Does anyone here really utilize these online crypto casinos to place bets in bitcoin and have you had much luck with it? What have you found to give you the best odds in winning? Is there any skill involved in any of their games or is it all purely chance?
It probably depends on the game. For instance, when there's a high house edge, especially in games like roulette, it's pretty much considered a luck-based game. That means you don't need skills to win; you just have to be lucky. Now, if you're thinking about expecting consistent wins, well, I'd say that's a bit delusional and unrealistic. Just because you experience a win doesn't mean you'll win the next time. Most of the time, the house edge ends up being the winner, and we're not on that side. The "skill" in playing casino games is to make yourself lose less than what you would have actually lost if you continued playing. I mainly play Craps, which could be played by using "strategies", but because of the house edge, all Craps players are long term losers regardless of the strategy used. If you are in any profit after playing your whole deposit, then consider it lucky day. IE if you deposit $100.00 and play Craps for $1.00 per throw for 100 throws, after going through your $100.00 and you have at least $1.00 profit, you withdraw no matter how you feel and do it again the next day. I guess games can vary a lot from one another. When you mention a "house edge," it becomes really tough to come out ahead in the long run. Even in games with a house edge of less than 1%, winning consistently can feel almost impossible. Sure, there are those moments of luck when we stop and enjoy our winnings, but more often than not, we find ourselves back at it the next day, and sadly, the outcome tends not to be the same all the time so we lose. It's precisely why, in my opinion, "the skill" in casino games is in trying to "lose less than what you probably would have lost", and preserve capital to have enough to play for the next day. If you're going to lose because of house edge, try to lose slower and lose less. You could get a lucky streak and win back all of your losses, or probably come out a winner.
Now, when it comes to skills, poker and sports betting are a different story. I do believe it's possible to win in these areas. What do you think?
There are research papers that say a person has a higher probability to get out in profit from playing casino games than from trading.   |
|
|
|
Are these newbie shills paid by zkSNACKs or is zkSNACKs behind those accounts? This entire thread is becoming a mess.
I believe not, that would be too obvious. If someone is playing 4D Chess, it would probably an entity that's against zkSNACKs paying those shills and have the posters of the topic blame it on zkSNACKs? 🤔
It's an advantage to have access to all of the open source code for Wasabi wallet but we don't know what's happening to data inside zkSNACKs servers so independent audits would've reassured Wasabi Wallet users.
I can only speak for the protocol that Wasabi wallet uses but based on that, there is not much personal information that the coordinator could leak. So although I do not approve what zkSNACKs is doing, if the protocol works as explained in docs, they cannot compromise the users' privacy apart from sharing UTXO that participates in coinjoin. An audit would be useful to know if the protocol works exactly as explained. Plus an audit to the blockchain analysis companies that filter the UTXOs. The users should be given the right to refute the "true positives" flagged by them. Because if it can't be refuted, then it's not credible. How would the users know that they're not pulling data arbitrarily. |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Spiral: Halving cycle is interesting. It summarizes past cycles, the current one and future ones as well. With multiplier x10 between two consecutive circles, it is easily to see Bitcoin growth through some cycles but with slower growth rate for future halving cycles, I think we will have to wait some more halvings to see Bitcoin price reaches $1M. Cycle repeat from Charts.bitbo.io has a price projection for Bitcoin next bull run after 2024 halving. I know projection is not correct but let's see how the projection is. According to it, if the historic cycle repeats itself, a next all time high can be around $180,000 to $200,000 in late of 2025, about one year and a half after 2024 April halving. The progress of 2024 halving is about 85% done. The latest block is 809,891 and a block where halving happens is 840,000. Counting down only 30,509 more blocks till the 2024 halving. Add this to OP.  I'm not posting that to say that Satoshi had the foresight to have implemented the halving to happen together with the boom and bust cycles that were caused by the Federal Reserve's policies. BUT if he truly did it because he had an idea WHEN the Federal Reserve would actually turn the money printer on and off, then the hypothesis behind the halving has to be one of the most brilliant "theories" put into practice. |
|
|
|
Does anyone here really utilize these online crypto casinos to place bets in bitcoin and have you had much luck with it? What have you found to give you the best odds in winning? Is there any skill involved in any of their games or is it all purely chance?
It probably depends on the game. For instance, when there's a high house edge, especially in games like roulette, it's pretty much considered a luck-based game. That means you don't need skills to win; you just have to be lucky. Now, if you're thinking about expecting consistent wins, well, I'd say that's a bit delusional and unrealistic. Just because you experience a win doesn't mean you'll win the next time. Most of the time, the house edge ends up being the winner, and we're not on that side. The "skill" in playing casino games is to make yourself lose less than what you would have actually lost if you continued playing. I mainly play Craps, which could be played by using "strategies", but because of the house edge, all Craps players are long term losers regardless of the strategy used. If you are in any profit after playing your whole deposit, then consider it lucky day. IE if you deposit $100.00 and play Craps for $1.00 per throw for 100 throws, after going through your $100.00 and you have at least $1.00 profit, you withdraw no matter how you feel and do it again the next day. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is always my first choice to receive payment from my freelancing work, while most of the person or agencies what I work with could pay in few of them aren't and they use paypal. Compared to PayPal, the time from which they pay up to I received it in my local currency, Bitcoin is a lot faster since the transfer doesn't wait for working hours, it's 24/7, and the fee is much cheaper. More of that compared to a couple years ago, more people and agencies can pay in Bitcoin now.
I'm nitpicking, but Bitcoin can't be compared to a consumer app like PayPal, because if PayPal or a simple fund transfer is available and easy to convert to OP's local currency then that would be more efficient. BUT if there's no other way to send OP's salary, and because there was a gap left in the market, then Bitcoin is the only network that could fill the gap. It's just like the Dark Markets buyers and sellers, no bank or payment processor will service it, therefore there's Bitcoin. Or the ransomware market - banks, credit cards and centralized payment processors will never provide service, therefore ransomware hackers use Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Plus was the community ignoring him from 2016 to 2018? It was a nocoiner friend of mine that texted me that "Satoshi's real identity was discovered" after early news of Gavin Andresen and Faketoshi's "private signing sessions" was everywhere during 2016. That's probably when the community started talking about him.
That's why I said half way though 2016, by June his claims were well and truly debunked and dead in the Bitcoin community. He went on to sucker bcashers for a while. The name that never gets mentioned is, Jon Matonis. How important is he in the anti-Bitcoin apparatus launched by Faketoshi?
He was briefly nChain's CEO but dropped out. I tried contacting him several times after trying to see if he had changed his position, including forwarding him posts by Wright fraudulently claiming to be involved in the formation of the Bitcoin foundation (which Jon would have known first hand was a lie) but I heard nothing in response. If he's still involved he's in deep cover. Last I heard he was backing Samurai Wallet. I hope they wouldn't accept funding from/through someone involved with faketoshi. I hope not to weaponize one of Bitcoin's most popular CoinJoin apps against it. Tin-foil hat on, but knowing what the BCash SV people's Modus Operandi, they will probably try to co-opt the Samourai developers. I believe they successfully did it to Nassim Taleb, because why would a smart man like him join Craig Wright? 🤔 Plus, Craig Wright likes to sue people that have admin control/own webservers' that host the Bitcoin white-paper for "intellectual rights violations", no? He should sue Patrick McHenry. https://mchenry.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bitcoin.pdfBreaking down political barriers. |
|
|
|
Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just [edited out]
Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork? I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi, Then why not simply use the Lightning Network? .. or justifiable as potentially something that might be a good thing... It may not matter that much what lightning network does as long as it is not incompatible with the main chain in terms of how many BTC had been recognized.. but sure, we might say, that we do not need more than 8 digits if we can transact on the lightning network for smaller units, but that still does not seem to address the 2048 issue in which mining rewards will go down to 9 digits, and so should that value smaller than 8 digits be recognized or ignored? That's with the presumption that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar. How can we call something "justified" if merely based on a presumption? We hard-fork/take the risk of a hard-fork because we presumed? It's safer to use the Lightning Network. . You can keep repeating it, but it makes hardly any sense. Because it would be such a waste of time and energy to change the rules on-chain, and taking the risks of those changes. What use would sub-satoshis be on-chain if they're worth a miniscule amount per unit?
I doubt that any hardfork is necessary to recognize digits smaller than a satoshi..
Are you saying that if there proposals for sub-satoshi units, then it should be a soft fork, not a hard fork? but still like others said it might not be justifiable without a certain value.. I doubt that it a dollar and I even doubt that is a penny.. so even 1/1000 of a penny might be justifiable to recognize such further down digits..
Then why not use the Lightning Network if an app or a project needs sub-satoshi units? It's there, it's ready.
but hey, I am just one person. What do I know regarding what people want to do today as compared to what they might want to do in 2048 or times approaching 2048 when it might be considered if more than 8 digits might be justified to recognize on bitcoin's main chain. That would be very low probability, in my opinion. Bitcoin's supply cap and units are ossifying towards 21,000,000 coins, with 8 decimal places. I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.
You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky.. That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people. Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover. That's the spirit!!!!! Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in. I like him to post more because, the more he posts, the more stupid he looks and people are slowly seeing that. |
|
|
|
[edited out]
What? Hahaha. OK, are you saying that in a recession environment and during a phase when the Federal Reserve and other Central Banks around the world are fighting inflation through Rate Hikes and Quantitative Tightening, WHICH will also cause phases of monetary DEFLATION = It's a biased take to say that there's a higher probability that prices of stocks and commodities, many other assets could crash? I doubt that I am saying that, even though I am saying that you are likely not as unbiased and objective as you are striving to put yourself out to be. IF you're saying it's "biased" merely because it was I who posted it, then that's ad hominem, ser. Do you believe it can be possible? GOOD QUESTION, and personally, I believe the probability is higher than what the "smart people" in the forum expect.
It is so sad that we do involve the government and other political happening here in this discussion and how it has affected the stock and commodity markets. and how Bitcoin is no exceptional will crash. I know we are in a bear market in which multiple geo-political/ economical events are highly fueling the fire in dropping the price of Bitcoin.
What would you say it's "sad" because it's actually not. It's just part of the dynamic that affects everything in modern civilization. Plus everything is currently more inter-connected now because of the internet, it's unavoidable.
Without doubt i am getting to believe that people who talk about economic bla bla matters are the ones who are tired of holding and buying more bitcoin because its obvious that this factors have their advantages as well, the price of Bitcoin which is low, now good to buy even more at least a lot of average persons who has keen interest will be able to afford and accumulate some good amount at this period. Even a lot of people are holding risky altcoins that may never recover from the crash and they still believe it will go up, tell me why should we lack confident in Bitcoin because of mere economic factor which has been there from the start of life.
OK, then should we throw the facts out of the window and merely hold on to what you want to believe will happen? Because it's a fact that we're currently in a phase of Quantitative Tightening because Inflation is not transitory, it's sticky. If the tightening continues, there would be less money in circulation, which will mean in time, there will be less demand, less cash for those who need it, it will cause lay-offs, then a recession. Do you believe there's a higher probability that Bitcoin will surge higher in such an environment, or crash lower? I'm not talking/asking about HODLing or investing. I'm asking for everyone's opinions about Bitcoin during a recession environment. |
|
|
|
Selling that much BTC at $300 per coin means getting 9 million dollars out of that deal. While it's a low price per coin, it's still a huge ton of money, a lot more than the vast majority will ever get their hands on. And I'm happy for those who purchased BTC from that deal, of course.
That may be lot of money, but relatively speaking, it's just a mere fraction of its TRUE value at the current fair market price, AND it's going to be higher during the next bull cycle.
There's always this or that uncertainty, but what's one person's panic selling is another person's great opportunity. As for not falling victims to FUD, I think it's important to be patient and to make financial decisions in a calm state of mind, not based on emotions.
If the FUDsters were playing 4D Chess, then they would probably have bought what he sold and front-ran him when the the next bullish cycle came. That's also probably the same with and why the "Bitcoin is dead" phases are the best time to purchase Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Hahaha SER! You can't merely just approach/talk to people, then make an introduction that you made wagers that totalled $65 million in two different casinos/sports-betting sites. Because even though you truly have wagered $65 million, I believe it would actually look more credible if you simply asked the casino how much their highest betting limits currently are for more serious punters. To be frank, a serious punter might not want their total amount wagered be known by many people, especially in forums. You are only telling the truth. When people are richer, they care more about their privacy and it is true not only for whales in gambling but in Bitcoin investment or any area in life. I would like to add one more. Privacy can not be regained after you lost it. Like in forums, data will be archived by forum operators and even third party data scrapers can scrap data, posts and archive those information too. I agree with your about importance of don't publicly share information about wealth in any forum. People share it can be are not aware about privacy, don't care about privacy or just want to show their wealth to satisfy their ego but later they will regret because as said, Privacy can not be regained after leaking and losing it on Internet. . You're true; it goes beyond simply flaunting their money or lacking a sense of privacy. Its all about the rush of satisfaction they experience when they are validated. "Oh, look, someone liked my post!" . Why is flaunting ourselves so important to us? Is it the fault of the internet, or is it just the way we're wired? But that's not the actual point. The point is, would you trust/believe a newbie account in a forum who starts a new topic and says that he/she has wagered $65 million in two different casinos? Because there are many fraudsters in the internet, the first reaction should be of a cynic. If he/she merely asked for what casinos have high limits, then it would have been more believable. I'm not accusing him of anything though, merely suggesting that people should be careful. |
|
|
|
Day trading & gambling do have similar features. Short term investing in blockchain does trump both of the latter I believe.
Indeed I will agree with you on this because short term trading is way risky as same as gambling and believe me I have had a taste of both and the results that yeilded from both field are the particular ones am not too proud of and I wouldn't ever advice anyone who is not an expert in trading to ever even venture into it. It's more preferable to just buy little coins and save and hope for the market to boom once more It is easy for anyone to be able to learn the basic techniques that will allow them to better view the market, rather than the default view (which the market works contrary to in my opinion). When people are fearful, be greedy. When people are greedy, be fearful, for example. A quote renowned by Buffet himself. In the short term, trading might = gambling for a complete newbie. Though someone who takes the time to learn the right principles and techniques, I think that the difference in chance is incomparable to that of gambling. Well Warren Buffet is usually a great teacher teaching a lot about the market, "Usually" he is, although, any mention of Bitcoin to him will make him lose control of his emotions because he can't admit how great of an investment Bitcoin currently is, and will be, in the years that will be coming. ESPECIALLY when the Federal Reseve, the European Central Bank and other Central Banks around the world start Q.E. and turn on the money printers again. The automobile was probably in the same position during the time when it was newly invented. People like the Warren Buffetts of those times probably said the automobile was something like "Rat poison squared" too. |
|
|
|
I was wondering who i could contact either here or on telegram/discord about VIP? I have 45 million wagered on stake and 20 million wagered on bc and im looking gor a new sportsbook but want to make sure im treated correctly, i contacted support but they brushed me off
Hahaha SER! You can't merely just approach/talk to people, then make an introduction that you made wagers that totalled $65 million in two different casinos/sports-betting sites. Because even though you truly have wagered $65 million, I believe it would actually look more credible if you simply asked the casino how much their highest betting limits currently are for more serious punters. To be frank, a serious punter might not want their total amount wagered be known by many people, especially in forums. |
|
|
|
BUT all we see is markets are not reacting in the way how the fundemantals says it should. One of them is probably "lying". Who? The fundamentals or the markets?
From my perspective, you are still overly focusing on macro factors and presuming BTC correlation. .or even presuming that bitcoin might go down before it goes up.. so even if the various macro markets might continue to be inflated and due for various crashes, whether talking about the stock market, properties and other bubbles, that does not necessarily mean that bitcoin is not the place to be.. even though surely we have seen in the very short term (like a liquidity event similar to March 2020), all assets seemed to have had been flocking to the dollar, and sure that can happen again. Perhaps, and I'm still learning. BUT what you and many other people might have already read or learned is, it's Bitcoin's first time to exist in a recession environment and although you might be right in that Bitcoin might not be affected if other markets are crashing, I still believe that it's safe to conclude that there's a HIGHER probability that it could crash together with the rest of those other markets. Position yourself according to a variety of possible scenarios in which you already have a plan what you are going to do for each scenario.. . and surely, there might be some movements that go beyond your expectations, but if you have a plan, then you should still be able to tweak your plan in order to account for such deviations versus if you had overly planned for one direction or another. Would that be a non-biased/impartial presumption?
I doubt that you are as non-biased/impartial as you are trying to make yourself out to be. So whatever, if you believe that you are largely prepared for any direction, then you will need to live with the consequences... yet it seems to me that you are largely just preparing to say I told you so rather than really preparing for a variety of possibilities, because it really should not matter very much if you end up being right or not in terms of your base case scenario. What? Hahaha. OK, are you saying that in a recession environment and during a phase when the Federal Reserve and other Central Banks around the world are fighting inflation through Rate Hikes and Quantitative Tightening, WHICH will also cause phases of monetary DEFLATION = It's a biased take to say that there's a higher probability that prices of stocks and commodities, many other assets could crash? IF you're saying it's "biased" merely because it was I who posted it, then that's ad hominem, ser. |
|
|
|
Either way, I think its a symptom of some kind of neurological or psychological problem. We should stop giving him so much attention.
The Bitcoin community essentially ignored him from half way through 2016 until 2018. I believe 2015 was when Faketoshi was first "introduced" to the community when he joined Nick Szabo and other Bitcoiners in a panel through live stream. There were some people, the big blockers, who insist that it was Nick Szabo who introduced him as Satoshi, which is simply not true.  Plus was the community ignoring him from 2016 to 2018? It was a nocoiner friend of mine that texted me that "Satoshi's real identity was discovered" after early news of Gavin Andresen and Faketoshi's "private signing sessions" was everywhere during 2016. That's probably when the community started talking about him.
In the darkness he was able to assemble a scamming crew of well over a hundred people, including a marketing firm, a media company, acquired an altcoin factory, and the services of four law firms on different continents. I've heard credible estimates of around 300 people working in service of the greater scheme there, not including the attorneys. His representatives are lobbying governments all over the world, meeting with state and federal congress people in the US.
The name that never gets mentioned is, Jon Matonis. How important is he in the anti-Bitcoin apparatus launched by Faketoshi? |
|
|
|
 " A whale put 30,000 BTC up for sale at $300 each and the market eventually bought them all. Years later, BearWhale explained what happened (they fell victim to FUD)". I came across this interesting story on twitter and i followed it to the main source, links include. So this guy practically dump 30k btc base on FUD he claimed he read on social media like reddit and bitcointalk.org Which includes:- *The block size limit of 1MB was a threat to bitcoin’s future That's thanks to Mike Hearn for writing FUD in his blog, and wrote it with authority like it was the truth.
*“Satoshi’s vision” was unlimited block sizes
I would have also believed that that was possible if I didn't learn the hard way, thanks to the forum's disinformationists, charlatans, and FUDsters.
*Gavin was ousted by a cabal of self-interested engineers, a.k.a. “Blockstream”
*Blockstream took control of bitcoin’s source code repository
*Theymos colluded with Blockstream to censor block size increase discussions
*The subreddit r/bitcoin heavily censored block size increase discussions
*Blockstream wanted the block size low to promote its proprietary Lightning Network
*Gregory Maxwell was a bad actor and Luke-Jr was a religious nut
*The market agreed with the above, leading to the then-decline in price towards $300.
Wear your tin-foil hats on, only the very stupid will believe Roger Ver and the BCash community's rhetoric. And what is more surprising according to the article is he didn't sell during the MtGox saga. However could not resist to sell after reading all kinds of FUD post about btc. The point is - everyday btc battles all kinds of fud from haters or bad intent people but never allow such fud to lead you to sell your coins. I believe this Bearwhale is seriously regretting his action after seeing the performance of btc price long after he sold. I highlighted the Theymos part because am not aware of such post.Find the complete full story in the below reddit link Reddit LinkTwitter LinkPlease do share your thoughts... The Core Developers are the rightful stewards of the network because they make design-decisions for what's good for the network. Plus they're the smartest people in the room, and if you have technical questions, or just questions about Bitcoin in general, try to communicate with them. I personally have some replies, and I have to say that many things that were said in the forum are simply untrue and/or disinformation that are made by charlatans. |
|
|
|
I live in an underdeveloped country, but I work remotely for a fairly good web development agency. We don't have a lot of financial services/wallets here, so we had to go circumvent a lot of obstacles for me the money to get to my local bank account. This whole process took a hefty fee, and time. And the worst part is the currency is absolutely shit and deteriorating (even compared to other fiat currencies),
Recently, I convinced them to start paying me in BTC. I save what I have to save, and convert the rest to fiat via P2P trading. Its so quicker and I get great deals, no more bullshit. I think this has been a great benefit of crypto for underdeveloped nations.
I have been accumulating bitcoin from a long time from my freelance work, but getting paid in it by my regular work feels awesome!
Actually, value remittance through the internet for those people who neither have access to the legacy banking system, nor access to online payments, is one of Bitcoin's greatest use cases. The legacy systems have control over your financial future because they could decide to censor us the plebs, OR decide not their services in some regions. But Bitcoin takes you out of that control. Great job, OP. The next step of your journey is to find people to trade person-to-person from Bitcoin to fiat. Great job! |
|
|
|
are you saying that it's possible to change the rules and actually make the block size bigger through a soft fork too?
Also note that Segwit already did "changing the size to bigger blocks", and it was a soft-fork, so no hard-forks are needed in such cases.
Nodes that forked away from the Bitcoin network because they're incompatible? Millisatoshis are not compatible with on-chain consensus. You can have more than one second layer. That's actually why I was asking if adding sub-satoshis on-chain is possible through a soft-fork. Because in your other posts, or I might just be confused, it seemed like you said it was possible? Including sub-satoshis? That would be debatable, no?
How, currently, is there some "dishonesty" in the Lightning Network?
It is not about "current LN vs some other second layer". It is about "hard fork vs some other second layer". In that case, building a second layer is "more honest" than doing some hard-fork, because then people can explicitly see, how many "second layer coins" are mapped to how many "mainchain coins". OK, it's good you made that clear.
Plus no one else is posting, does everyone else understand or is everyone as confused as me?
If you want to be less confused, then write some code to see, what you can change, and what is coded as a hard consensus rule. Thanks for your advice. I'm curious, are you a Bitcoin developer? I'm learning a lot from you and I merely wanted to know if you have GitHub.
You could be surprised, how many things can be changed by some second layers. Also, if you start with just two nodes, forming a channel, then you notice they can agree on any rules, no matter what the rest of the LN thinks about it. They have a direct channel, so they can implement any rules they want, and then build a bigger network, if that idea will spread.
But that also means it's another client, another community, and therefore an off-chain layer that doesn't/cannot connect with the Lightning network directly, no? FrankAndBeans the 4D Chess Player would love to spread that disinforming narrative. Don't tell him about this topic.
Someone is missing franky. Where is frankandbeans? Tell him I miss him.
Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just [edited out]
Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork? I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi, Then why not simply use the Lightning Network? .. or justifiable as potentially something that might be a good thing... It may not matter that much what lightning network does as long as it is not incompatible with the main chain in terms of how many BTC had been recognized.. but sure, we might say, that we do not need more than 8 digits if we can transact on the lightning network for smaller units, but that still does not seem to address the 2048 issue in which mining rewards will go down to 9 digits, and so should that value smaller than 8 digits be recognized or ignored? That's with the presumption that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar. How can we call something "justified" if merely based on a presumption? We hard-fork/take the risk of a hard-fork because we presumed? It's safer to use the Lightning Network. I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.
You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky.. That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people. Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover. I'm very confused. Hahaha. Pardon me ser, I'm still learning. Plus no one else is posting, does everyone else understand or is everyone as confused as me?
🤔
No. You are the only one in the whole world who is confused. Sorry to mention it. 👍 |
|
|
|
Would changing the size to bigger blocks not require a hard fork too?
It depends, what do you mean by "bigger blocks", because inside Lightning Network, you don't have "blocks", and there is no mining. But if you want to change the size of the blocks in a backward-compatible way, you can do so with sidechains, because there are "blocks", and there is a "side chain", which is different than in LN. Also note that Segwit already did "changing the size to bigger blocks", and it was a soft-fork, so no hard-forks are needed in such cases. Because you said that it's possible to change the rules and add more decimal points in Bitcoin onchain through a soft fork, therefore, in that context, are you saying that it's possible to change the rules and actually make the block size bigger through a soft fork too?
I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions.
You don't have to trust me. You can see, how 1:1000 peg is implemented, and try writing your own M:N peg implementation, then you will see, how all of that is possible without any forks. And then, if you use M=1,N=1000, you will reach Lightning Network, but if you use different parameters, you can form a different network, with any properties you want. And if you change that proportions in a volatile way, you can have "tail supply", "burn supply", or any other model. It is all about building a network of nodes, that enforce the same consensus rules, and then it is all about translating "layer 2 coins" into "mainchain coins", and getting all needed signatures. Nodes that forked away from the Bitcoin network because they're incompatible? I don't know if that question should be taken seriously. Why not? I misread, I thought you said adding decimal points onchain doesn't require a hard fork, and that it could be done througn a soft fork?
If Lightning Network will upgrade in the future to some constant 1:1,000,000 peg, and introduce microsatoshis, instead of millisatoshis, would you notice then, that you can technically introduce any proportions you want? As long as they are constant, it is not about "tail supply" at all, and everything is as good, as it is inside LN. The only dangerous thing is volatile peg, where you start taking coins from users, without their consent, by creating inflation. But then, using some hypothetical network, similar to LN, is "more honest", because then you can see exactly, what proportions are used to exchange coins between mainchain, and some second layer.
How, currently, is there some "dishonesty" in the Lightning Network?
While in hard-fork scenario, everything is hidden, and some people may not be aware, that newly produced coins would cause inflation, in the same way as many fiat users are unaware of that.
I'm very confused. Hahaha. Pardon me ser, I'm still learning. Plus no one else is posting, does everyone else understand or is everyone as confused as me? 🤔 |
|
|
|
Are you sure about that? That requires a hard fork, no?
Why do you think that Lightning Network with 1:1000 peg requires no hard fork, but 20,999,999,9769,0000 : 21,000,000,0000,0000 peg would suddenly require it? It is all about proportions, nothing more, nothing less. If they are constant, it is as good as inside LN. If they are volatile, then you can reach "tail supply", or "burn supply", it depends if you increase your numerator, or your denominator in "numerator : denominator" peg. I don't know if that question should be taken seriously. OK, but why? Because Lightning doesn't break the rules of the protocol/network. Would changing the size to bigger blocks not require a hard fork too? FrankAndBeans the 4D Chess Player would love to spread that disinforming narrative. Don't tell him about this topic. Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just [edited out]
Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork? I did not consider anything that I was saying to be related exactly to what dollar value that the satoshi might have, but sure there is a bit of a presumption that if more digits are needed, then the sub-units represented by those extra digits would likely need to have some kind of a value. .even if only fractions of a penny, just like a satoshi is fractions of a penny currently yet some folks using the lightning network believe that there is some kind of value in terms of adding three more digits to recognize 1/1000 of a satoshi, Then why not simply use the Lightning Network? I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room. |
|
|
|
Since you guys are talking so much about milli-satoshis and also the idea of being able soft fork for the purposes of a tail emmission, I just keep wondering about the idea sub-satoshi digits being recognized, and it seems to me that tail emissions could already be built into bitcoin, "as is" except for the seemingly mere fact that the code does not recognize less than a satoshi units... so why not just add another 3-8 digits to the recognition on the main blockchain, and then just continue to have halvenings (blockrewards) forever.
Why can't something like that work? I am pretty sure that I asked the question before, and I am pretty sure that the answer was merely based on the satoshi being the smallest unit recognized and therefore there is no recognition of rewards (splits) that happen below those 8 digits, once the number of digits starts to get down to that level.. .. and right now we are only going from 6.25 to 3.125 (2 digits after the decimal to 3 digits
2024 = 3.125 (3 digits)
2028 = 3.5625 (4 digits)
2032 = 0.78125 (5 digits)
2036 = 0.390625 (6 digits)
2040 = 0.1953125 (7 digits)
2044 = 0.09765625 (8 digits)
2048 = 0.048828125 (9 digits) or 0.04882812 (8 digits)
My understanding is that right now the current bitcoin software variations do not recognize beyond 8 digits, so in 2048 the 9th digit is not going to be recognized, so it gets cut off.. but why not just continue to recognize infinite digits.. that recognition of further digits beyond 8 digits is not creating more bitcoin and/or satoshis beyond the original contemplation, so the total will never go above 21 million even though the recognition will continue to go to smaller and smaller subunits. in order to have the halvening and the reward forever.. even though the smaller units might not be worth much of anything.. but that seems to be a question for the future rather than the present... but such recognition of more than 8 digits does seem to be affected in the current reward set-up starting in 2048.. and to me it seems like it could be a soft fork to merely add further recognition of bitcoin of smaller values than a satoshi (or with more than 8 digits after the decimal).
Wouldn't that be just "with the presumption" that a Satoshi would be worth at least a Dollar/near a Dollar? What value would that bring to the miners if a tail-emmission or an inflationary model, assuming it could get community consensus, would better incentivize the miners, immediately, after the fork? Adding digits forever to spread out a the last 210000 satoshis (i.e. 2.1 mBTC) of supply over infinitely many blocks is *NOT* a tail emission.
True, which means there are more chances to get it implemented. Because it is a difference between constant peg, and volatile peg. If you have Lightning Network, you have 1:1000 peg. It is fine. In "infinite halvings" model, you have constant 20,999,999,9769,0000 : 21,000,000,0000,0000 peg. This is also fine. In "tail supply", you start from 1:1 peg, but it is volatile, and it is changed by each and every overprinted satoshi, first from 20,999,999,9769,0000 : 20,999,999,9769,0001, and then the denominator is just incremented with each satoshi, created by "tail supply" supporters. Are you sure about that? That requires a hard fork, no? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
