$67,800

$67,950

Time: 9'
BC.Game ID: 35021766

No, he knows very well what's going on. He's just probably financially associated with Wasabi, and desperately needs to protect it. This explains his mania to direct people to Wasabi on nearly every post of his, or the diplomatic responses on zkSNACKs using coinjoin fees to fund a surveillance firm. He hesitated even commenting on that decision, even though WabiSabi is open-source and not strictly related with zkSNACKs.

However, I think he's right about the Sybil resistance. If you truly register each input with a separate Tor identity, then it's easy for the client to detect that the coordinator is Sybil attacking. I'm not totally sure, but confident enough. And I'm not sure the Wasabi client checks for all these things, but in theory, it is Sybil resistant.

The only thing I find difficulty understanding is when listening for round updates. For example, can't the coordinator initiate different rounds in which they continuously use their inputs and only few of the registered inputs each time? For example:

- Alice registers 10 inputs.
- Bob registers 2 inputs.
- Charlie registers 3 inputs.

David (the coordinator) receives 15 inputs that want to be coinjoined. He initiates 15 coinjoins, each of which contains 14 of his inputs and one of the 15 of the registered inputs, resulting in de-anonymization. Why can't this occur?

The forum user was a big blocker, while the coder was a small blocker. 

And where exactly did I claim that people care only about Bitcoin?

Alright, I checked the data, and it is true that Dogecoin outperforms every cryptocurrency for some reason, sometimes. And some other times, its total transactions fall down rapidly. I can't explain this, because it isn't happening always when the Bitcoin fees rise. For example, there weren't high fees in the summer of 2023, but there were 2M Dogecoin transactions happening everyday.

Your point is still unclear to me. I haven't argued that rising the block size to 10-16 MB will eliminate Bitcoin. I'm just saying that it doesn't solve the problem, it only alleviates it. It will still be expensive to use Bitcoin for everyday payments, centralized solutions will still be more appealing.

Satoshi.

With block size 1 MB, it takes around 2 seconds to verify the block. With 1 minute interval, I'd expect a lot of blocks to be stale, by the way.

Can you use an ASIC to verify an ECDSA signature? You can't, and AFAIK, there is no faster way to do it than with a modern CPU.

You probably missed it, but I was referring solely to between large mining servers. Satoshi was talking about large mining farms having exclusive access to the blockchain; everyone else should be using SPV.

This would be extremely bad. I don't know where to start.

• One mining pool would gain enormous advantage. 100 GB everyday is 700 MB every 10 minutes. Verifying an ECDSA signature takes about 1 millisecond on modern CPU. With just 4 MB block size, there can be about 7000 transactions every 10 minutes. If each has just one ECDSA signature, it takes 7 seconds to verify the block. With 700 MB block size, it'd take 175x as much time; 1225 seconds, which is 20 minutes. The mining pool with the most hashrate would render the rest unprofitable and gain all the hashrate.
• Spam is taken to the next level. People can now embed entire movies on-chain, which can introduce legal problems, and with a few large mining farms owning all the nodes, it'd be much easier to shut down the network.
• There is no fee market competition. All transactions paying 1 satoshi have high-priority, until there are more than 800k transactions unconfirmed within 10 minutes. This renders the system unsustainable over the long-term.

Being pedantic here, but there are more than 50,000. The 18,500 are listening nodes.

I see what you did there, but here's the difference: In the former, you have the option to use Bitcoin with no trusted third parties. In the latter, you may have self-custody, but you're forced to trust third parties (or realistically, practically forced).

I believe Bitcoin should be accessible with no trust required, and thus, I stand with the former.

People expect Bitcoin to scale through second layers. I don't think there are a lot of people aware of Bitcoin's history, believing it'll solve the problem by tinkering with the block size.

Satoshi also envisioned the blockchain to grow by 100 GB per day, because that'd equate to "just the size of 12 DVD", completely ignoring the bottleneck in verification. He believed that the blockchain should be accessible only by server farms that generate new coins, everybody else should opt-in to SPV. It's clear to me today that Satoshi wasn't the best figure to see as the leading expert.

But, I'm not suggesting you to migrate because of some spammer. I'm suggesting you to migrate, because Bitcoin does not align with your preferences. Simple as that. The Ordinal spam will inevitably come to an end at some point. Then, we might experience a bull run, and fees may skyrocket for some months. You'll have this to blame then, but the real issue lies with you: what you want has already been implemented and tested for years; it's ready to use. Instead of realizing that you need to change, you expect a network with a well-defined and nonaligned with your preferences roadmap to adapt to your needs.

It's pretty simple. WabiSabi is trust-requiring, because you need to trust that the coordinator will not turn evil and attack their own users. It's literally written in their whitepaper:

Following the next paragraph, we can see there are other attacks it can execute as well:

Then, it probably wanted to say "the coordinator must be trusted":

It can attack with Sybil attack. It can attack otherwise too. Perhaps Kruw interprets "trustless" differently than the rest of us. This wouldn't surprise me, considering I've been questioned about my choice of words when speaking with him before.

Personally, I'm satisfied with low fee altcoins, like Monero, so I don't find a reason to use it. Lightning is useful if you want transactions to be settled immediately, but that's almost never the case for me. I'm fine with 2 minutes block interval.

Approximately 20% of the total Bitcoin transactions were 100% of the Litecoin total. For this to hold true, more than 680,000 Bitcoin transactions have to be "spam" according to you.

If to accomplish it, you'd have to turn Bitcoin to an altcoin, would it be worth it? Because, that's what you'd do by tinkering with the block size. This risk has already been taken. This solution has already been implemented and tested by many altcoins. This community even had a cultural war a few years ago, and split. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use other networks that align closely to your preference?

Because people want simplicity and self-custody, and truth be told, lightning is a pain in the ass. The more complex they find it, the more likely it is for them to use a custodian. So, instead, they use altcoins, which are simple and self-custodial.

For normal transactions, yes, but if you're moving 5000 bitcoin, you want it to be confirmed as soon as possible. The $25 is not even 0.00001% of the amount transferred. Good luck finding just 0.001% outside Bitcoin when moving $300M.

I don't think this is true. Have you considered that it might be the media portraying small minorities in this way? Drama sells, as said, and producing drama has become almost a science in itself. Unless you're talking out of experience from real life.

Unpopular opinion: Spam was proportionally greater before signature campaigns. Just visit a Bitcoin Discussion from 2013, and tell me if what you see is constructive.

Not sure that's sarcasm, or you're serious. Based on your post history, I think you're being sarcastic here.

I'll take 20 and 21, thanks!

BC.Game ID: 35021766

Searching for "ø" works fine. Perhaps it's unrelated to the letter, and it's Cøbra's posts the problem. 

Unpopular opinion: Bitcoin is the most appreciated crypto, because simplicity silences anything noisy over the long term.

18 and 19, thanks!

What are your observations? From my perspective, human nature remains more or less the same. The tremendous growth we are seeing in AI might signal the beginning of a brand new epoch, but that essentially sums up the overall difference with the previous generation. Humans remain the same, with all their weaknesses.

That's another problem, and this is why silent payments and stealth addresses are not enough. You need to break traceability, and that's only possible if you hide your inputs amongst a crowd, hence mixing. If for each input, there are several other "inputs-suspects", as in Monero, there is minimum information a chain analysis company can extract.

This argument doesn't even make sense. If people dump bitcoin for altcoins, then the price of bitcoin decreases, it does not increase.

What's your definition of "intrinsic value"? How's Bitcoin not having that? And who defines what's the "intrinsic value" to something? To name value to a product, you need another product to use as exchange rate, preferably a currency. Therefore, the value of Bitcoin is determined by what others are willing to exchange for it, whether in the form of products, assets, or currencies.

There has been a lot of discussion in this topic, regarding Full RBF, if you're interested: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403730.0.

A common misconception is that Full RBF enables all unconfirmed transactions to be double-spent. In reality, all unconfirmed transactions can be double-spent, regardless of Full RBF, RBF or no-RBF. If it was possible to ensure the security of 0-conf against double-spending, there would be no need for a blockchain, and all transactions wouldn't have confirmations. Full RBF simply formalizes what is already evident.