know how you come up with this. Not for Lightning, that you've mentioned. Lightning transactions' fees depend on the amount that is transacted, and other things such as how much routing, at which fee rate etc. |
|
|
|
1. How long does it take for a txn settled in lightning network to be confirmed in BTC blockchain? A transaction settled in the Lightning Network is never confirmed in the blockchain. That's why it's often called "off-chain". The only transactions that get place in the blockchain and have a relation with Lightning are those that open and close the channels. A commitment transaction is not written in a public ledger, as it is in blockchain. When one pays another via Lightning, and have opened their own channel, they use a private ledger, that is only known by those two. If they don't have a channel dedicated to their transactions, and need to use intermediary nodes' channels, privacy is still protected somewhat with onion routing. 3. Is bitcoin core able to send to lightning wallet? lightning wallet address are way too longer than the segwit address. Bitcoin Core doesn't have an inner Lightning wallet. |
|
|
|
What do you mean? You mean the atomic clock of Bitcoin Core keeps track of the timestamp using block difficulty? No, I mean that blocks define time. This is why blockchain and timechain are synonyms. And this strict correlation comes with benefits, such as fee estimation, confirmation time, scheduled inflation and even security; a large amount of computational power is wasted in this TBI due to more stale blocks. [edit 2] To maintain the projected inflation curve, reduce the block reward by the same proportion as the difficulty. But, you don't maintain constant inflation that way. You make it variable. |
|
|
|
Same with Bitcoin. You are your own bank, so you have to pay a price for that. Actually, there's no property confiscation risk with bitcoin, in contrary with gold, houses, cash. If you've taken the steps to secure your coins and don't have your seed phrase lying around, nobody can steal them from you - without your permission. Write the seed phrase in bunch of pieces of paper, hide it under the ground, inside your walls, into your books, etc; it's a matter of creativity after a certain point. |
|
|
|
51% attacks only work in democracies. So what about Ethereum Classic, Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Gold, Verge and an endless list of other shitcoins that got attacked alike? Were these "democracies"? Not with the accepted sense of the term.
As for your proposal, it can't work and - fortunately - there's no point to implement it, because transactions can be faked (all from the same miner), mempool isn't the same to everyone (neither there is a way to), it reduces security, etc. Besides, isn't difficulty currently the parameter the timestamp server relies on? |
|
|
|
So, I'll ask you once again: where do you see value in the bitcoin system if not a single bitcoin holder can return even a dime worth of investment without new investors? And yet, it's been told to you, thousands of times. Here are a few for emphasis: I still benefit from censorship resistant transactions if no new participants join.
I still benefit from psudonymous levels of privacy if no new participants join.
I still benefit from the strength and security of the network if no new participants join.
Because the network itself is a tangible resource. Real people running software on real devices. Ensuring that every single transaction in every last block conforms to the rules of the protocol. All of that infrastructure exists. And you need bitcoin (the currency/asset) to benefit from Bitcoin (the network). The value is real and it's only the willfully ignorant who are unable to see it.
You can benefit from the security and the anonymity of the system. One crypto owner can buy a good from another crypto owner and therefor both benefit from the bitcoin system. There is no need for a new buyer to enter the bitcoin ecosystem.
Back to the rest of your question. I can send you $100,000 worth of Bitcoin without a third party interfering with our transaction and requesting documents for identification and proof for source of funds.
I can move $1,000,000,000 abroad without making anyone notice that I did. It is a transaction stored in a public and transparent legder, but pseudonymity makes it so that there is no clear evidence of who I am and with enough privacy and care, I can make it close to impossible with the current knowledge, information and technology to link the transaction to my identity.
I can purchase a ton of goods using Bitcoin directly, at my own will, even by physically shopping and checking out in a similar way to credit card payments. Only without banks.
I can store information directly on the blockchain.
I can use my own resources and energy to 'generate' or, as we say, mine Bitcoin at my own will.
These are just a few of the things I can do with Bitcoin. This is how I benefit from it. Tell me where exactly is the 'new investors' part in any of the five scenarios I have mentioned above. Exactly, there is not.
Then I think value is actually subjective. If all of a sudden nobody thought USD had value, it will not have value any more. If all of a sudden everyone thought Bitcoin was worthless, it becomes worthless. We as a society decide what is valuable and what is not, otherwise precious metals would not become worth less during peaceful times and worth more during panic. Its value changes depending on a number of conditions. Bitcoin is just another manifestation of the same debt.
In the past people have been using shells, or silver, or gold for the same job. Why can't we use Bitcoin? Because it's... digital? Or maybe because the governments cannot alter the value at will with inflation?
Debt in crypto is the appropriate amount of US Dollars (or whatever other fiat currency) that was used to buy the bitcoins in the first place. This is what backs the quantity of BTC. Besides, transaction establishment existed long before debt became a thing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
