The most common method for producing crypto-assets requires enormous amounts of electricity and generates large CO2 emissions.
That statement is false. Bitcoin mining does not generate CO 2 emissions. We therefore call for:
1. The EU to consider an EU-level ban on the energy-intensive mining method proof of work. There are other methods for mining crypto-assets, that could also be used for Bitcoin and Ethereum, that are estimated to reduce energy consumption by 99.95% with maintained functionality.
2. Sweden to meanwhile introduce measures that halt the continued establishment of crypto-mining production using energy-intensive methods.
3. That companies who trade and invest in crypto-assets, that were mined using the proof of work method, cannot be allowed to describe or market themselves or their activities as sustainable.
They should ban manufacturing, and then they should ban exports of electricity. Manufacturing uses 27% of all the electricity in Sweden and Sweden exports 21% of its electricity. Those two categories consume 80 times the electricity used for crypto mining and Sweden can cut it carbon footprint in half by banning just those two categories. |
|
|
|
|
It also takes time. Continue participating and you will soon move up. I don't know the exact requirements, but they are posted somewhere on this site.
|
|
|
|
So, during the Facebook Connect event Mark Zuckerberg made it clear that there will be a free NFT and crypto market on the Metaverse.
This made me think about investing in porn cryptos like: CumRocket
...
The important question is, "what makes these coins any better than Bitcoin or some other established coin?" Is it just the name? Porn-related coins are not new. They come and go. I challenge you to find any of the dozens started in 2013 that are still going. BTW, that applies to all coins with a theme -- cannabis, taxis, solar energy, etc... |
|
|
|
Both fiat money and cryptocurrency are equally important. Each one has its individual function,
It is not possible to give precedence over one to another. In many cases, we must have to use Fiat Money, cause there is no alternative. For example, you know that in the case of cryptocurrency, chargeback is not possible, once the payment is broadcasted, there is no way to get it back. We need chargeback for banking transactions and our daily transactions. So in this case you must have to use Fiat Money.
There is nothing that fiat money can do that cryptocurrency cannot. There is no reason why you cannot have chargebacks with a cryptocurrency. The process may not be integral to the cryptocurrency itself (just as it is not with fiat money), but it can be implemented in a payment system built on top of the cryptocurrency. For example, there is no reason why the Lightning Network could not include a chargeback system (though I doubt it ever will). |
|
|
|
FYI, I don't think that is my address (I don't remember creating it). I don't know why someone would use "odolvlobo ozono" for a brain wallet, except that they noticed the words in a post and thought they were obscure enough to use. Apparently not. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is money that can be sent to anyone anywhere at any time without the need for a trusted third party.
|
|
|
|
I agree that even a 1 minute block time is not short enough in your particular scenario, but certainly a shorter block time is better in general, even if it isn't a "solution".
I would disagree with this. If you reduce block time, you need to proportionally increase the number of confirmations for the same level of security. For example, 1 confirmation now would be 10 confirmations @ 1 minute block time... That's true, but the key is that there is a huge difference between no confirmation (no security) and 1 confirmation (some security), especially with RBF, and even with a shorter block time. |
|
|
|
The only similarity between CBDCs and crypto currency is that most CDBC are built on the Blockchain network but they presence of the third party involvement has discredited it from been a cryptocurrency. CBDC is just a digital fiat currency that is created to easy or fasten transaction digitally but not with the mind of replacing fiat it serves basically as a compliment.
As far as I know, CBDC is just a digital version of the fiat currency we all know. They are an evolution of what we have now.
I believe they will be faster and cheaper to transfer (international transfers are slow and expensive), they will be easier to use.
All fiat currencies are digital in nature, and I don't know of any CBDC that uses or plans to use a block chain. My understanding is that the difference between a fiat currency and its CBDC variation is simply the payment system. Compared to a legacy transaction being handled by banks, a CBDC transaction is handled by the central bank directly. |
|
|
|
Shortening the block time will never be a solution for faster transactions.
The most common scenario to need a fast confirmation is a physical point of sale transaction - where I am in a store in person, paying for goods at a cashier. These sales need to take place within seconds. Even a minute is too long to wait for a busy cashier with a queue of people waiting to pay.
I agree that even a 1 minute block time is not short enough in your particular scenario, but certainly a shorter block time is better in general, even if it isn't a "solution". I don't know what the optimal block time is when considering downside of stale blocks, but I bet it is much less than ten minutes. And with improved communications in the future, the optimal time could become very short -- less than a minute. Maybe we could shorten the block time now to 1 minute in order to prepare for the future. |
|
|
|
However, your proposal to limit the amount in an address does nothing to prevent whales from selling large quantities of the coin.
How? They won't have large quantities after the hard fork date. Yes, they will. addresses holding 1-10 bitcoins will have 63% of all of the coins. Furthermore, there is nothing that prevents people from accumulating large numbers of coins (as they have in the past) and selling them. After the freeze: Balance, BTC % Coins
(0 - 0.001) 0.14%
[0.001 - 0.01) 1.34%
[0.01 - 0.1) 7.19%
[0.1 - 1) 28.40%
[1 - 10) 62.93%
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I get it. You are making a new coin forked from Bitcoin.
However, your proposal to limit the amount in an address does nothing to prevent whales from selling large quantities of the coin.
|
|
|
|
First, let's go to the real issue: your proposal to limit the amount in an address does nothing to prevent whales from selling large quantities of bitcoins. A person with 10000 BTC spread among 1000 addresses can still send all of those bitcoins to an exchange and sell them all at once. And now let me show you how the implementation is problematic: You wrote that they couldn't move their bitcoins because the hard fork would occur in the past. I'm saying that doing a hard fork in the past is not feasible.
The hard fork will happen in the future, but the wallet of the new fork will check all blocks after block 708077, if the tx outputs are valid. My opinion: it will work. The hard fork happens at a specific block in the block chain regardless of when nodes start checking, so your hard fork would be at block 708077 regardless of when the change is actually implemented because it is at block 708077 where the rules change. Here is an example of the problem of a hard fork in the past: A. I have an address with 100 BTC and I send 1 BTC from it to an exchange in block 708078. B. Then, someone sends BTC from the exchange through Bitpay to CheapAir to buy airline tickets. C. Then, Bitpay sells the BTC to someone. D. Then, the person that bought the BTC sends it to Bitrefill to buy gift cards. E. Then, BitRefill ... At a later date, you freeze my 100 BTC and invalidate transaction A in block 708078. As a result, transactions B, C, D, E, and so on will also be invalidated because they all are linked to transaction A. What happens to all those other people whose transactions are invalidated simply because my transaction was invalidated? Also, how quickly do you think that the new rules can be implemented? Every day that it takes to switch to the new rules after block 708077 means another 144 previously valid blocks are later invalidated. The reorg could take down the network for days! Also, are miners going to mine any blocks after 708077 knowing that their block rewards will be invalidated at a later date? |
|
|
|
- Energy prices are getting more expensive as we can all see now, so for Bitcoin mining to be profitable bitcoin prices needs to go up otherwise it becomes unprofitable and miners will leave the bitcoin network making the bitcoin network less secure and vulnerable to 51% hack attacks correct?
As energy prices go up, hash rate may decline. However, the hash rate is arbitrary. It is the cost of mining the provides the security. - A drop in hash rate makes btc mining more easy attracting new miners to join the btc network to secure the network however what if the smart grid 2.0 detects and stops new bitcoin miners joining the btc network?
Would the "smart grid 2.0" just be in the U.S., or world-wide? If the ban is in certain countries, then miners will move to other countries. It's hard to say what a world-wide ban on mining would do, or if it is likely or even possible. - The governments around the world are pushing their agendas for to stop global warming and bringing up ESG regulations. When this time comes then how can bitcoin miners mine bitcoin off the grid?
Just like electric vehicles, Bitcoin gets its power from the electricity providers. It is up to the providers to decide whether or not to burn carbon. - Energy/Power rationing is happening around the world now in many countries due to high energy rising costs where governments have to ration energy usage in their own countries to decide who gets the power. They allow essential hospitals and airports to get the electricity but what about bitcoin miners?
Rationing is about setting priorities. I doubt that Bitcoin would have any priority at this time in most places, so mining would probably be restricted in countries that are rationing. However, that doesn't prevent miners from moving to other countries (as they did when China banned mining). |
|
|
|
People can move their bitcoins between now and when the hard fork occurs. Creating a hard fork in the past will invalidate all the blocks between then and now, and cause a major disruption. It will never happen.
Most coins < 10 BTC won't be moved until the hard fork date. And if someone moves the coins to addresses with balances < 10 BTC they will be valid. I'm confused. You are proposing "freezing" all addresses with more than 10 BTC. I'm saying that won't work because people with addresses holding more than 10 BTC will just spread them out to more addresses, and nothing will change other than now there is an artificial limit on the number bitcoins at an address. You wrote that they couldn't move their bitcoins because the hard fork would occur in the past. I'm saying that doing a hard fork in the past is not feasible. |
|
|
|
You are confusing addresses with people. They are not the same thing.
Your plan will not work. For example, a person could simply move their 10000 BTC in a single address to 1000 addresses with 10 BTC each (before your freeze).
Your plan is not fair. Why penalize the people who have accumulated bitcoins?
How many users have done this? Now they can't do it in this fork. ... and "freeze" all bigger wallets after block 708077 (03/Nov/2021)
People can move their bitcoins between now and when the hard fork occurs. Creating a hard fork at block 708077 will invalidate all the blocks between then and now, and cause a major disruption. It will never happen. |
|
|
|
You are confusing addresses with people. They are not the same thing. Your fear of whales selling large numbers of bitcoins is overblown. It is not a serious issue. It is certainly not serious enough to warrant such a drastic action that includes confiscation. Regardless, your plan will not work. For example, a whale could simply move their 10000 BTC in a single address to 1000 addresses with 10 BTC each (before your freeze). Your plan is not fair. Why penalize the people who have accumulated bitcoins?  |
|
|
|
if they are connected , and if and only iff there are in not less than one output on each address, you can recalculate all privatekeys belongs to them.
yes, but I'm talking that there are possibilities take the first privatekey from the first addres, but only then if from rest address are minimal one output:)
What do the number of outputs have to do with it? Don't leave us in suspense. Please tell us how you can determine their private keys. |
|
|
|
Rather simple. You start in reverse meaning instead of adding random public keys to the starting pubkey, you find the final key and then start working your way backwards by subtracting the pub key (of the private key you already have) from the starting public key (which you don't have the private key of). Oh duh. That is pretty simple. You only sign with the summed private key, so that is the only one you actually need to know. The rest of the addresses are done by finding any public keys that add up to the summed public key (after subtracting the satoshi keys) and have the appropriate second letters in the address. |
|
|
|
|
Do you really think that your database is better? There is more to a database than how to organize the files.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
