Καλησπέρα σε όλους. Και για να το θεσω αλλιως ο τελικος τους στοχος ( maxis ) ειναι να δημιουργησουν την εντυπωση πως το PoW ειναι αποτυχημενο μοντελο , να φτασουν τους miners καποια στιγμη προ τετελεσμενων γεγονοτων που δε θα ειναι κερδοφοροι και να περασει το project στη ληθη
Άρα θεωρείς ότι οι maxis θέλουν να καταστρέψουν το bitcoin; Εγώ πάντως, που δεν είμαι bitcoin maximalist και είμαι απλώς bitcoin only, θεωρώ πως το PoW είναι το μοναδικό μοντέλο στο οποίο μπορεί να σταθεί το blockchain. Τωρα στο θεμα του CSW , δε με ενδιαφερει αν ειναι ο satoshi . Εχω διαβασει ολα τα posts του satoshi , εχω διαβασει σχεδον οτι υπαρχει για τον CSW και βλεπω πως υπαρχει μια συνεχεια στη λογικη . Αυτο που με ενδιαφερει ειναι πως το bsv ειναι πολυ πιο κοντα στο οραμα που ειχε ο δημιουργος . Αν εχω δικιο ή αδικο ο καιρος θα το δειξει . Σιγουρα παντως δεν ειναι η τιμη που θα δειξει αν η θεωρηση μου ειναι σωστη ή λαθος . Και το google σε καποια στιγμη κατα το dot.com bubble ήταν το outsider αλλα αποδειχθηκε πως ηταν η υπηρεσια που η κοινωνια χρειαζοταν σε αντιθεση με τις υπολοιπες μηχανες αναζητησης που πουλουσαν φυκια για μεταξωτες κορδελες ( οτι κανει το btc σημερα λεγοντας σου πως η τιμη ανταποκρινεται στην αξια του ) .
Συμφωνώ ότι δεν έχει καμία σημασία ποιος είναι ο satoshi. Θεωρώ πως σαν άνθρωποι πρέπει να είμαστε λίγο καχύποπτοι όταν κάποιος άγνωστος μας λέει κάτι. Όχι στον υπερθετικό βαθμό, αλλά ας μην πιστεύουμε τα πάντα. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, αδιαφορώντας για το ποιος έχει "δίκιο" ή "άδικο" και για να μην βασανίζουμε τα κεφάλια μας, εγώ θα αρχισω να θεωρώ σαν πιθανότητα -όχι να πιστέψω απαραίτητα- τον CSW μόνο όταν δω κρυπτογραφική απόδειξη ότι ελέγχει τα αρχικά blocks. Αν με ρωτάς, που δεν με ρωτάς και καλά κάνεις, θεωρώ πως δεν θα την δω ποτέ αυτή την απόδειξη. Ακαδημαϊκοι και προγραμματιστες , που δεν εχουν καμμια σχεση με την πραγματικη οικονομια βρηκαν ενα χωρο για να παιξουν ( ενω πληρωνονται βεβαια ) για να λυσουν προβληματα - πολυ πιθανον - αλυτα , καθυστερωντας μια τεχνολογια που θα αλλαξει τον κοσμο για να κανουν το χαβαλε τους γεμιζοντας παραλληλα τις τσεπες τους . Εννοειται πως για αυτους , οσο πιο πολυ καθυστερησουν να βρουν "λυσεις" τοσο καλυτερα . Βεβαια , ακομα και τωρα , η μαζα δε μπορει να αντιληφθει πως το δουλεμα που εφαγε δε θα οδηγησει πουθενα . Αλλωστε , αρκετοι απο αυτους διαφημιζουν τον εαυτο τους ως 80 iq plebs που απ'οτι φαινεται δεν απεχει και πολυ απο την πραγματικοτητα  . Κοίτα, σαν προγραμματιστής μιλώντας, η αλήθεια είναι πως βγάζουμε λεφτά για να λύνουμε προβλήματα τεχνολογικής φύσης. Το "άλυτα" το δείχνει πάντα το αποτέλεσμα της έρευνας και της δουλειάς. Δεν γίνεται χωρίς έρευνα να πας μπροστά σε κανέναν τομέα. Ο satoshi (ακόμα κι αν είναι ο CSW όπως αναφέρεις), ήταν σίγουρα ένας ακαδημαικός άνθρωπος με προγραμματιστικές γνώσεις. Είναι απαραίτητοι και οι ακαδημαϊκοι και οι προγραμματιστές, αλλιώς δεν θα είχαμε αυτό το forum να μιλάμε τώρα ή δεν θα είχε, τέλος πάντων, αυτή τη θεματολογία. Όσο για την ηθελημένη καθυστέρηση, δεν θέλω να πάρω θέση, όμως θα πω ότι διαφωνώ ριζικά με την αφοριστική γνώμη που αναφέρεις παραπάνω. Γενικά όπως προανέφερα, δεν θέλω να βασανίζω το μυαλό μου σκεπτόμενος θεωρίες. Πρακτικά πράγματα μόνο, δουλειά και έρευνα. Οπότε, το αν και το γιατί καθυστερούν οι devs να βρουν "λύσεις", εγώ το βλέπω αλλιώς. Βλέπω αντί αυτού, όλα εκείνα τα επιτεύγματα που πετυχαίνει η κοινότητα και χαίρομαι με τις μικρές επιτυχίες μας. Για παράδειγμα, ο δημιουργός του Zeus wallet είναι Έλληνας και έχουμε μιλήσει σε κάποια φάση (έστω και λίγο, κυρίως για να τον ευχαριστήσω). Τον θεωρώ πολύ αξιόλογο άνθρωπο που έφτιαξε μια εφαρμογή για να βοηθήσει στο adoption. Άλλο παράδειγμα είναι ο Craig Raw που έφτιαξε το Sparrow. Ετοιμάζω, και λογικά θα του στείλω ένα Merge Request για να δει σχετικά με τη χρήση των paynyms στην εφαρμογή. Αυτό που θέλω να πω είναι ότι αυτό που εσύ λες "βρηκαν χώρο να παίξουν", έχει και την οπτική που αναφέρω κι εγώ, όχι μόνο τη δική σου. Αντίστοιχα κάθε ένας από εμάς βάζει το λιθαράκι του και αυτό είναι το μαγικό πράγμα με το open source. Κυριολεκτικά όλοι μαζί, όσο καιρό κι αν πάρει, μπορούμε να κάνουμε πολλά όμορφα πράγματα. Στο σημείο αυτό να πω πως αν όντως θεωρείς το BSV καλύτερο, μπορείς να συνεισφέρεις κι εσύ για το BSV. Αυτά που λέω πάνω δεν ισχύουν μόνο για το Bitcoin, αλλά για οτιδήποτε παθιάζει τον καθένα. Εγω προσωπικά έχω εντελώς διαφορετική άποψη για το BSV, αλλά σέβομαι όποιον προσπαθεί για όσα θεωρεί σωστά. Και η προσπάθεια δεν βρίσκεται πίσω από αυτό το post. Η προσπάθεια κρύβεται πίσω από το "παιχνίδι" που αναφέρεις παραπάνω. Τέλος, το μόνο πράγμα που είναι αρκετά κακό με το LN, είναι ότι δεν υπάρχει πλουραλισμός στις επιλογές. Δυστυχώς για την ώρα έχουμε μόνο LND, CLN και Eclair. Εδώ η κοινότητα θέλει δουλειά ακόμα. |
|
|
|
Also striking is the fact that you only need to put in the person's paynym ID and the wallet will generate a unique recipient address for the receiver to get the funds. It reduces the stress of having to type the address yourself and the risk of sending to the wrong address (1), thereby making the whole transaction process very less complicated and safe. And from my observation, Sparrow is a decentralized wallet. (2)
(1) I hope you don't actually write the address letter by letter  Addresses should be copy - pasted and then re-checked. But, using a paynym is much easier, yes. (2) Sparrow is my favorite wallet and the most "accurate", because it explains the whole transaction proccess properly. It has signing and broadcasting in separate steps (just an example). Many thanks for this piece.
Glad it helped. If you wanna try it, we could play a bit, exchanging paynyms and such. Perhaps not on this topic but we can talk about it. Cheers |
|
|
|
Ook sorry! Maybe, but it still creates a two tier system which is bad for bitcoin on the whole, even if I never interact with any of these custodial services.
I have the same point of view but I try to also understand people who will prefer buying ETFs rather than self custody bitcoin. Anyway, my point is nothing forces us to interact with those services. At least I hope so |
|
|
|
Actually owning your own bitcoin won't be allowed
which will give more value to the BTC you actually own. If you want no traces left in the fiat system, then cash in person is the best way to do it, yes. I've done this for years. It works well.
not very easy, at least not everywhere on the planet. the share holders just buy and sell shares into and out of fiat. without ever touching bitcoin
so? why can't they freely do so if the wish? I mean it's their problem after all. Meanwhile, we can hold our own keys and keep doing what we want. |
|
|
|
|
By the way, I have tried something more.
I have added my Cold PubKey on Sparrow and I have set my PostMix UTXOs to automatically send there after several rounds of mixing.
More specifically I have:
1. imported my XPUB on another wallet in Sparrow
2. gone to the Postmix UTXO tab in my hot wallet and pressed "mixing to..." button. I have set a value of 20 mixes. This translates to "send to the other wallet once the utxo has 20 mixes or more".
Using those steps above you can literally set it and forget it.
The only thing you have to do is send funds to a Deposit address and the whole process is done automatically.
|
|
|
|
if the name will be visible too then all addresses can easily be linked to it then which defeats privacy or isn't that way?.
possibly, but I guess you aren't refering to the BIP47, right? Because BIP47 doesn't allow address linking. |
|
|
|
If you think about it, nothing is really anonymous on the web. As o_e_l_e_o said above, monero has a bounty of $625,000 if it gets cracked. If it gets hacked indeed, can you imagine how bad it will be for its reputation? Essentially the chain will be worthless. So, creating a fully anonymous blockchain is also risky for this reason. Imagine Bitcoin, claiming to be anonymous, but getting hacked. Satoshi didn't want to take away anonymity. He seemed to love anonymity. I suspect he was unable to fully guarrantee anonimity and therefore, he chose pseudonimity. Personal opinion, of course. |
|
|
|
I didn't notice this topic. but if the price of electricity is 20 cents, then mining is not your business. The price of Bitcoin must increase 4-5 times, and the difficulty must not increase, in order for it to be profitable to mine with 20 cents per kilowatt. But I don’t think we will see this.
I agree. I have stopped thinking about it. I just left the topic open in case anyone wants to express an opinion. But yeah, 20 cents is too high for considering mining. |
|
|
|
By the way, yesterday I failed to close my long position. I contacted the devs. They found a bug. And they told me they can close my position from their side if I wish.
I was surprised that they are able to close our positions unilaterally. It means that everyone who uses 10101’s “synthetic dollar” has to trust to its “issuer”, because 10101 can close at any time the short position by which the synthetic dollars are backed.
Sounds concerning, but it is the same case with every trading platform. I believe the "self-sovereign" title only refers to the fact that you control your bitcoin keys and buy straight into your own wallet. |
|
|
|
Don't you think the conversation has gone out of the general board's theme? I suggest we keep talking about the analytics and avoid posts regarding society in general. If you didn't know it, Monero full nodes need to keep all the outputs and be able to efficiently index them, whereas in Bitcoin, you only need to keep UTXOs.
No I didn't, thanks for clarifying that. I don't think satoshi wanted to create a fully anonymous chain, even though your posts are accurate and he seems to be in favor of total anonymity. |
|
|
|
Make one of these backups out of metal, such as steel backup, because with all the geopolitical variables, fires, floods, disturbances, earthquakes, or wars may occur, and therefore it is better to keep one of the options from steel backup, as paper will not help you in such things.
Well, the reason I don't suggest metal is: 1. Too much hassle and more expensive. 2. The possibility of 2 out of 4 backups being destroyed at the same time is extremely low. 3. In case of fire or flood, I prefer my backup to be totally destroyed, rather than not. If it survives, who know who will capture it. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't call it an art. It's just business. Just like "taint", it's a "solution" looking for a problem. Once they convince people there is a problem, they have buyers for their "solution".
I don't think "taint" is an actual problem, but I believe it is our right to try to erase traces of previously owned bitcoin. That said, I am not afraid whether my coins will be accepted or not, I just want to "confuse" anyone trying to identify how I got my coins and from whom, because I don't think it's anyone's business to know. |
|
|
|
2. Generate a wallet on the offline computer and write down the provided seed phrase.
Write it down twice. Add a passphrase on top of the wallet. A strong passphrase, not something like "passphrase123". Write down the passphrase twice. This will leave you with 4 different backups (Seed backup 1, Seed backup 2, Passphrase backup 1, Passphrase backup 2). Store all those 4 backups in separate locations. Why do I say all that? Because using airgapped devices is absolutely essential for safety, but they don't guarrantee money-loss due to human error. So, do as I say to make sure you eliminate single points of failure. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core's estimate is much higher than needed for the purpose of this topic. Look at this graph, hover your mouse on the right, and see what fees were not high enough to be included in the past few hours. Thank you. I am not sure how to read the graph though. Is there a topic in this forum I could look into? I will search myself, but if you know one, please provide it to me. |
|
|
|
In blockchain you can prove if you're innocent or not . Your transactions are the evidence . If you decide to take the route of anonymity you deprive yourself from the evidence you have . Bitcoin ( as it was supposed to work ) provides you with a high level of privacy , but not anonymity . If you are looking to be an anon you should better move to other chains . Bitcoin by default will not provide that .
I will leave the rest of the conversation aside, because I want to talk about it Bitcoin in this board. Bitcoin provides pseudonimity, not anonymity. To be honest though, there are too many implementations that will help you make tracing difficult (or even infeasible): Bitcoin mixers, coinjoins, coin swapping, lightning swapping, selling for cash, buying with cash Even though transaction history is available to everyone, if you just coinjoin properly, then there is absolutely no way for anyone to know for sure which path your original UTXO has taken. I think being pseudonymous is a feature, not a flaw. In fact, there is no real anonymity on the internet. At the end of the day it is only a question of how well you can hide. |
|
|
|
After several days of fees around 20+ sat/vbyte, at the moment 2.1 sat/vbyte is likely to get you a quick confirmation. I guess it was Bitcoin's quick price increase that lead to an increase in transaction numbers.
Are you sure about these fees? I wanted to consolidate some UTXOs but my node estimates a quick confirmation for 15+ sat/vb |
|
|
|
Who knows? Maybe because it doesn't promise 1000% returns like most of the scam shitcoins people buy. There are no shitty ICOs or tokens or ordinals or other nonsense built on Monero. Or maybe because people who use Monero aren't super vocal about it. And there is zero media presence for Monero - governments and blockchain analysis companies don't like it, so centralized exchanges won't advertise it and the big sponsored crypto sites don't talk about it. And there was no pre-mine for the creators to splash on advertising campaigns or similar.
I will quote you by enumerating what you said: 1. it doesn't promise 1000% returns like most of the scam shitcoins
2. no shitty ICOs or tokens or ordinals or other nonsense
3. zero media presence for Monero
4. governments and blockchain analysis companies don't like it
5. centralized exchanges won't advertise it
Sounds good to me!!! Sounds like monero has achieved what they wanted. Sounds like "Monero above all", when it comes to privacy. |
|
|
|
There are standardized processes for a reason. Just use them.
Simple as that. Additionally, those methods are ultra safe (if used properly). Custom methods are created to be safer, but they significantly decrease safety! |
|
|
|
Yes. The US government posted bounties of $625,000 for cracking Monero, which were not claimed, and no blockchain analysis company advertises Monero break services. The government (so far) are unable to break Monero, provided you use it properly.
I downloaded monero (not the full blockchain), out of curiousity. I used it through coin exchange in order to get rid of some UTXOs. My question remains: why is monero not very widespread? I would argue, according to all the comments and posts I have seen, that monero is a "good" coin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
