What it was years ago | What it is today:
- P2P Electronic Cash system | P2P JPEG ownership transfer service That's the thing: there is no JPEG ownership, it's meaningless! It only "means" something on a made-up system, which only means something to the few people who are in on it. To the rest of the world, it doesn't mean anything. And on top of that, anyone can claim "ownership" of any image, with or without having the rights to do so. It's a scam. No-coiners will also tell you that BTC is meaningless, it's a made-up system... Only 1% of the global population owns BTC, to the rest (99%) of the world it doesn't mean anything. You're missing the point. If I own Bitcoin, it's mine! Nobody else can use it, nobody else can take it. It doesn't matter if someone else is interested or not: it's mine. The fact that many people don't use Bitcoin doesn't matter: 99.8% of the world, including me, doesn't own Swedish Krona. But nobody would say it doesn't mean anything. I have many JPEG images. I own many of them: they're pictures I took myself. I never gave anyone a copy, which means I'm certain I am the only owner. If I'd upload it to a server, anyone can download it. If I upload it to a blockchain, it doesn't mean anything for ownership. I am kind of seeing a similar thing while at the same time starting to feel some kind of a tinge of an attack on the bitcoin network and transactability of regular folks, but I still am tentatively considering that they are not going to be able to keep it up, becuase there would have to be buyers I'm not so optimistic. Once one scam fails, they'll move to the next one. We've already gone from NFT to Inscription to Ordinal to Rune, just like many altcoins were created in the past, followed by many ICOs, many Bitcoin Forks, DeFi BS and more. |
|
|
|
This strengthens my theory that it's one person behind it. If different people would be doing this many transactions, I'd expect a more even inflow without high peaks. Who could it be? A BCH/BSV fanatic?  I don't believe someone is just burning his money on fees. It must be someone who sells useless made-up tokens to gullible people with FOMO. Even here on Bitcointalk I now see people who are getting curious. |
|
|
|
Does cpfp also work on transactions with that many outputs? CPFP relies on miners being smart enough to select the most profitable transaction. It should work just fine. |
|
|
|
A normal transaction is not 50$ in fees.
If you send it right now with 200 sat/b it costs around 14$ , I just checked on electrum. The transaction is 1071 bytes. If you're one of the receivers and want to accelerate it, the cheapest option is to do CPFP. But I'd just wait. So how they can charge 680$ to include a 32 output transaction is beyond my understanding. They add a generous profit margin for the service they provide. |
|
|
|
Current blocks: about 90% spam:  This graph (also from mempool.space) shows the inflow of new transactions (in vbyte/second):  This strengthens my theory that it's one person behind it. If different people would be doing this many transactions, I'd expect a more even inflow without high peaks. |
|
|
|
What it was years ago | What it is today:
- P2P Electronic Cash system | P2P JPEG ownership transfer service That's the thing: there is no JPEG ownership, it's meaningless! It only "means" something on a made-up system, which only means something to the few people who are in on it. To the rest of the world, it doesn't mean anything. And on top of that, anyone can claim "ownership" of any image, with or without having the rights to do so. It's a scam. If I'd tell you each of my satoshis is worth $1000, and if I'd create a wallet that actually shows that, and if I were to hype it enough, I could probably get some gullible victims into paying me that much. Just like the ICO scams did when Ethereum was facilitating all those scams. I really don't like the idea of Bitcoin faciliting this. Dumb people don't have infinite money. A fool and his money are soon parted.
You are probably right, dumb people don't have infinite money but you completely ignore that there is an infinity of dumb people and they are constantly expanding like the universe does. So, technically we have an infinite money. I was thinking of: “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”
― George Carlin |
|
|
|
This is clearly a bad action by Jolly. I agree it would have been better to keep the thread open. But it looks like you're just throwing dirt because JollyGood was the first one to call you out on your Trust Summary page. If you cared about BitcoinGirl.Club's case, you would have picked a different title. |
|
|
|
Unless you have some kind of criteria for trust forgiveness (which ought to be pretty damn stringent), I wouldn't remove any feedback either. In fact, I've gotten so many of those same requests over the past few years by members who've shown no indication that they've become more trustworthy that I generally just delete them after a brief glance at their trust page. I've only had one request years ago (that I can remember), but I didn't leave that much negative feedback. My response: open a topic in Reputation. If the community agreees, I'll reconsider. But if the community agrees with the red, chances are you'll get more. |
|
|
|
Can't believe there are few member spouting nonsense on technical board within short time. That's the problem with AI verbal diarrhea: it's very easy to produce, it looks impressive to the untrained eye, and it's very hard to detect with certainty. The longer they get away with it, the more spam we'll get. Marcosadelacruz' post above is a good example of verbal diarrhea: many words, "big" words, proper sentences, detailed information, and all of it is more or less correct. But it's all generic, and doesn't add anything to the topic. It's like a politician doing a filibuster. |
|
|
|
For example, 20% of block reserved specifically for lightening transactions, 20% reserved for ordinals, 60% reserved for general use. Who's going to decide on those percentages? As much as I'd like the spam to stop, I don't think some "central authority in power" is the right way to do that. I also see no reason to reserve 20% for the spammers. |
|
|
|
We can just report and tag him. Users with many posts and merits are not very often banned for AI plagiarism. But well, let's at least make a reference post for tagging and reporting this spammer. So Kamasylvia AI spammer. Several most recent posts as example, will report more AI written posts. Thanks for taking care of this spammer. Modlog shows 8 deleted posts. Too bad he hasn't been banned yet.
Newbie marcosadelacruz has only 5 posts but earned 14 Merits, and woke up after more than a year to post AI plagiarism: I have been thinking a lot about this topic these days, but we must keep the following in mind:
Risks:
- Protocol complexity: Adding tokens and smart contracts introduces extra complexity to Bitcoin's protocol. This could expand the attack surface and raise the likelihood of vulnerabilities that might compromise the network's security and stability.
- Potential implementation errors: Whenever new features are introduced, there's always the risk of implementation errors that could be exploited for malicious attacks or cause network failures. This could undermine trust in Bitcoin and impact its adoption and value.
- Scalability impact: Incorporating functionalities like tokens and smart contracts might strain Bitcoin's network and hinder its ability to scale effectively. This could lead to network congestion, higher fees, and longer confirmation times, negatively affecting user experience.
Benefits:
- Expanded use cases: Implementing BRC-20 could allow for a wider range of use cases on the Bitcoin network, attracting new users, developers, and businesses to the ecosystem. This could drive adoption and long-term value for Bitcoin.
- Interoperability with other ecosystems: Compatibility with tokens and smart contracts could streamline interoperability between Bitcoin and other blockchain ecosystems, fostering collaboration and synergy among different projects and communities.
- Continuous innovation and development: Bitcoin's ability to adapt and evolve is crucial for its long-term sustainability. Implementing new functionalities like BRC-20 could encourage innovation and ongoing development in the Bitcoin ecosystem, strengthening its position as a market leader in the cryptocurrency space. |
|
|
|
What was the the prune= set to when you pruned it? Probably the minimum (550). But it doesn't matter: once you have a pruned node, you can change this number (which will only affect new blocks). |
|
|
|
Is this thread still beeing updated? Yes. Click and see  |
|
|
|
Don't be like this guy: he paid 0.15351 BTC to send 0.06574732 BTC. Be smart with Coin Control! |
|
|
|
Could you help us to ask creator if the generation is randomly or we can specify the transaction to generation just like using 5he bitcoin-cli too to generation transactions I'm not sure what you're asking. It probably helps if you read it again before posting. |
|
|
|
2) Embrace the evolution of what bitcoin can be used for. How? You mean like joining the madness of paying $400 for a dust transaction, and then selling that same transaction to a greater fool for $4000? That doesn't sound like something I'm willing to embrace. |
|
|
|
I may be hated for saying this, but what's currently happening in the mempool is a feature, not a bug. The fact that we have a fixed-sized block limit means that the current clogged up state would inevitably happen sometime. I'm going to disagree with you. The fact that Bitcoin is currently useless for small transactions, and very expensive for large transactions is a serious problem. I'm now teaching my kids to use Monero, simply because Bitcoin fees take up an entire year of their allowance. Bitcoin has lost out on so many potential users and transactions over the years, just because it can't handle more. I don't like it. LN isn't going to solve this if opening and closing a channel costs a week worth of food. Another important reminder: Censorship won't prevent monkey jpegs. Let's leave asides if censoring monkeys would undermine one of the important properties: It just technically doesn't work. People who spend dozens of millions of dollars in monkeys everyday can bypass every censorship measure and save them straight to the UTXO set, which would be a lot worse for the rest of us. Reinstating the "coin days destroyed" priority mechanism can help. Spammers can't destroy unlimited coin days, but this isn't in the interest of miners. And that's a fundamental problem: the ones who earn from high fees benefit from the flaws in the fee system. Here's another: As long as the law of supply and demand defines the price of block bytes, we can never on-board billions or even millions of people on a layer-1 solution, unless we undermine another important property; being practical to verify the ledger. Yep. It sucks. What's left: all Bitcoin users keeping their coins on large centralized exchanges and ETFs? That destroys the concept of "electronic cash". Final reminder: The free market decides the ideal tradeoff. "Is it better to have a dynamical block size?", "Would it be worse if we traded 'being practical to verify' with 'being for the poor'?", "Would a tail emission save the situation?". These questions are not easy to answer. However, we have a lot of cryptocurrency options, each tailored to meet different needs. It's up to us to determine which option suits us best and to refrain from complaining about the shortcomings of a single solution. Hey, I get to complain about transaction fees! At least let me have this  I just hate seeing Bitcoin lose market share to shitcoins, because Bitcoin can't handle the transaction volume that comes with it's popularity. |
|
|
|
...while real Bitcoin doesn't get ads. And does not need it. This HYIP feeds of hype, like a hit and grab. It also feeds on Bitcoin's name. That's the problem. |
|
|
|
I don't consider having to pay 150 sat/vByte to move my coins a normal operation just because someone out there is posting bananas and is willing to overpay for it. What truely amazes me is that people are willing to pay the spammers for this. It must be profitable, which means the tens of millions of dollars they pay per day are paid by their victims. Who are those people who'd rather "invest" in a made-up story about unique satoshis than just buy real Bitcoin? The reason must be marketing. Spammers who spend and earn millions have a huge budget to advertise their BS, while real Bitcoin doesn't get ads. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
