Searching for "ø" works fine. Perhaps it's unrelated to the letter, and it's Cøbra's posts the problem. 

Unpopular opinion: Bitcoin is the most appreciated crypto, because simplicity silences anything noisy over the long term.

18 and 19, thanks!

What are your observations? From my perspective, human nature remains more or less the same. The tremendous growth we are seeing in AI might signal the beginning of a brand new epoch, but that essentially sums up the overall difference with the previous generation. Humans remain the same, with all their weaknesses.

That's another problem, and this is why silent payments and stealth addresses are not enough. You need to break traceability, and that's only possible if you hide your inputs amongst a crowd, hence mixing. If for each input, there are several other "inputs-suspects", as in Monero, there is minimum information a chain analysis company can extract.

This argument doesn't even make sense. If people dump bitcoin for altcoins, then the price of bitcoin decreases, it does not increase.

What's your definition of "intrinsic value"? How's Bitcoin not having that? And who defines what's the "intrinsic value" to something? To name value to a product, you need another product to use as exchange rate, preferably a currency. Therefore, the value of Bitcoin is determined by what others are willing to exchange for it, whether in the form of products, assets, or currencies.

There has been a lot of discussion in this topic, regarding Full RBF, if you're interested: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403730.0.

A common misconception is that Full RBF enables all unconfirmed transactions to be double-spent. In reality, all unconfirmed transactions can be double-spent, regardless of Full RBF, RBF or no-RBF. If it was possible to ensure the security of 0-conf against double-spending, there would be no need for a blockchain, and all transactions wouldn't have confirmations. Full RBF simply formalizes what is already evident.

It is important to mention this: This de-anonymization becomes "exceedingly challenging" depending on the receiver's behavior. If the receiver consolidates all his donations (as an example of a good use case for silent payment), then the overall privacy gains are reverted, because all the senders can now see all the donations of other people. Therefore, silent payments offer privacy as long as you're careful with coin control. For example, don't consolidate more donations than needed in a transaction, preferably only one each time.

If you had lost bitcoin, then I'd tell you to lower your expectations, since malware mostly send it to self-custodial hacker's wallet, but if it's Tether, then I'd argue that you can pursue it, since depositing USDT anywhere reputable requires KYC (always, IIRC?).

Contact Binance and send them a good writeup. Use the analysis produced by BreadCrumbs in your mail, as shown above. Maybe they can confiscate his coins and pay your damage.

Κάπου είχα διαβάσει ένα ωραίο που πήγαινε κάπως έτσι: "Στο σημερινό κράτος, κάποιος πληρώνεται για να ανοίγει τρύπες, και κάποιος άλλος για να τις κλείνει". Θυμίζει κι αυτό.

Η εύλογη ερώτηση που θα έκανε κάθε νοήμον πολίτης είναι: Τι πρόβλημα θα λύσει το ψηφιακό ευρώ; Πάλι ένα νούμερο είναι σε βάση δεδομένων. Πως δηλαδή θα μειωθεί ο πληθωρισμός απλώς αλλάζοντας την αναπαράσταση του ευρώ; Γιατί, αυτό είναι. Αλλάζει η αναπαράσταση, και μετατρέπεται πλέον από εν δυνάμει χειραγωγήσιμο νόμισμα σε εν δυνάμει χειραγωγήσιμο εργαλείο γενικότερα (αφού πλέον δε θα σε κλέβουν μόνο, θα σε διατάζουν κι όλας).

Μα, το θέμα δεν είναι να πέσει ο πληθωρισμός σε οτιδήποτε, αλλά σε αυτά που καταναλώνει και χρειάζεται ο περισσότερος κόσμος. Παράδειγμα, το να ρίξεις την ακρίβεια των βιολιών, σκασίλα μας. Σημασία έχει να ρίξεις την τιμή του ρεύματος, του λαδιού, κλπ., προϊόντα με ανελαστική ζήτηση.

Αν επιβάλλεις εξτρά φορολογία σε τέτοια προϊόντα, πιο πιθανό μου ακούγεται να αναπτυχθεί η παραοικονομία παρά να πείσεις τον περισσότερο κόσμο ότι "δεν χρειάζονται" γι' αυτούς.

It'd be sufficient if a solution to the ECDLP was found, which means to find k given points P, Q so that Q = k*P.

I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but it does not sound like there is anything to break in SHA256, other than the obvious collision concern and proving the P versus NP problem. But, please, someone more involved, correct me.

Or rather, finding less complex solutions.

The majority of people don't know why Bitcoin is useful and important, so let's stop working and recommending it, please! There you go, am I clever now too?

So, let me get this straight. You believe we need to implement changes quickly and pursue vertical scaling (i.e., increasing block size), despite its obvious long-term flaws, instead of utilizing one of the many altcoins that have already adopted this approach?

Allow me to clarify. You believe we should quickly implement changes to a trillion-dollar asset, which serves as the cornerstone of a new monetary system, simply because you dislike waiting for alternative second-layer solutions to be developed. Could you explain why not using an altcoin instead?

Let's look at the closest evidence we have to verify this claim: altcoins.

- Bitcoin Cash is the Bitcoin fork I'd use if I was forbidden from using Bitcoin. Total transactions in the last 24 hours: 14,546. Block size limit: 32 MB, block interval: 10 minutes.
- Total Litecoin transactions in the last 24 hours: 181,694. Block size limit: 1 MB, every 2.5 minutes. (in 10 minutes: 4 MB)
- Total Dogecoin transactions in the last 24 hours: 62,270. Block size limit: 1 MB, once a minute. (in 10 minutes: 10 MB)

Total Bitcoin transactions in the last 24 hours: 862,464. If high on-chain capacity is what the world wants, then we should expect them to have migrated, and do more on-chain transactions there. It's clearly not the case, though.

It can be used. It's just not suitable for everyday transactions on the asset layer.

Who said they cannot have their own space in the chain?

It probably can't. You can't have the cake and eat it too. You either accept the tradeoffs of the fixed-sized block, or the ones of the dynamical-sized.

That's a bold hypothesis. We're 15 years after the creation of Bitcoin, and how many users actually do "legitimate" transactions? Like, transactions where they don't just store trash using tapscript. 'Cause I remember before Ordinals, I was paying 1 sat/vb and had it confirmed within the next few minutes.

And as I already said, I'm not arguing that a subtle block size increase will destroy the fee market competition completely. It's just not going to resolve the scalability issue. It'll be a temporary solution. If 1 BTC = $1M, then 1 sat/vb will still be $1.40 for an average segwit native transaction. That still is expensive and unappealing for when making lots of transactions every day, let alone larger in size.

To be honest, I'm worried about the future because Bitcoin is the foundation of the future of money. My concerns are more about what will happen in 20, 50, or 100 years from now.

This may sound a bit anti-Bitcoin, but after four years of exploring Bitcoin, I've come to an important conclusion: Bitcoin is not meant for buying coffee or conducting other low-value transactions, at least not on-chain. It represents the best monetary standard we can have, and using it for such purposes undervalues its true potential.

If you want a peer-to-peer cash system with low on-chain fees, excellent privacy, and a similar level of decentralization, then Monero is the ideal choice. It functions exactly as desired. Its dynamic block size is superior to any fixed size if your sole goal is to maximize the number of on-chain transactions.

Runes use OP_RETURN, Ordinals use Taproot. Fungible tokens are trash and a waste of money, don’t get me wrong. However, Runes are not an attack vector, as they implement similar protocols in a much more efficient manner.

If you've used Monero in an SPV client, then it's similar process. Feather, as an example, fetches blockchain data from default servers, and unless you've lost your block height, syncing does not take a lot of time to finish. In fact, in Bitcoin, it'll be much faster because the servers will only send you Taproot transactions.

$66,970

Απάντηση: https://x.com/americanhodl8/status/1793393761332187530 

What about the halving after that? Or the second after that? In less than 20 years from now, the block subsidy will be less than 0.1 bitcoin. Block space has to be valuable.

That's a good comparison. Solutions that group users in a single UXTO are in very early stages, and will probably never be implemented without softforks. You can check out CoinPool, it's one of them. It can work more efficiently and privately than LN, at the cost of high interactivity.

Another cool L2 is this: https://arkdev.info/docs/learn/intro. Its focus is fast, cheap and confidential transactions. Requires a softfork as well. There are more ideas, and it'll probably be just one L2 which will reach mass adoption, if any. Each one comes with its own tradeoffs, the market will decide which tradeoffs are the best to have.

Great. Block subsidy is dropping, so let's drop some more to 0 by eliminating the fee market competition!

I wasn't even talking about forks. And my "opinion" is just basic economics. If you rise the block size limit, there's more supply of a block size with demand remaining the same. As a consequence, the block reward declines.

Second layers isn't "praying for a magical fix". It's a work in progress. Here's a list of promising second layer solutions: https://l2.watch/. "Doing something", which might turn out a terrible decision, merely for the sake of a temporary solution is not the ideal approach for shaping the future of money.

More complaining here, as usual.

Layer 2, with careful OP code activation through softforks. This could allow solutions such as sharing one UTXO with multiple users to be implemented.

What's plan B in the plausible scenario that the people that use it as currency don't do a 10x?

That's not what I said nor meant, though. 

To be honest, I would love if you could propose a solution to the problem other than complaining about it forever. Bigger blocks is not a solution, that's one thing for certain. If you still think it is, then you're delusional. If you rise the block size limit, then you're destroying the fee market competition, which is your only source of income as time goes by. And that's without even mentioning other issues that arise with that decision.

- "B-b-but, isn't 10 or 20 MB enough to sustain the fee market while alleviating the scaling problem?" Maybe, but that's what you do: you alleviate it, you don't solve it. It will still be expensive and extremely slow for point-of-sale.

So, I'm all ears. What's the solution since merely changing a block size limit constant won't resolve the issue?

I don't think so. When it's Lightning Labs, expect Lightning upgrades. Introducing stablecoin transactions on the base layer is expensive, and that's why Omni layer (or Mastercoin called at that time?) probably stopped facilitating USDT transactions on Bitcoin.

I think they're talking about Taro, which is a protocol for asset issuance on top of Bitcoin (with Taproot) and Lightning. So, if they can issue and move assets through LN, then it's possible they can do the same with stablecoins.