If we assume that stablecoins are fully backed, then there won't be any inflation since the stablecoin replaces the money that backs it.

I think your attempt at rent-seeking here is petty and selfish, and it will ultimately be unsuccessful. It's a move worthy of CSW himself. That's just my opinion, so it doesn't really matter.

There should always be a solution because there are more than 2²⁵⁶ possible block headers for any particular block. There are many ways to change the block header than just varying the nonce, such as varying the time, the coinbase transaction, and the order of the transactions.

Sometimes blocks do take a long time, but that doesn't matter as it all averages out in the end to 10 minutes per block.

The real obstacles are misconceptions about energy consumption and waste.


That changes nothing. Miners are not doing redundant work. Miners are already all working on the same block, except in rare cases.


If you could employ a scheme to pick a miner at random, then you don't even need PoW. This idea is unworkable because it doesn't solve the problems that PoW solves.


Same problem as #2.

It depends on the tool used for hashing. Binary and hex are just different representations and the tool may or may not convert the input to the desired representation.

There are many possibilities. For example, the tool may detect a hex string and convert it to binary data before hashing, or it may expect binary data and hash the string regardless of what it contains, or it may expect a hex string and be unable to hash binary data because it would be invalid hex.

bump

Don't be dissuaded by the more paranoid members here. You haven't even explained how you would do the coinjoin, so there is not much to comment on.

The more copies you have the higher the chance that one is found by someone else. Two copies should be sufficient.

As much as I like Bitcoin, that's crazy talk. I would never vote for someone basing their campaign on making Bitcoin legal tender because it is impossible and unnecessary. If Bitcoin ever becomes legal tender in the U.S., in will be only after the death of the dollar.

Thanks for pointing that out. It is a good insight.

However, note that block ids are not completely random, as a significant number of bits are always going to be 0, so using multiple ids increases the entropy. Furthermore, since a miner has a limited number of bits to work with, the influence of any single block id on the result is reduced, making it more difficult for someone to benefit from the manipulation.

The problem here is that the algorithm for creating a seed using known values could be selected in order to generate a predetermined value. I think a better way might to announce the algorithm before its data is known. For example, a hash of the next 256 block IDs. Note that this is not complete trustworthy because miners could potentially manipulate the block IDs, but the cost of doing that would be huge, so it is unlikely to happen.

I am not an cryptography expert, just a fanboi.

Unless you and your neighbors buy gas directly from Russia, if you believe that you and your neighbors might have to pay for your gas in rubles, then I think you are misinformed.

The belief that the price will not drop significantly is completely irrational. Last November, the price dropped 50% from $68k to $34k in two months. And before that, just a year ago, the price dropped 27% from $54k to $34k in just two weeks. It will happen again. UST's peg is very likely to fail if Bitcoin is used as a major portion of the reserve.

And again, who profits when the value of the Bitcoin reserve rises? It is certainly not the UST holders.

My understanding is also limited but it seems to be that backing UST with bitcoins a bad idea.


If the price of a bitcoin drops significantly and the value of the reserve is less than the nominal value of the UST, then UST won't be able to maintain the peg. Suppose for example when the reserve is only 50%, then only 50% of the UST can be redeemed and the rest is worthless.

Furthermore, what happens if the price of a bitcoin goes up by 10x and the $10 billion dollar reserve becomes $100 billion and many times the value of UST. Are the bitcoins locked up forever, or can someone profit from the increase in the value of the reserve?

If someone can profit, then they are able to make a bet on the price of BTC, but shift 100% of the downside risk to holders of UST.

In short, adding Bitcoin to the reserve makes UST less stable because some portion of UST is pegged to the price of a bitcoin.

Set up a bank account in Russia and deposit dollars or euros to be converted to rubles.

I spend it on stuff from Amazon using Purse.io.

It's April 1. Have fun with it.

That is because nothing you have written has any relevance to what I described. Of the 6 steps I listed above, which is the one that has the problem that I don't understand?

I don't know the details, but honestly I don't think it is an unreasonable position. Is it any different than American exports having to be paid for with dollars?

This has nothing to do with credit cards. There would be no magnetic strip. There would be no name, account number, CVV, or expiration date.

This is about two devices communicating and transacting securely. If a person wanted to counterfeit or spoof one of these devices, they would need to access the private keys contained in a device. The private keys are used by the device for authentication as well as to set up a secure communication channel.

Only the device itself has this information. The person holding one of these devices does not have access to any of this information, nor do they need it.

Here is an explanation of how I think it might work:

• 1. Two devices connect to each other.
• 2. Each device sends a challenge to the other device to be signed and then verifies the signature. The signature proves authenticity because only authentic devices have the necessary private key.
• 3. The two devices set up a secure channel.
• 4. A person enters the amount to send or receive.
• 5. One device credits itself with the amount and the other device debits the amount.
• 6. Done. The devices are disconnected.

I'm not an expert, so maybe it isn't that really simple. For example, what happens if the devices are disconnected in the middle of step 5? It seems like it needs to be atomic somehow.