Well, thank you. Now that we have all this info, we can compare it with how many of them got sick from the vaccine, and for how long, and how many other things they caught that they wouldn't have gotten.
Certainly. Please provide a link to the data which show millions of people "catching other things" because of the vaccine. I'm sure you have those data to hand. No way you are just making stuff up, right!?  |
|
|
|
This probably really does have some meaning to somebody somewhere. But by the time we figure out what the meaning is, and compare it with all the sideways potential and possible meanings, it'l be the 25th century. Documented infections - 46% reduction after 1 dose, 92% after 2 doses Symptomatic infections - 57% reduction after 1 dose, 94% after 2 doses Hospitalizations - 74% reduction after 1 dose, 87% after 2 doses Severe disease - 62% reduction after 1 dose, 92% after 2 doses Don't confuse your inability to understand the science as meaning the science is somehow flawed or inaccurate. The facts are very clear. |
|
|
|
and the carbon footprint of mining is currently the size of Argentina's.
What is your source for this? The world is not going to watch idly as the last % of bitcoins are being mined with an energy budget larger than Europe's.
Much worse things than bitcoin mining are done with much more energy consumption than bitcoin mining, and the majority of people don't seem to care. Regardless, energy consumption is an irrelevant metric. All these headlines about "Bitcoin uses more electricity than *insert nation here*" are completely missing the point, not to mention usually deeply flawed in their calculations. Carbon dioxide production is a far more important metric. It doesn't matter if bitcoin contributes to 10% of the global electricity consumption if all that electricity is from renewable sources. What we do know is the following: Bitcoin mining uses around three quarters renewable energy, which is 4x higher than the global average. Bitcoin mining subsidizes the growth and development of renewable energy projects by acting as a buyer of last resort for electricity which would otherwise be wasted. |
|
|
|
In this case, the person can scam you only if he can implement 51% attack or in the unlikely event we have a block reorganization (i.e another block has been mined simultaneously)
Note that once a transaction receives the first confirmation, it no longer matters if it was RBF-enabled or not.
It does matter if it was RBF or not in the context of a chain reorganization. Let's say the transaction was included in one mined block, and therefore had one confirmation when checked on a specific block explorer. However, it was not included in a competing block at the same height. If the transaction was RBF enabled, then it becomes trivial to replace it in the mempool of nodes working on the second block in which it still is unconfirmed. As you say, RBF makes no difference in the context of a 51% attack, since the attacker can freely choose to replace their non RBF transaction with a competing transaction anyway.
I would agree that the second scenario is more dangerous than the first. Once we have one confirmation, then reversal depends on having a significant percentage of the hashrate (but does not require 51% to be a possibility), or a chain reorg. With zero confirmations, there could already be a competing transaction sitting in some nodes' mempools. After 2 hours, the transaction is highly unlikely to still be within 1 vMB of the tip, and with current mempool activity could take days to confirm. It could drop without confirming at all. It could be purged due to higher fee transactions. The other party could pay miners to try to include a different transaction. |
|
|
|
We have discussed many times here that no covid-19 vaccine is reliable and we should avoid it.
False. Largest study to date of 1.2 million people confirms Pfizer's vaccine is 94% effective: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765 |
|
|
|
It maybe okay for someone who trade in hundreds but what if we are going to trade in thousands of dollars too often, we are risking our identity to someone so they know how much money we are making in such time intervals. You can trade peer to peer using various online fiat accounts, in which all the other person sees is a name. Unless you have a very unique name and are very careless with splashing it all over the internet alongside your other personal details, a name alone is not enough to identify you. If that is too much, then you can trade in cash. Wearing a full face mask and hat or a ski mask is now socially acceptable thanks to the pandemic, and so makes it easy to hide your face and identity. You are also at rick of getting kidnaped for such reasons.
If you are meeting in person, then do it somewhere public with security cameras, such as a large shopping mall or transport hub. Take a friend with you. You are going to spend more money to do such trades than trading on online platforms and the list goes on...
I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. At best, I can pay the fees for a single transaction to trade peer to peer. At best using a centralized exchange, I have to pay the fees for a deposit transaction, pay the trading fee, and pay the withdrawal fee. |
|
|
|
You're ignoring the fact that one input transaction adds much more in terms of transaction size than one output transaction.
True, but they only need to consolidate once. If they consolidate 100 inputs in to one output, then they can move that output in and out of cold storage, between hot wallets, pay employees with it, and so on, all with very small (in terms of vbytes) transactions. So even giving them a generous 5 transactions per withdrawal, and giving them a generous average of how many vbytes each withdrawal would contribute to those 5 transactions, there is no way to spin it where Binance are not making significant profits on these fees. As you said yourself, if they were paying these transactions out of their own pocket, then they wouldn't recklessly and consistently be overpaying by thousands of dollars. |
|
|
|
But how do you perform such trades?
By directly sending money to each other. If you are trading without an escrow, then one person sends fiat to the other via something like a bank transfer, PayPal, cash, etc., and the other person sends bitcoin back. If using an escrow, then the bitcoin seller deposits the bitcoin to the escrow, the buyer transfers the fiat, and then the seller releases coins from the escrow. Some platforms like Bisq go one step further with the escrow, requiring both parties to make a security deposit of bitcoin, and making the escrow trustless by using a 2-of-2 multisig between buyer and seller. Localbitcoin is one of the most preferred p2p platform who is exist in the market for very long time.
LocalBitcoins used to be a good platform, but now requires just as much KYC as any other centralized exchange, and also requires you to give up custody of your coins by sending them to their wallets. There are endless reports of customers being locked out of their accounts and unable to access their coins. They are completely centralized, and best avoided. |
|
|
|
That's possible because they consolidate their inputs in other transactions Sure, there are transactions to consolidate coins, transactions between hot and cold wallets, general transactions between addresses, etc., all happening in the background, but even if we say that for every individual user who makes a withdrawal there are 5 more transactions happening in the background (which seems very generous, considering that one withdrawal transaction with 100 outputs would allow for 500 more background transactions) paying the same high fees, you are still looking at 20,000 sats profit per individually withdrawal. When that was equivalent to <$1 it wasn't such a big deal. Now that is equivalent to $10 it is ridiculous. There are other much smaller exchanges which charge much smaller withdrawal fees. For Binance to continue with these high fees is pure profiteering. They also pay too much for their consolidating transaction, they could easily have saved a thousands dollar on this. They must really earn a lot if they don't care about this. Yeah, I've also mentioned this before. The fact that they continue to pay much higher fees than necessary, and continue to use legacy, means they are quite happy to keep ripping their customers off and pocketing the difference. |
|
|
|
We should ask o-e-l-e-o how he knows those two. I plead the fifth! Usually Carol is the third party to Alice and Bob. They spent 0.00510973 BTC as transaction fee for 100 customers (outputs) even with fee rate at 149 satoshis/vbyte.
And yet they still charge 0.0005 BTC for a withdrawal. So even when fees are this high, they are still making around 0.00045 BTC per customer per withdrawal. That's $20! What a complete rip off. |
|
|
|
The 2 places I know of that give an indication of what the "mempool min fee" likely to being currently used by default nodes You can also see this on Jochen's site by using the "BTC (default mempool)" option at the top, rather than the "BTC" option. It is quite nice to be able to compare the two and see just how much is being purged from default nodes. At the moment it is about 125 vMB of transactions.  |
|
|
|
You understand that the groups of people that we want to take the vaccine right now are those that have a very high chance of death if they were to get Covid?
Incredibly basic concepts like the one you have stated here have been explained to BADecker multiple times. It's a concept so basic - that high risk people get vaccinated first - that a preschooler could understand it. BADecker's continued inability to grasp concepts like this should prompt everyone to ignore his nonsensical ramblings. |
|
|
|
|
You stated that the immune system, in relation to "viruses", is 100% effective.
So are you instead claiming that no one without a pre-existing condition has ever died from COVID?
|
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious that most people seem to be myopic and believe the media propaganda. I don't believe anything. I understand why the science is correct. You don't have to be Einstein to be aware that the human immune system knows more about viruses than any modern doctors, and it is 100% effective in healthy people.
What? Are you claiming that no one without a pre-existing condition has died from an infection ever? |
|
|
|
Not the first time I've seen a user do this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5283810.0Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that mods will ban users for this behavior. You should alert the campaign manager in question though, as any half decent one will immediately kick this user from their campaign. |
|
|
|
|
To add to nc50lc's reply above:
Your current transaction is 521 vbytes and pays 5,190 sats in fees. If you send your change output to another legacy address you control, this transaction will be in the region 192 vbytes, giving a total of 713 vbytes. Currently, to get confirmed quickly you need to pay around 40 sats/vbyte, which would be 28,520 sats in total. This means your CPFP transaction would need to pay 23,330 sats in total for the fee, which would be a rate of around 122 sats/vbyte.
Obviously this could all change at any time depending on what the mempool does.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't use blockchain.com for this reason. Its fee calculations have been incorrect ever since segwit was introduced and they still haven't bothered to fix it. Instead use blockchair.com and read the fee in sats/vbyte.
Sats per weight unit is the real measurement, but it is often easier to think in sats per vbyte, which is different by a factor of 4 in all cases, regardless of legacy or segwit. A fee of 1 sat per weight unit is the same as a fee of 4 sats per vbyte. Sats per byte is completely inaccurate since it takes no account of witness data.
Miners also work in sats per weight unit or vbyte, since this allows them to maximize their profits, but it also depends on what site you are using to look at the mempool. The main ones - jochen-hoenicke.de and mempool.space - use sats/vbyte like they should.
|
|
|
|
for p2p trading. I nowadays use Binance only. before I used localbitcoins. but they put a lot of restrictions and regulations in their platform. a normal crypto person cannot simply use that anymore. but binance recently started p2p trading. and that works like charm for me. I just hope they won't put any restriction on that too. Neither Binance nor LBC are a good choice for a peer to peer exchange. Both are completely centralized, both take custody of your coins, and both still require KYC. I don't understand why anyone would accept all this to trade peer to peer. If you don't care about your privacy or security like this, then you might as well just trade on a traditional centralized exchange. you need to have your coins in a non custodial wallet when you do p2p trade directly with a person. but using a p2p trading platform like LBC or Binance. I don't think it is possible to do that. you must deposit them to your account there first
That's not the case for a real decentralized exchange such as Bisq. Your coins are never deposited to their platform. They remain in your own wallet until you send them to the 2-of-2 multi-sig escrow between buyer and seller. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
