And the counter offensive hasn't even started yet.
In fact of the matter. Ukraine planned to enter the Crimea in May, May is running out, and Ukraine is bogged down in positional battles near Bakhmut, and with each lost ammunition depot, its offensive potential is reduced. Even if Zelensky’s current trip around Europe can be considered successful (although in France he was caustically called the Circus Chapiteau), Europe is not able to supply as many weapons without damaging its arsenals as Russia destroys with missiles and drones. And the US is now in temporary difficulties due to the debt ceiling and reputational losses due to damage to the Patriot. For the Patriot let me quote from Guardian a statement from Strategic and International Studies about the Patriot which is as follows: "The Patriot system was designed before hypersonic weapons were sent to battlefield and manufacturer Raytheon has not said publicly that the is effective against a missile flying at hypersonic speeds (anything above five times the speed of sound). While the US said that the Patriot system brought down last week’s Khinzal missile, it was not clear if that missile was traveling at hypersonic speed at the time. While Russia’s Kinzhal missile may reach speeds of up to 7,600 mph (12,350 kph), “Russia’s designation of the Kinzhal as a ‘hypersonic’ missile is somewhat misleading, as nearly all ballistic missiles reach hypersonic speeds (i.e. above Mach 5) at some point during their flight,” the Center for Strategic and International Studies said in a March 2022 report" So it is misleading as always what you are talking about,Patriot just had some damage but the reality is all Kinzhal 'hypersonic' missiles were shot down.The link for the above statement,scroll down there to find it as there are many news together https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/may/17/russia-ukraine-war-live-last-ship-to-leave-ukraine-under-current-grain-deal-jets-pledge-a-good-start-says-zelenskiy?page=with:block-6464852b8f08293047a55885&filterKeyEvents=falseWho damaged the Patriot if all the Daggers were shot down?  ps According to my information, one Dagger completely destroyed one Patriot launcher and damaged another Patriot launcher, which was standing nearby, with shrapnel. Before the defeat, both Patriots managed to detect a missile attack and urgently release the entire ammunition load of 2x16 of the latest PAC-3 MSE missiles into the air (arranging a beautiful fireworks display over Kiev at a cost of $ 150 million), probably in an attempt to repel a missile attack or avoid detonation of the ammunition load upon defeat. |
|
|
|
And the counter offensive hasn't even started yet.
In fact of the matter. Ukraine planned to enter the Crimea in May, May is running out, and Ukraine is bogged down in positional battles near Bakhmut, and with each lost ammunition depot, its offensive potential is reduced. Even if Zelensky’s current trip around Europe can be considered successful (although in France he was caustically called the Circus Chapiteau), Europe is not able to supply as many weapons without damaging its arsenals as Russia destroys with missiles and drones. And the US is now in temporary difficulties due to the debt ceiling and reputational losses due to damage to the Patriot. You said once that every Taxi driver knows how to govern the country. I seems that every troll out here is also a general. What a marvellous country! Most of the information provided is, as usual, 10% true, rest invented.Could you also clarify what exactly of the information you quoted seems to be true so that I can better deal with my illusions and limiting stereotypes. Or at least reasonably refute the part that seems false to you. Without solid arguments, your statements seem unfounded to me. |
|
|
|
soo to certain idiots.. all spam 2009-2020 was spam attacks even though those transactions didnt contained nonsense junk
but the junk of 2023 is not an attack nor spam..(in idiots minds)
seems someone lost the logic of their redefinitions
so to certain idiots.. transactions should be rejected if they dont pay enough fee.. did they not realise that more transactions are censored due to their "just pay more" theory
yep over the years more people have stopped using bitcoin and moved to other networks due to silly idea's like "just pay more"
bitcoin was invented to be a payment system for the unbanked. not a payment system just for the rich
there are more people in the world whos hourly wage is less than a bitcoin fee.
if you think a payment system should cost more than an hours wage to use. thats a failure of economics
It's all "pro-poor" talk. Bitcoin performs much better when it is used less. With an increase in the activity of use, a transport collapse occurs. You can accept this as a given or try to fix it somehow. The developers tried, but it led to unexpected side effects in the form of an unplanned blockchain use case. Now we must accept the consequences of our decisions and move on, or accept that the weakening of consensus as a result of the update of the taproot was a strategic mistake and try to fix it so as not to damage the reputation of bitcoin. Because the holders of the brc-20 tokens uploaded their stupid pictures to the blockchain according to the current consensus rules and paid for it with real bitcoins at the market price, one cannot deceive their expectations about the preservation of the value that they entrusted to the most reliable network, and about the possibility in the future to freely spend their exits. |
|
|
|
And the counter offensive hasn't even started yet.
In fact of the matter. Ukraine planned to enter the Crimea in May, May is running out, and Ukraine is bogged down in positional battles near Bakhmut, and with each lost ammunition depot, its offensive potential is reduced. Even if Zelensky’s current trip around Europe can be considered successful (although in France he was caustically called the Circus Chapiteau), Europe is not able to supply as many weapons without damaging its arsenals as Russia destroys with missiles and drones. And the US is now in temporary difficulties due to the debt ceiling and reputational losses due to damage to the Patriot. |
|
|
|
So my "Russian friends" what will you do now that all 6 Kinzhal "unstoppable" hypersonic missiles were all shot down in the latest attack in Kyiv during last night?It looks like your paranoia is at the highest levels attacking civilians with hypersonic missiles committing war crimes in pure "sun light" as everybody can see the videos of such horrendous war crimes.Even France who was neutral now is clearly engaging in helping Ukraine and the fact that the Patriot air defense system shot down all Kinzhal missiles says a lot about how the war is going for the Russian side.
The level of your exaltation about the effectiveness of the Patriot air defense system looks artificially stimulated. It seems that during the recent missile attack, the Patriots in Kyiv again shot down more Daggers than Russia launched them. And yes, at least one Dagger was not shot down and hit the Patriot. So my "Russian friends" what will you do now that all 6 Kinzhal "unstoppable" hypersonic missiles were all shot down in the latest attack in Kyiv during last night?It looks like your paranoia is at the highest levels attacking civilians with hypersonic missiles committing war crimes in pure "sun light" as everybody can see the videos of such horrendous war crimes.Even France who was neutral now is clearly engaging in helping Ukraine and the fact that the Patriot air defense system shot down all Kinzhal missiles says a lot about how the war is going for the Russian side.
So, seems that one Kinzhal that they shot down previously wasn't just lucky coincidence. Meanwhile Russia is bragging that thye destroyed Patriot sytem with Kinzhal. But as always, reality is a bit different. Yes, partially it's true, but they didn't hit key things of system - radar, control station or battery. It was just one of 8 launcher. Now it's only question of damage they made. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/16/politics/patriot-missile-damage-ukraine/index.htmlhttps://twitter.com/noclador/status/1658416550188130310?t=E21VcS4tLcw5fLNAsdvVPg&s=19Seems that Patriot became main target for Russia in Ukraine and they desperately will try to destroy it as it's really game changer in the sky of Ukraine. Oh, the key is always to mix a little bit of truth, that can be understood easily and possibly easy to verify, with the disinformation and the blatant lies. That is part of the "Russian Culture" as be.open understands it. For example: Ukraine sinks the Moskva, "Yes the ship has sunk, what a shame. Fortunately there were no sailors onboard and most of the equipment was recovered. But Ukraine had nothing to do, it was Igor smoking by the diesel tanks again". Or "Ukraine is lying because we only launched 10 missiles and they say the intercepted 20"... My examples are not great, because it takes a cold war and a career in propaganda to get to their level, but you get the idea. In general, there is an interesting situation in the conflict now, when Ukraine wants to attack, but cannot, and Russia can attack, but does not want to. And the UK is actively pushing Russia to come forward with more long-range missiles and drones, because Russia's air defense system is very good, but not perfect. And Russia continues to conduct its "witch hunt" to identify and destroy Ukrainian air defenses and is actively engaged in the defeat of ammunition depots, reducing the potential of Ukraine for its again delayed counter-offensive. The detonation in Pavlograd, Ternopil and Khmelnitsky was very sensitive. |
|
|
|
Where do things really stand?
Seems like momentum has swung back in Ukraines favor. Has the counteroffensive already begun? It seems that Prigozhin, with his hyperactivity in the information field, did everything to make the Ukrainian General Staff believe in deep disagreements between Wagner and the Russian Ministry of Defense and made the neighborhood of Bakhmut the direction of the main attack. Gamma radiation had a significant increase in Termopil after the RF attacks to "ammo depots" yesterday. The causes of this increase in radiation is yes to be determined, but it is not good news certainly.
It seems that it was not the smartest idea for the UK to transfer depleted uranium shells to Ukraine. Another billion dollars in NATO arms deliveries are being crossed out. |
|
|
|
I recently read a document that claims to be a leaked internal Google document called " We Have No Moat, And Neither Does OpenAI". I can't be sure of its authenticity, but I found the content to be quite interesting. |
|
|
|
Why the economic war against Russia has failedThe West embarked on its sanctions war with an exaggerated sense of its own influence around the world. As we have discovered, non-western countries lack the will to impose sanctions on either Russia or on Russian oligarchs. The results of the miscalculation are there for all to see. In April last year, the IMF forecast that the Russian economy would contract by 8.5 per cent in 2022 and by a further 2.3 per cent this year. As it turned out, GDP fell by just 2.1 per cent last year, and this year the IMF is forecasting a small rise of 0.7 per cent. And that is all in spite of the war in Ukraine going much more badly than many imagined it would in February of last year. The Russian economy has not been destroyed; it has merely been reconfigured, reorientated to look eastwards and southwards rather than westwards. Highlighted by me. Well, congratulations, you found one article, out of a million others, where someone expressed an opinion that amuses you  but the reality is different, don’t overread this article! Here are just the titles of the articles: - “Friendly” countries refuse to open accounts for Russian banks Russian banks face problems when trying to open accounts in “friendly” countries in order to establish trade bypassing the dollar, euro and other world currencies. To agree on the opening of correspondent accounts in order to conduct transactions in national currencies, “it does not always work out,” said Alexei Guznov, deputy chairman of the Bank of Russia, speaking at a legal forum in Moscow. - Russian cosmonauts were left without spacesuits Russia is no longer a SPACE power, but a COMIC The whole world has already laughed about the second army of the world - G7 countries agree on partial trade embargo against Russia The G7 countries are close to agreeing to introduce a partial trade embargo against Russia, which will tighten the sanctions regime against some particularly sensitive categories of goods. This is reported by Reuters with reference to diplomats familiar with the preparations for the G7 summit in Hiroshima on May 19-21. - "It's scary to fly at random." Airlines massively hide the technical problems of aircraft The Proekt publication, citing employees of Aeroflot and Nordwind, reported a systemic deterioration in aircraft maintenance after the imposition of sanctions. From the spring of 2022, airlines require personnel not to enter technical defects in the flight logs (TLB) and aircraft often fly out of order. Senior flight attendants of Aeroflot were forbidden to write down problems with equipment without the consent of the aircraft commander. ....and such news every day, every hour, every minute And most importantly - you will not be able to refute any of them! And it remains for you to just rejoice and dance near some one, probably even a custom article Well, can you refute this article, because it is also based on facts? It seems not, and you are not even going to do it, it is easier for you to reject the article in its entirety and say that it is custom-made. This is a reliable sign that you are politically engaged and are in a bubble of pro-Western propaganda. You can list "facts" as much as you like that there are some difficulties in Russia. Of course they are. Such a huge and complex economy cannot simply be turned from west to south and east at the snap of a finger without some difficulties and overlaps. But the main thing has already happened - instead of falling apart and begging the West for mercy, the Russian economy has withstood the sanctions strike and is even showing growth. Try to disprove this fact. |
|
|
|
so now you know where the power lies. core devs then merchants followed by pols, followed by users. in that order
Developers have power as long as they don't abuse it. Merchants seems to benefit from this strange meme economy, plus the expectation of a hard fork can be a good driver for the rise in the price of bitcoin. Miners benefit from the current situation, and in the event of a hard fork, they will switch to a more profitable network. Hardfork is also beneficial for users, in principle, they will receive coins in both networks. In an environment where it is technically easy to make a hard fork and so many benefit from it, it is hardly in the interests of developers to try to tempt fate with a public demonstration of power. |
|
|
|
But what if this isn't an attack coming from them? What if this is happening naturally? To me, this is a more serious concern. I think it would be such a great waste that a decentralized currency will just do down the drain because some garbage transactions are killing the monetary ones.
And what is a malicious intention for you? Isn't it malicious when you are clogging the network, delaying monetary transactions like remittance, salaries, purchases, and so on for days, discouraging its adoption as a currency, causing a terrible increase in fees with your frog pics?
Many things look different depending on how you look at it. Yes, this is an attack on bitcoin and yes, it happens naturally. Yes, it's a problem, and yes, it's okay. Yes, it's junk on the blockchain and yes, it's stored value. Yes, we would like to avoid a split, and yes, the expectation of a split can be a powerful driver for the price of bitcoin. Yes, we want to keep Satoshi's original vision and yes, we welcome expansion into new areas of adoption. This is the way. "First they don't notice you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. And then you win." |
|
|
|
А так да, доля доллара в международных расчетах снижается, но не так критично, с 80 до 60 кажется. Тем не менее все равно это очень большой кусок пирога.
Из них большая красная сопля минус восемь процентов за год, как корова языком слизнула. Сейчас мы в самой близкой точке к масштабному краху глобалистических амбиций доллара, чем когда-либо в истории его существования. Если ещё за пару лет удастся снизить долю доллара в международных расчётах до 25%, я буду вполне удовлетворён. |
|
|
|
I see suggestions that "rules" should be applied to stop these transactions and that miners should "block" these transactions, but I see no calls for people to protect Bitcoin's censorship resistance.  Is the idea behind Bitcoin, not for individuals or groups not to be able to "censor" certain transactions? We should find other solutions to protect the Bitcoin network against attacks like this, without sacrificing the principles that are protecting the users transactions.  These "because freedom" comments are just laughable. Let's stop using email filters and drown in spam. Let's legalize drugs and child porn "because freedom". Bitcoiners should have freedom to use Bitcoin and make transactions without being interfered by spammers. Do you agree? At an early stage in the development of the network, developers have repeatedly introduced restrictions to protect bitcoin from malicious spam attacks. Your persistence in calling for new restrictions suggests that the current level of development of the network continues to be early and Bitcoin has not yet reached the point of maturity where any attempts to attack it only benefit it. I think bitcoin no longer needs any kind of hyper-custody and is an independent entity that follows its own path with the passage of time. Think about this one more thing. You don't have to be clairvoyant to suggest that for the foreseeable future, bitcoin will be subject to equally strong pressure from regulators to force miners to drop mixed transactions. Transactions that pass through the mixer will also try to be declared spam, illegal, not in the true spirit of the open blockchain, dirty and not eligible for inclusion in the block. Today you advocate new restrictions to protect against spam, but are you ready to find yourself on the other side of this barricade tomorrow with the only hope of protection from those whom you accuse of connivance today? |
|
|
|
Why the economic war against Russia has failedThe West embarked on its sanctions war with an exaggerated sense of its own influence around the world. As we have discovered, non-western countries lack the will to impose sanctions on either Russia or on Russian oligarchs. The results of the miscalculation are there for all to see. In April last year, the IMF forecast that the Russian economy would contract by 8.5 per cent in 2022 and by a further 2.3 per cent this year. As it turned out, GDP fell by just 2.1 per cent last year, and this year the IMF is forecasting a small rise of 0.7 per cent. And that is all in spite of the war in Ukraine going much more badly than many imagined it would in February of last year. The Russian economy has not been destroyed; it has merely been reconfigured, reorientated to look eastwards and southwards rather than westwards. Highlighted by me.
|
|
|
|
Volto a dar o exemplo:
Alocar 25% do bloco para todas as transações que tiverem mais de 72 horas de espera por ordem de chegada, independentemente do fee. Isso irá permitir que tudo funcione normalmente, que quem quiser pagar mais fee continua a ter prioridade, e as restantes transações de baixo fee, continuam a circular não tendo de ficar a espera durante 2 ou 3 semanas.
Isso parece ser uma solução, mas não é e inclusive é ruim para a rede. Pense comigo: 1. O bloco vai continuar sendo limitado à 1 MB (sendo simplorio, ignorando o witness data). 2. Eu posso spammar a rede com 10 MB @ 1 sat/byte, pois 72 horas depois elas vão passar em cima de qualquer outras transações pagando taxas altíssimas. 3. Se meus 10 MB pendentes são mais antigos do que qualquer outra tx, 25% de todo bloco vai ser obrigado a incluir minhas transações de 1 sat/byte até que elas sejam limpas (idade da tx > taxas). 4. 25% do bloco sendo limitado às minhas transações, o tamanho efetivo dos blocos (livre para o publico) vai ser de 0.75 MB. 5. Com um bloco menor (0.75 MB) a oferta é ainda menor, enquanto a demanda continua crescente = taxas ainda mais altas. Um pool que aceita tais regras do jogo perderá hashrate e participação de mercado, porque os mineradores seguem o lucro máximo e geralmente não se importam com nenhum ideal (como a guerra de hashrate de 2017 entre bitcoin e bitcoin cash mostrou claramente). E se os donos de grandes pools entrarem em cartel para implementar essas mudanças juntos, não seria o pior cenário, porque significa que eles podem entrar em cartel também em outro assunto? Qualquer mudança que não leve em consideração o desejo dos mineradores de maximizar os lucros está fadada ao fracasso. Uma mudança só tem chance de sucesso se trouxer uma melhoria e, na perspectiva dos mineradores, isso é uma clara deterioração. |
|
|
|
Quaisquer soluções simples de dimensionamento afetam negativamente a descentralização da rede bitcoin. Por que não, por exemplo, aumentar o tamanho do bloco para que caibam mais transações nele, pois isso reduzirá a concorrência no mercado de precificação de transações e as transferências ficarão mais baratas. Desenvolvedores estúpidos e teimosos, pois ainda não o fizeram.
Eu já partilhei aqui ou noutro tópico, que acho não ser necessário o aumento do tamanho do bloco. Antes uma maior gestão do uso do mesmo. Volto a dar o exemplo: Alocar 25% do bloco para todas as transações que tiverem mais de 72 horas de espera por ordem de chegada, independentemente do fee. Isso irá permitir que tudo funcione normalmente, que quem quiser pagar mais fee continua a ter prioridade, e as restantes transações de baixo fee, continuam a circular não tendo de ficar a espera durante 2 ou 3 semanas. Esta proposta parece ser socialmente responsável, protegendo o direito de uso da rede mesmo para aqueles que dificilmente podem pagar em um ambiente de livre mercado. Mas os mineradores estão prontos para fazer um ajuste socialmente responsável em seus negócios de alto risco? Ou você se propõe a forçá-los de alguma forma a essa escolha, mesmo em detrimento de seus próprios lucros? Apelá-los à voz da consciência para que queiram jogar a favor dos pobres? A espada da descentralização é de dois gumes. |
|
|
|
E os desenvolvedores do bitcoin core estão agora sob forte pressão da comunidade para trair esse principal ideal do bitcoin e sacrificar a descentralização (que já está ameaçada) pela conveniência das massas de habitantes nas transações diárias. Espero que eles tenham lealdade suficiente ao verdadeiro espírito do bitcoin para resistir a essa pressão.
Mas trair que principio? Agora não percebi, desculpa. Que tipo de pressão esta a ser feita, para eles quebrem os princípios fundamentais do Bitcoin? E que princípios são esses que seriam quebrados? Quaisquer soluções simples de dimensionamento afetam negativamente a descentralização da rede bitcoin. Por que não, por exemplo, aumentar o tamanho do bloco para que caibam mais transações nele, pois isso reduzirá a concorrência no mercado de precificação de transações e as transferências ficarão mais baratas. Desenvolvedores estúpidos e teimosos, pois ainda não o fizeram. Mas espere, esta solução tem algum efeito colateral negativo a longo prazo? Sim, e muito graves. Por exemplo, um aumento no tamanho do bloco e no número de transações nele aumentará proporcionalmente o tempo para verificar a validade de um bloco recém-encontrado por outros nós da rede - o que significa que o pool que encontrou esse bloco terá uma vantagem ao procurar o próximo bloco, porque ele já está procurando enquanto outros estão perdendo tempo para verificar o último bloco atual na cadeia real da rede. E esta é uma ameaça adicional à descentralização, que já é suficiente. Existem outros princípios importantes que não podem ser traídos, a menos que a rede esteja quebrada e em ruínas. Por exemplo, resistência à censura ou compatibilidade com versões anteriores. Se, como resultado da atualização, algumas saídas não puderem mais ser gastas e seu dono perder o valor que armazenou na rede bitcoin, isso não seria uma traição aos importantes ideais do bitcoin? A velocidade não importa se você está se movendo na direção errada. |
|
|
|
But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?
I have no exact information about the intentions of the developers. However, it is highly likely that the desire to make money on the wave of hype with meme-tokens plays an important role. I don't really follow this shit, but I think there was a big story recently about a guy who bought Pepe's green frog tokens for $250 and soon made $8 million from it. Or something like that. In such conditions, development speed is much more important than quality, because it is important to catch the right moment. Development speed" = merely riding the hype-wave while there are newbies and plebs who are willing to buy into their Ponzi? Because scripting in Bitcoin is limited, and from a long term perspective, their "development" of "not-fungible tokens marketed as fungible" made through Ordinal inscriptions is already dead.
This is the case when it is better to make a mistake at the right time than to do the right thing at the wrong time.
Like scammers?  It was a surprise to me to learn that the Pepe green frog meme has a huge community of several million people who, for all their heterogeneity, are united by a strange kind of irrational love for the image of the green frog. What if a significant proportion of these people are not willing to resell their token to earn a few dollars, but simply want to own the digital rights in the largest and most secure decentralized network to their copy of the green frog image, as a sign of belonging to this strange meme subculture? I would refrain from calling them all scammers, they honestly paid the market price for their part of the deal and got what they wanted. Are those who gave them such an opportunity scammers? Without hard evidence, this sounds like a false accusation. And even if they really are scammers, so what? Is bitcoin no longer a trustless system? Does bitcoin need to start giving moral judgments to the content of the transaction in order to continue to work normally? |
|
|
|
A ideia do Satoshi era simples: uma rede que permita transações rápidas e com taxas muito baixas.
Acho que você está interpretando mal a ideia de Satoshi. Não há indícios da promessa do Bitcoin de ser rápido e ter baixo custo por transação. O Bitcoin é lento e o preço por transação depende da demanda por espaço em bloco. Antes de mais, gosto de o ver postar outra vez! Longos anos.... Eu não interpretarei mal a ideia. Temos de contextualizar. O que é uma transação rápida? Bem, quando o Bitcoin foi criado, raramente tínhamos transferências de dinheiro em poucos minutos ou segundos, demorava horas ou dias. No Bitcoin a regra é simples, 10 em 10 minutos as transações são processadas. Alem disso, mesmo ainda da primeira confirmação, já é possível ver a transação colocada na rede. E se for configurado para isso, a transação não pode ser revertida, dando assim a garantia que ela vai ser realizada. Isso é algo rápido. Quanto ao valor das taxas. Sim, vai depender da demandada. Mas, se o objetivo for apenas transacionar dinheiro de A para B, e se sabes que a cada 10 minutos elas são processadas, não havia grande necessidade de aumentares as taxas. Mesmo que houvesse milhares de transações por minutos, elas entrariam em fila de espera, e como cada bloco suporta milhares de transações, eles vão ser processadas a cada 10 minutos. Então, tu sabes, que mesmo que demorar mais de 10 minutos, numa utilização normal, a coisa poderia demorar mais dois ou três blocos para ser processada. Isto indica que, salvo situações excecionais, não precisavas de utilizar taxas altas para usar a rede. Dai, seriam baixas taxas, porque não precisas delas altas. Se você concentrar a ideia central do Bitcoin em uma linha, apenas o subtítulo do white paper permanecerá - uma rede monetária ponto a ponto. Não há promessa de transações baixas e nem mesmo indício de velocidade, mas há um ponto-chave - ponto a ponto, não velocidade e transações baixas tornam bitcoin bitcoin, ou seja, a ausência de um terceiro como árbitro. A exigência de transações de alta velocidade e baixa é, de certa forma, uma espécie de ataque a uma característica fundamental do bitcoin. E os desenvolvedores do bitcoin core estão agora sob forte pressão da comunidade para trair esse principal ideal do bitcoin e sacrificar a descentralização (que já está ameaçada) pela conveniência das massas de habitantes nas transações diárias. Espero que eles tenham lealdade suficiente ao verdadeiro espírito do bitcoin para resistir a essa pressão. |
|
|
|
O Bitcoin sempre sofreu ataques de spam: https://blog.lopp.net/history-bitcoin-transaction-dust-spam-storms/E claro, o protocolo do Bitcoin é agnostico e não vê nada como spam. O que ele vê é: "alguem pagou, um minerador incluiu, é uma tx..." It's worth noting that "spam" is in the eye of the beholder. From one perspective, there is no such thing as a spam bitcoin transaction - if it's valid and it pays an appropriate fee, a transaction should get confirmed. So... what transaction attributes am I categorizing as spam? I'm considering it suspicious if a transaction has all of the following: Sendo claramente possível que a comunidade (especialmente o pessoal do Core) mudem o que é considerado uma tx válida. Você está certo, do ponto de vista do bitcoin, essas são transações válidas, embora não sejam muito comuns. Um dos papéis importantes do bitcoin é armazenar valor e, desse ponto de vista, os meme-tokens integrados nativamente ao blockchain não são diferentes de uma transação normal de transferência de bitcoin, porque para um amante de memes esse token também tem valor (caso contrário , por que ele gastaria seus bitcoins para gravá-lo no blockchain?) Além disso, esses registros no blockchain não anunciam nada explicitamente e ninguém pode se considerar seu destinatário, exceto o proprietário do endereço onde estão localizado. Se você estiver explorando um blockchain público por meio de um blockchain explorer e vir uma transação envolvendo um token de meme, não é o mesmo que receber um e-mail promocional não solicitado em seu endereço de e-mail para chamá-lo de spam.
Acho que você está interpretando mal a ideia de Satoshi. Não há indícios da promessa do Bitcoin de ser rápido e ter baixo custo por transação. O Bitcoin é lento e o preço por transação depende da demanda por espaço em bloco.
Está nada!!! Não está escrito mas a malta deduz e deduz bem. Para além deste propósito há mais uns quantos que também não estão escritos, mas a gente acaba por perceber.  Quando a rede bitcoin está ocupada, muitas vezes você pode ouvir conselhos (bastante razoáveis) para usar algum tipo de altcoin, por exemplo, litecoin, para transferências mais rápidas e baratas. Esse truque funcionará, mas isso não significa que o Litecoin seja melhor que o Bitcoin (embora o Litecoin já tenha algumas inovações tecnológicas interessantes implementadas que o Bitcoin ainda não possui) - apenas que a rede Litecoin é menos procurada. Se muitas pessoas seguirem este conselho, a blockchain do litecoin experimentará exatamente o mesmo colapso de transporte que vimos recentemente com o bitcoin. |
|
|
|
A ideia do Satoshi era simples: uma rede que permita transações rápidas e com taxas muito baixas.
Acho que você está interpretando mal a ideia de Satoshi. Não há indícios da promessa do Bitcoin de ser rápido e ter baixo custo por transação. O Bitcoin é lento e o preço por transação depende da demanda por espaço em bloco. Cada bloco tem 1MB, então só cabe conteúdo até 1MB.
O bitcoin original tinha um tamanho de bloco de 1Mb, mas em 2017, após a introdução bem-sucedida do segwit, o limite de tamanho de bloco no bitcoin tornou-se mais flexível. Na blockchain do bitcoin, é fácil encontrar exemplos de blocos maiores que 1 MB. Sob certas condições, o tamanho do bloco bitcoin pode chegar a 4 MB. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
