This is not why the block size cannot increase. The scarcity and the high price that is been given to 1 unit of Bitcoin is unrelated with the block size. It cannot change, because it's a consensus rule.

I'm just telling you that you can't use bitcoin for something that you do it everyday and you want it instantly. As for the Lightning Network, it was not created for that purpose exactly. It helps you make many micro-transactions by paying fees only once you open and close the channel. Definitely not for one purchase of coffee.

But it's not "controlled" by core. Bitcoin Core is an open-source Bitcoin client which is developed by the Bitcoin developers. There are many other bitcoin clients that do the same thing core does, but are not developed by them. (e.g: bitcoin knots)

I only know that if the majority of its users see it as a medium of exchange it'll be a medium of exchange. If they see it as an investment, it'll be considered as an investment. Same thing for store of value. I personally find Bitcoin perfect store of value asset. Even if it is fluctuating, I believe that its price will continuously rise in the long term and thus, it will store my value above and beyond.

And you'll continue irritate them if you use the term "bitcoin core" instead of bitcoin. It's like telling us that "we" download BitTorrents to watch movies. There isn't just one torrent client, there's μTorrent, qBitTorrent, BitComet, BitLord, Vuze and many others. BitTorrent is the most popular one, but it doesn't "control" the way nodes distribute information. Torrent is just a protocol. Same thing happens with Bitcoin.

I don't understand how you made that assumption. The coins will always be 21 million. Who said that segwit removed the signature data? How's that possible and how is it related with buying half of the goods?

So you're saying that only traders need this "byte" to confirm the transaction? The others don't?

Why segwit increases the rights of miners? It reduces the fee of the payer. Miners "print" money from the block reward, not from the transactions' fees. I guess this is what you meant.

This is clearly a subjective perspective. You can either spend your money and "let the dollar circulate", as would happen on a healthy capitalism, or keep them on your closet as a store of value. Although, last time I checked, store of value assets don't tend to inflate.

The "buying-coffee-with-bitcoin" dream has been forgotten years now. Especially to a coffee shop you've never entered before. The payee must ensure that you'll not double spend, so you'll have to wait for a confirmation. Even if you'd paid $50 as a fee, which would have very high priority right now, you'd still have to wait for 5-10 minutes on average to be confirmed. The lightning network, on the other hand can only work if you buy from that coffee shop everyday and close the channel at the end of the month (for example).

First of all, Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin's client. The way you've written it, is like it's another fork. Secondly, you're naming Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash "modified versions of bitcoin". This is false. Bitcoin Core is being developed from the Bitcoin Developers. Those who were chosen after Satoshi Nakamoto, the person(s) that began the so-called "Original Bitcoin". On the other hand, on Bitcoin Cash, some other developers decided that they don't like the way Bitcoin works and started a new chain in which its units aren't bitcoins.

The price of commodity on a completely free market, where the only rule is demand and supply is its value that has been given to it by the majority of those who sell it. This is my opinion. I'll agree with you that it can't look as a currency this way.

Investors don't change bitcoin. They try to make profit from it since it's a free market competition which means that it fluctuates a lot. There are people who invest in fiat too, but its price doesn't get affected that much, because it's not a free market competition. As for the investors' influence to other people: It has nothing to do with Bitcoin's "disappearance".

I already told you about the "coffee" dream. I want you, though, to notice something. Once you make a transaction it gets broadcasted to all these thousands of nodes. All these computers will save on their disk that you sent some satoshis to someone else and that you want it to be confirmed fast. How can this be cheap? I mentioned this, because that was the idea of bitcoin pre-segwit. When it "was" "still" "original". You'd have to understand that it'd be a matter of time before transaction cost became higher even if we're still on v0.1 with satoshi being active everyday.

If the user doesn't know about it, then he/she ought to learn! Except if he/she does not care about the funds' protection that much. Some things in life aren't simple, those are usually the most interesting.

So you're saying that you're wrong?

Major update:

Added command line interface.


In the future I'll add arguments to be ran from a command prompt. This is the first release of the cli. I think it'd be better if Booknemonic had its own console application, or even better, a very simple library. I haven't done this in the past, so it's a nice exercise. Source code is on Github: booknemonic/booknemonic-cli/

Release (binaries): booknemonic-cli.v0.1.zip (1.10MB)
SHA-1: AC4FB9FE510D067F759B1D36CE67263A38D83866

---

And you think that this is the only solution for your customers?

What would the hard-coded checkpoint change if every node I connected is malicious?

This is a problem only if you are not running your own node. Right? This is a problem only if you use an SPV like electrum that would show false information. Your node will reject everything that is invalid.

ISP honeypot? Do you mean a police sting operation?

But why? Can't there be some hundreds of default nodes that will inform the new nodes for other nodes? Why do you need a centralized server to start the connection?

There is a difference with Bitcoin. The people in your example switched to Pepsi, because they found out that it is better than Coca-Cola. They would switch to pepsi, whether they were on a quarantine or not. On Bitcoin, what made everyone buy it is the trillions that were printed last year. People didn't just wake up and said "Hey look, a safe heaven!". They realized that the dollar was rabidly inflated by a lot!

The pandemic is mostly the cause of those 9 trillions. Thus, it's the cause for Bitcoin price's abrupt increase. But yes I think you're right, even if the pandemic is over, it won't affect Bitcoin that much.

[Note: Pepsi found difficulties with the pandemic too, not just Coca-Cola]

It shouldn't be considered as "trust". It doesn't have to do with the majority, since the bitcoin nodes won't be manipulated by it. They work autonomously. The network doesn't "tell you what to do". Instead, your bitcoin client already knows what to do, and it makes it's own decisions. Everyone makes the same decisions, but even if the majority of nodes are malicious, it wouldn't bother the honest ones. They would keep validating the information they receive and reject anything invalid. That's why it is recommended to have a full node, instead of SPV. You don't have to trust any node, you know what is valid and what's not. But even if you do, the worst thing that can happen is simply broadcasting an invalid transaction.

So they find nodes' IPs whether you have Bitcoin Core or not. Even if I remove those vSeeds and then build Bitcoin Core, sooner or later I'll be listed on their address list. Interesting, I wonder how their code works. So these IP addresses on vSeeds send and receive new IPs continually, but not blocks. I always thought that vSeeds are the "default" nodes of the network that were chosen by the Bitcoin Core developers.

The pandemic surely helped Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies be more widespread and I like seeing that there are many people that have understood the main benefits of it and they're keeping it as a store of value. Last year, 22% of the circulating USD was printed which was around $9 trillion. This clearly shows that the economy was f*cked up last year. The debts are now even bigger.

This is when Bitcoin was seen as a solution. Its deflationary and safe-heaven characteristics were recognized and everyone became abruptly bullish. Now I wonder, what will happen to Bitcoin once the pandemic is over? Once we'll live just like we did in 2019? It will surely have a big impact on the market, but I don't know if it'll be a negative or a positive for Bitcoin.

So, bitcoin v0.1.0 could only work only when that IP was not down. Anyway, I don't think that it's that important. I don't know if the node saved the connections it received to a log file (so it wouldn't need whatismyip.com), but that version didn't last long.

Are you saying that with the whatismyip.com IP, it only took the request headers?

You probably can't know who exactly was, but you know that the person behind that IP was a customer. Even if it was a VPN service. Thus, you limit the people that could be. Again, though, you have no permission to ask for such information from a VPN that would be most likely closed right now. Even if we're talking about Satoshi Nakamoto.

Satoshi's code included GetMyExternalIP, a boolean function on net.cpp. What seems curious to me is that he/she used one IP address. This creates me the following queries:

• Did this server manage to distribute the information of all nodes? Like their IP addresses? RPC didn't exist on that early release, it was added later so you couldn't add a node with addnode. In a way, if it did, bitcoin's information was distributed from a server. The distribution was centralized. Once you connected with 72.233.89.199:80, it wouldn't matter, but you've have to connect with Satoshi's IP first. Since RPC did not exist, it was like vSeeds.
• Isn't this Satoshi's IP? Couldn't he/she be located that way? It is a mainnet IP address.

Shouldn't this be just a default option? Not a hardcoded value. Same thing for the minimum amount of 2 mBTC.


The channel's capacity is 3 mBTC and it says that I can send 2.96416 mBTC. I sent 0.0015 mBTC on a testnet service (?) and it seems it worked:


Once I did, I closed the channel afterwards. Should I? This is the transaction that was broadcasted when I did: 46b6b2cc6570263a3a21a0ce20612d8952f5bd9a6ffa1914a14860c328270500

It's a multi-signature address sending 0.00299665 TBTC to one of my change addresses. Shouldn't there be an extra output with 0.0015 mBTC?

I connected "Charlie" with the same node "Alice" is connected. I broadcasted a transaction from "Charlie" to "STRANGESET" and waited for 3 confirmations. (Not sure why they've chosen 3)

I try to send funds to "Charlie" and returns me "No path found":


But this is what I get when I send money from "Charlie" to "Alice": "Failed after 10 attempts".


What is going on?

It depends on what I want. If I don't want to be known that I have 0.01 BTC then I shouldn't keep it on one address. I should split them on x addresses (Maybe not 10 with 100k sats each, because it looks obvious that they're mine). If I don't care about being known, then it'd be cheaper to create only one output.

It's not a waste of transaction fees if you want better privacy.

Who keeps the private key(s) anyway? Why would you choose an enormous 256-bit WIF encoded number that gives access to only one address over a mnemonic in which you can derive as many as you want?

Since a full node connects with few nodes, I want to know how it is calculated that there were ~200k nodes running Bitcoin Core. Since there isn't a database that keeps every IP, the network is decentralized. The *only* thing I see as "database" is the connection count of vSeeds on chainparams.cpp:


If these vSeeds were added before v0.15.0, then they exist on almost every node of the network. Technically, they could count every different IP that connects with them with Bitcoin Core.

Hi, I'm new to the Lightning Network and I'd like to try it firstly with my favourite wallet, electrum, even if I haven't heard the best about its LN functionalities. I believe that this is the thread to discuss my problems/queries about it.

I've opened Electrum Testnet and I've enabled LN. I want to open a channel to transact some funds with my other wallet. Thus I have two electrum wallets opened. So I do create a transaction with an output of 0.003 tBTC to a multi-signature address. Correct me if I'm wrong but in order to spend from that address, two signatures are needed. One mine and one node's. That's why it is larger than the others. (?)


Okay so now I have broadcasted a transaction between me and the node. Anytime I can close it and return my money back. How can Charlie join this? Does he need to open his own channel? Or join mine? From my second wallet I generate a lightning address and I paste it on my first's "Pay to". Once I do, it probably decodes it to its HTLC form (256-bit in hex).

---

Once I click "Pay" it returns me this:

And that's reasonable. They probably have to connect somehow with "Bob" or in this case "STRANGESET". Excuse me if I wrote anything stupid. I'm new at this and I'm willful to fully understand it, just like I did with Bitcoin once I found out about it.

The major risk on cryptocurrencies is misinformation and lack of knowledge. This is generally what one should know. Every trader must fully understand what he/she's into. There isn't better investment than knowledge especially on this sector. The investor must understand that if he/she goes with the traditional-non-custodian way, there won't be such thing as "support" for refunds.

We educate ourselves and who knows. Maybe trading isn't our thing. 

I have seen this kind of services in the past too and I want to make you a question. How exactly am I going to confirm that you did it? I mean, this is not something I'll receive. It is a procedure that you will do and I have to trust you for telling me the truth. That you did it. Despite the fact that I don't know how and where you found all these people.

It's called miracle. I tend to call it "fraud".