Some brief answers:


There are specific validation rules. Each node determines for itself if a transaction or block is valid. Nodes only send valid transactions and blocks to other nodes. Nodes and miners who don't follow the rules are effectively exiled from the network by the individual nodes that they connect to.


All transactions are distributed to all nodes. Miners are free to choose which transactions are includes in their blocks. Validating a transaction is very fast. The vast majority of a miner's effort is the proof of work.


There are no bitcoins, tangible or intangible. They are really just numbers in a ledger. If you have X bitcoins in your wallet, it means that there are one or more UTXOs in the block chain that are associated with addresses controlled by your wallet, and these UTXOs have value fields that add up to X.

I don't think satoshi has ever explained why he chose C++. Anyone can tell you why they would use C++ or C, but only satoshi can answer your question.

How do you have a 15k loss if you sold when it was dropping and then bought it back when it was cheap?

Maybe your magic crystal ball is broken. Rather than complaining about "smart" people, you should blame the real culprit, the magic crystal ball manufacturer, for selling you a faulty product.

That's a common misconception based on Marx's Labor Theory of Value, which has been mostly rejected by modern economists.

Anyway, the fact that the bull run to an ATH has started long before the halving in every case strongly indicates that it is unrelated to the halving process.

Your headline is misleading. The U.S. debt is not the same as the USD money supply.

A marriage is an agreement between two people. If you are not one of those two people, you should mind your own business.

He is not Satoshi. I know that because I am Satoshi.

One aspect of "green" mining that is largely overlooked is that there is a limited amount of renewable energy, so using renewable energy for Bitcoin mining prevents its use by others. So generally speaking, a Bitcoin miner switching to renewable energy doesn't really help anyone.

In the end, it is the producers of electricity who are responsible for the use of renewable energy, and not the consumers.

There are exceptions:

• A miner who produces their own electricity from renewable sources.
• A miner who pays a premium or uses excess electricity from renewable sources.
• A miner who burns oil field gas to generate their electricity (because it reduces the amount of methane released into the atmosphere).
  

While it is possible to list all of the the ordinals at an address (or more specifically, in a UTXO), it might not be practical because each time a range of ordinals is involved in a transaction, the range may be split in several places.

At the extreme, an address with 1 BTC could contain 100,000,000 distinct ranges of 1 sat each.

Likewise, though it may be possible to have a database with the location of each ordinal, it is not practical as the size of the database would be huge. It is more likely that Ordiscan just tracks the locations of specific ordinals, and just looks to see if any are at the address you supply. Finding the UTXO with a specific ordinal involves scanning the block chain for the chain of transactions involving the ordinal, starting at the originating block.

This shows how ordinals are created and transferred:

In economics, "scarcity" is not about the number of units of a resource. The number of units is arbitrary.

Scarcity describes a situation in which demand is (or can be) unlimited while the supply is limited. Fiat money is not scarce because an unlimited number of units can be created.

As of 2024, about 39% of the existing 212,000 metric tons, or about 82700 metric tons, of gold are held by central banks and by investors. This is the portion that Bitcoin could replace, and it is currently worth about $5.4 trillion USD.

So, a bitcoin would have to be worth about $270,000 USD in order to match gold. Actually, the number is higher because much of the gold jewelry in the world is also used as an investment.

Not just the nonce. Although that is how it is typically described, other data in the header is also manipulated in order to change the hash.



The value of the nonce is completely up to the miner and does not depend on anything else. So, if one value doesn't work, then another is tried. Typically, the nonce starts a 0 and it is incremented until a qualifying hash is found or all the possible nonces have been tried. If all the nonces have been tried, then something else in the header is changed and the nonce starts back at 0. This process keeps going until a block header that has a qualifying hash is found.

I think you are getting Bitcoin confused with Ethereum. In Ethereum, you must have enough ether in the wallet to pay the fee to send tokens. Bitcoin doesn't work that way. In Bitcoin, the fee is the sum of the source UTXOs minus the amount being sent.

For example, A1 has 100000 sats and you send it to A2 with a fee of 100 sats:

A1 (100000 sats) → A2 (99900 sats)  + 100 sats fee

Stuck. So, CPFP:

A2 (99900 sats) → A4 (89900 sats) + 10000 sats fee


A change address example in which A1 has 100000 sats and you send 50000 to A2 and the rest to a change address C with a fee of 100 sats:

A1 (100000 sats) → A2 (50000 sats)  + C (49900 sats) + 100 sats fee

Stuck. So, CPFP:

C (49900 sats) → A4 (39900 sats) + 10000 sats fee

There is no reason to stop sending to your kids wallets. It won't affect how much you pay in fees. However, if you sent (or continue sending) many small amounts to their wallets, then you might try to lower the cost of sending from their wallets by consolidating them when fees are low.

Here is an article that describes it: https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/coin-consolidation/

There is no need to send more coins to A2. That does not "replenish" anything. Here is how it is done, assuming coins were sent from A1 to A2, but the amount of the transaction fee was too low:


1. Send the entire balance of A2 (including the unconfirmed transaction) to an address in your wallet (A4), and pay a transaction fee that is enough to pay for both the A1→A2 and A2→A4 transactions.


There may be a complication. Some wallets don't allow you to send unconfirmed coins and CPFP does just that. The solution is to look in you wallet settings for an option to send unconfirmed coins and enable it just for this transaction.

Generally, you use CPFP when you are the receiver of the coins because you must control A2. However, if you don't control A2, you may still be able to use CPFP. When you send from A1 to A2 and the amount in A1 is greater than A2, then the remainder will be sent to a change address (C) in your wallet. It looks like this:

A1 → A2 + C

In this case:


1. Send the balance of C (including the unconfirmed transaction) to an address in your wallet (A4), and pay a transaction fee that is enough to pay for both the A1→A2+C and C→A4 transactions.



Also, sending from a specific address may require something called coin control, which is an advanced feature. If you don't want to use coin control just do this:


1. Send the entire balance of your wallet (including the unconfirmed amounts) to an address in your wallet (A4), and pay a transaction fee that is enough to pay for both the A1→A2 and everything→A4 transactions.

Unfortunately, I don't want to read the full story when it starts with ridiculous statements because I assume the rest of the story will be the same.

The contradiction is that you state that privacy w.r.t. government is unnecessary and then give an example of how it might be useful.


Your statement demonstrates the point. Your lack of a need for privacy shouldn't invalidate another's need for privacy.

Anyway, I can give you a excellent reason for privacy from the government in three words: "civil asset forfeiture". Using civil asset forfeiture, the governments in the U.S. can confiscate your property, even if you have done nothing wrong. If you have money and they want it, they can confiscate it simply by claiming that they suspect it was being used in criminal activity, and they don't have to prove that there was any criminal activity. They only have to claim they suspect it. This process is routinely abused by law enforcement.

I have another three words for you: "home equity theft". In many states in the U.S., it is legal for governments to confiscate a property and sell it to pay a tax liability, but keep all of the proceeds. For example, a Minnesota county seized and sold a woman's $40,000 house to pay a $15,000 tax and kept the remaining $25,000.

That is naive.

You assume an ideal government, which is an impossibility.

Consider that government actions are frequently based on policy and not legality.

You ignore the fact that a government is not an abstract entity. It is made up of people who belong to both "legal" and "illegal".

You easily dismiss the value of protecting privacy w.r.t. government for moral reasons.

Finally, you contradict yourself. People value privacy w.r.t. government specifically to "avoid getting the wrong side of their government for practical reasons e.g. their own personal safety."

In short, people who are not criminals or tax evaders certainly do have a use for privacy w.r.t. government. Democracy cannot exist without privacy.

"Arguing that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

You can't start out saying that money has no value. Obviously, that can't be true. If money has no value, nobody would exchange it for something of value. You wouldn't work for money, and the grocery store wouldn't take it in exchange for groceries.

I suggest you try again, replacing the hyperbole with rational statements.

I'm not an expert, but I wouldn't call them "branches" of economics. They are more accurately called "schools of thought".

The main ones that I know about are Keynesian, Austrian, Monetarism, and Marxism.

Branches of economics are mainly macro and micro, but there are others such as monetary, behavioral, developmental, environmental, etc.

Here is a good description: https://economicpoint.com/branches-economics


Keynesian economics was pioneered by John Maynard Keynes. It is the most popular macroeconomic school of thought, probably because (in my view) it promotes the role of government and it relies on economic models and so its study attracts funding.


Satoshi rarely stated any specific economic beliefs, though many are readily apparent in his work. I think he would be more closely aligned with the Austrians or the Monetarists, but he did mistakenly believe that the price of a bitcoin is ultimately based on the cost of its production, which is a Marxist belief.