 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
|
|
Hello! I want to say I'm very impressed with your work and I would like to lighten up the suspicion that I casted on this project a while back.
I look forward to the immense potential of these tools. Also the BitVM paper is very cool!
|
|
|
|
It's possible what follows contains logical mistakes.
I was toying with a similar idea where each output would be its own Utreexo. Since that's a forest of trees, an output would need to keep the roots and each root would have the amount sum of the elements in the tree. This way, we'd know the amount the Utreexo UTXO holds and can do the inflation check.
Much like Utreexo, a transaction comes with is a list of inclusion proofs [proof1, proof2,...] which gives us the inputs. A transaction also defines the outputs that are created. We check the signature and that the transaction is well balanced and then delete the inputs from the Utreexo tree and add outputs as new elements to the Utreexo.
I'm not sure I remember correctly, but I believe anyone can delete an element if they have the forest roots and the inclusion proof and anyone can add an element if they have the element and the roots. Since we have both as part of a transaction validation, anyone can update the Utreexo accumulator.
This obviously isn't compatible with Bitcoin today, but may be an interesting direction to think in. Those interested in a specific Utreexo may have the tree saved locally and could share it with others in the tree if someone lost their inclusion proofs.
It may even be permissionless to put your UTXO in any Utreexo. Simply spend a regular UTXO and add it as an element to Utreexo which should be possible because we have the forest roots for all of them.
I admit I have not studied Utreexo as much as I would like I only heard about it a month ago or so, my idea was slightly inspired by the basic idea of Utreexo which was turning outputs into commitments to outputs for scaling purposes. But as far as I can tell the Utreexo concept is more like a lite-client scaling technique and probably needs to be reinforced with EC cryptography in my opinion in order to become something that can be represented to a regular full node. I may be incorrect but I think the issue is the merkle tree being committed to is not some kind of a tagged branch commitment scheme like taproot but more like a direct hash tree. My theory is that something with tagged commitments would be possible to reproduce without needing to store inclusion proofs similar to how taproot doesn't require you to hold all the involved public keys but bare multi-sig does. Edit: However your idea does seem like it would improve the user experience of utreexo potentially by allowing for users to share a network of known roots. |
|
|
|
I never heard of it before, according to them the goal is: CoinPool allows many users to share a UTXO and make
instant off-chain transfers inside the UTXO while allowing
withdrawals at any time without permission from other users. My idea is basically the first part of this where many users share a UTXO, the off chain transfer idea is good but was not part of my plan. I am curious to see if this is DOA or still being developed. So aggregated UTXOs that do not require lots of interactivity. |
|
|
|
As for me, last 4 days ago I also made a Bitcoin transaction like you, the charge for what I did was also 5$, I also thought of reducing the fees, but I immediately thought that the transaction I would make might not go well so I let it go the fees are only 5$ instead of bothering me because that's exactly what happens at those times because of the nft ordinals in blockhain.
I also found out that most of the people who tried to reduce the fees did not succeed, but instead waited for a long time before they were able to make a transaction again with high fees. That means there is no use even if the fees are reduced or adjusted.
It also took me 4 days to be able to make another transaction with higher fees. I don't use a wallet, which supports RBF service. So I had to wait till the transaction was dropped out from the mempool. Then I was in need of some money, so I had to use the high priority at that moment. Cost me more than $6. It is getting crazy day by day. Does anyone know when this will cool down? Today's high priority transactions will cost more than 618 sat/vB.  Well it is driving price of btc downwards. we are under 28k I have to think they want to see how far they can drive price downwards. So this will last at least a week or 2. As a small fish I will be apeing any paper handed selling into the attack, however i want to again implore people to disrespect the inscription spam with ordisrespector https://minibolt.info/guide/bonus/bitcoin/ordisrespector.html#build-it-from-the-source-code |
|
|
|
i think all of that coin is good, but slowly replace by new coin, and its normal any new project will take over old project who have no development, every project in industry should make a new inovation not only rely on old progress.
I think that you have little knowledge of English as well as what is required for innovation to occur on Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I'm a bit surprised by the success of the BRC-20 token protocol which is clogging the blockchain right now. BRC-20 seems to be a way to create and transfer fungible tokens storing a small JSON file in an Ordinal inscription. That's how a BRC-20 inscription looks like: {
"p": "brc-20",
"op": "mint",
"tick": "soon",
"amt": "1000"
}
Most readers of this subforum will know that there are already dozens of protocols allowing tokens on Bitcoin, the oldest probably being EPOBC (2012). Most are now based on data storage via OP_RETURN. The most popular - until BRC20 emerged - was Omni (2013) which seems to be continuosly updated and improved. And there are advanced protocols with very efficient mechanisms like RGB and Taro (which can be used for much more things than tokens). What I'm interested in is to know if BRC-20 has any advantage respect to the OP_RETURN based systems. Yes, a JSON file seems quite "elegant" or easy to create. But it's also terribly inefficient to store a dictionary of the needed data (i.e. token type, name, quantity of the transaction etc.) as a JSON text instead of storing only the values in an OP_RETURN string, for example using Protocol Buffers. It may not be a big advantage (a dozen or two of bytes, perhaps) but technically you'll still pay higher fees occupy more space with BRC-20 than even with the simplest OP_RETURN based approaches. Someone knows if there's any advantage to use this method? My own interpretation is that it's simply popular "because Ordinals is popular". But is there more?
PS: I've made a small correction and it may be already answering my question: It's possible that while you occupy more space on the blockchain with BRC20, the witness discount is enough to counter any real space efficiency advantage and thus leading to equal or even less fees. The problem with these things is that they do not need to exist, you need an alternate network to verify them. So by that logic said alternate network could simply inscribe its logic into a commitment to a hash of a Bitcoin transaction and achieve cheaper, less spammy/cloggy, and more practical utility from the base layer. |
|
|
|
Lmao yes he did and it is funny you would still defend him after all of the despicable and idiotic things including this that he does and promotes.
he might have paid $623,000 for some nft in 2021 but guaranteed it's worth more than $10 even RIGHT NOW. i would pay $10 for that thing all day long and so would you! people that bought one of his 99 originals they're probably under water but then again, i'll buy theirs for $10 too if they want.  can you help broker that deal or not? You would have to pay me atleast 1 bitcoin whole to do anything related to Logan Paul lol, offer is on the table. |
|
|
|
Your favorite altcoins are capable of losing 75% of their value within the next market cycle
Yes, Investing in cryptocurrencies carries a higher level of risk than traditional investments and other cryptocurrencies, is subject to market fluctuations and subject to significant price drops. While it is true that some altcoins may experience a significant drop in value during a market cycle as you mentioned “Your favorite altcoin may lose 75% of its value in the next market cycle”, that does not mean that they are “dead”. Altcoins can have use cases and propositions. their own unique value, and some may still be able to provide a good return on investment in the long term. I think you are missing the goalpost here, the point of cryptocurrency is not to juggle a bunch of centralized useless hype based altcoins its to build value to the only well established decentralized network called Bitcoin.
No, Altcoins are not dead. Today's profit with SUI is an extra confirmation of this. Yes, undoubtedly, after the fall of LUNA, I had to think about possible investments in Altcoins. But over the past 6 months, there has been a belief in the rebirth of Altcoins power and future bull run.
 To suggest you profited from this could only mean you are an insider who took money from others. [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] |
|
|
|
.
For the record yes Logan Paul is generally irrelevant even when he is mentioned in something and he certainly is not a blockchain wizard or educated in anything useful. However it goes to show that even a guy with a billion blind young rich followers cannot sell this absolute crap to anyone. It will die slowly or fast depending on how much money the buyers have and how many drug addictions the sellers have.
there's no way that logan paul bought an nft for $623,000 in 2021 and then today it's only worth $10, as that site claims. i'm sure people would buy it for 3 figures just based on how much it sold for in the past. but if you're just going to sit there and complain about how it's not worth anything but not actually put it up for sale to the highest bidder then you can't say it's only worth $10. i'll buy his dumb nft for more than $10. so i'ts worth more than $10 I also noticed that the other day, the transaction fee is quite high now if I compare it to last week. I even read that the transaction reached 38$ something out of his 180$ withdrawal.
time to sign up for western union if that's the case...i'm sure their fees for sending $180 are much reasonable than that. need a website link?  Lmao yes he did and it is funny you would still defend him after all of the despicable and idiotic things including this that he does and promotes. |
|
|
|
Recently, if you've been on Mempool, Bitcoin has had many transactions going through the blocks, causing high fees, I was paying about $3-5 per transaction a week ago and now I'm down to $0.2.-0.5 per transaction. Is anyone else effected by this? Miners are great and have made the 108 block backup into a 7 block backup in a week, keep going miners!
I also noticed that the other day, the transaction fee is quite high now if I compare it to last week. I even read that the transaction reached 38$ something out of his 180$ withdrawal. I don't really understand why the fee is so high now in bitcoin when you make a transaction that once we check in the mempool, the fee is so expensive. I hope it goes well somehow. There was a fee spike caused deliberately by Udi, Taproot Wizards, and their sheep followers who send them real bitcoin to get some fake ponzi token that they paid for with REALLY HIGH SAT PER BYTE FOR 1 of 2 Reasons: 1. They are using some custodial wallet participating in the coordinated spam attack on the Bitcoin base layer. 2. They are people like Udi who enjoy wasting money on fees to brag about making others pay more for casual payments. They have also been enlisting Bots of the shiba and dogecoin pump n dump type that spam twitter everyday causing tons of newbs to get scammed as well. Only way to avoid this is to be VOCALLY AGAINST SCAMMERS LIKE UDI AND THE TAPROOT WIZARDS |
|
|
|
Note: merge all of your consecutive replies into one post. By creating a UTXO that aggregates other UTXOs, you would be able to greatly reduce the size of the UTXO set on the blockchain. This could potentially lead to faster and more efficient transactions.
However, this approach may lead to increased complexity in the verification process. In order to verify that a UTXO is valid and can be spent, the blockchain would need to verify not only the inclusion proof of the aggregate UTXO, but also the inclusion proofs of all of the individual UTXOs that make up the aggregate UTXO.
Can you make up a solution to this problem?
All a UTXO is, is a pair of a hex string (in this case, of a 32-byte transaction hash) and an integer which denotes output number (which usually can be represented in just 1 byte with an unsigned uint8_t, though even if that overflows, a 2-byte uint16_t will definitely be enough. Either way, its a numbers problem of other areas. Suppose you have billions of UTXOs - this will equate to several GB of UTXO data. You can't simply just compress the UTXO set as that will only delay the inevitable. So perhaps, a shredding algorithm could be implemented, where the oldest set of UTXOs past a particular threshold are ruthlessly shredded from the UTXO set (even if it represents thousands of bitcoins), and spending such a UTXO would require any node to scan for it from the beginning of the blockchain - in other words, we don't cache extremely old UTXOs. And in case blockchain culling is also implemented - where instead of the Genesis block and the first X thousand blocks, you have a "coinbase transaction" of output UTXOs from those X blocks - there still isn't any fear of UTXOs being wiped out of the blockchain because they would still be there. I think what you are suggesting is a commitment based pruning of very old utxos which I think might be efficient for things that are not considered full nodes but I think would be controversial to push into a full node. My idea may be controversial also but not for the reason that it would require old UTXO owners to maintain their chainstate, but more-so because it implies a new convolution in the way that an output can be spent. However I want to be clear my idea does not include altering the way old chainstate is processed, it would only affect blocks that adopt it. Edit: Although on second thought, I think there could be a way this model is used to scale old chainstate at the discretion of the node operator Pushing it to Bitcoin Core? Oh yeah, most features proposed for it are definitely controversial. That's why a new full node client with these features could be created instead, bypassing the Core dev status quo. And, if the full node is any good, new people who want to get into the network will run this new pruning full node, while the old guard continues to run Bitcoin Core to avoid permanently losing old blocks. Even a 10:1 ratio of these new nodes against Bitcoin Core nodes would be good for the network as it would have the adoption equivalent to L2 layers, and even these L2 features can be incorporated directly inside the node. I would argue that if it is sound and an improvement it would be merged into core eventually.
Note: merge all of your consecutive replies into one post. By creating a UTXO that aggregates other UTXOs, you would be able to greatly reduce the size of the UTXO set on the blockchain. This could potentially lead to faster and more efficient transactions.
However, this approach may lead to increased complexity in the verification process. In order to verify that a UTXO is valid and can be spent, the blockchain would need to verify not only the inclusion proof of the aggregate UTXO, but also the inclusion proofs of all of the individual UTXOs that make up the aggregate UTXO.
Can you make up a solution to this problem?
All a UTXO is, is a pair of a hex string (in this case, of a 32-byte transaction hash) and an integer which denotes output number (which usually can be represented in just 1 byte with an unsigned uint8_t, though even if that overflows, a 2-byte uint16_t will definitely be enough. Either way, its a numbers problem of other areas. Suppose you have billions of UTXOs - this will equate to several GB of UTXO data. You can't simply just compress the UTXO set as that will only delay the inevitable. So perhaps, a shredding algorithm could be implemented, where the oldest set of UTXOs past a particular threshold are ruthlessly shredded from the UTXO set (even if it represents thousands of bitcoins), and spending such a UTXO would require any node to scan for it from the beginning of the blockchain - in other words, we don't cache extremely old UTXOs. And in case blockchain culling is also implemented - where instead of the Genesis block and the first X thousand blocks, you have a "coinbase transaction" of output UTXOs from those X blocks - there still isn't any fear of UTXOs being wiped out of the blockchain because they would still be there. I think what you are suggesting is a commitment based pruning of very old utxos which I think might be efficient for things that are not considered full nodes but I think would be controversial to push into a full node. My idea may be controversial also but not for the reason that it would require old UTXO owners to maintain their chainstate, but more-so because it implies a new convolution in the way that an output can be spent. However I want to be clear my idea does not include altering the way old chainstate is processed, it would only affect blocks that adopt it. Edit: Although on second thought, I think there could be a way this model is used to scale old chainstate at the discretion of the node operator Pushing it to Bitcoin Core? Oh yeah, most features proposed for it are definitely controversial. That's why a new full node client with these features could be created instead, bypassing the Core dev status quo. And, if the full node is any good, new people who want to get into the network will run this new pruning full node, while the old guard continues to run Bitcoin Core to avoid permanently losing old blocks. Even a 10:1 ratio of these new nodes against Bitcoin Core nodes would be good for the network as it would have the adoption equivalent to L2 layers, and even these L2 features can be incorporated directly inside the node. Generally speaking though a one way compression to the UTXO set would likely be considered a lite client not a full node regardless of if it was in Core or not. My feature ideally would be full node compatible. |
|
|
|
the crypto market cannot be predicted, there are times when coin prices fall and when coin prices rise, you need to know that when coin prices go down it doesn't mean that coins are dead, especially like big coins, eth you just need patience waiting for coin prices to rise again if you need to hold it for the long term do not easily despair or you recklessly sell coins at low prices.
sometimes many are impatient when the price drops and are afraid that this is a catastrophe that will happen, even though you are right in saying that it takes patience when holding a coin like ethereum which is sure to go down or up at any time, but the ethereum coin is a very good coin , and this is a coin with a long term investment. so only by holding back will you avoid losses that could occur if you sell directly with the aim of not losing too much. Yes every coin needs to be managed differently and when it comes to top coins like Bitcoin or Ethereum surely holding them is not a big deal, because as you said that the two coins are no doubt for long term investment, i think it is the best choice. yes, so far the two coins that you said are still the best and no one has been able to compete as an investment, even though there are BNB which are also quite good and very calculated for the future. you just need to be patient when you already have bitcoin and ethereum, because these coins have characteristics that are very different from other coins. if you want to hold it until a certain time then you can be sure you will get a very good profit. Your favorite altcoins are capable of losing 75% of their value within the next market cycle |
|
|
|
I think there is a problem with the fact that ultimately UTXOs must be addressed individually, so somewhere there must be a set of individual UTXOs. And while there is a potential optimization of the node software in classifying UTXOs according to the likelihood of being spent in the next few blocks, that would make the node software more efficient but it wouldn't affect the protocol. Also, I suggest that you check out this thread that discusses adding UTXO commitments to the block chain: Ultimate blockchain compression w/ trust-free lite nodesI agree with what you are saying, however, I do believe this is not what my proposal intends to do. Your comment is more in line with the comment that NotATether wrote, which I pointed out above has different implications than what I am proposing which would not affect the current chainstate. |
|
|
|
Add to this the expected surge of activity within the network courtesy of Ordinals and their shenanigans (which I am not really against since it's about time bitcoin gets its own NFT), and expect a pretty nasty increase in fees in the next months or so.
There's nothing totally good about the scammy ordinals anyway. Bitcoin was never built for the purpose of storing some shitty JPEGs or GIFs of lousy monkeys and frogs onchain to scam newbies. The purpose of Bitcoin is very clear in the whitepaper. These ordinals and shit are hurting the true users of the Bitcoin blockchain because of insane transaction fees which shouldn't be there in the first place. Imagine what is going to happen in a bull run. Agree but unless you get the law involved you cannot do anything about people scamming newbs. Most of the energy going into it is like "look I can waste my money and also spend way too much on fee per bytes even though no one is forcing me to by any means necessary". Kind of like spending a fuck ton of money on food with gold on it so you can post it on instagram to like 200~ followers or something. That kind of shit is clogging up society in many ways not just Bitcoin but ultimately theres no magic trick behind it. Pretty much all these things they are paying for will become worthless just like all other NFTs even ones collected by Celebrity Douchebags https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-logan-paul-s-623k-2021-nft-now-worth-10-here-s . For the record yes Logan Paul is generally irrelevant even when he is mentioned in something and he certainly is not a blockchain wizard or educated in anything useful. However it goes to show that even a guy with a billion blind young rich followers cannot sell this absolute crap to anyone. It will die slowly or fast depending on how much money the buyers have and how many drug addictions the sellers have. |
|
|
|
What if we can create a UTXO which is an aggregate of other UTXOs, then when one wants to spend they can commit to an inclusion proof similarly to how one would in Schnorr?
If i understood your statement correctly, why don't we just perform UTXO consolidation? And on technical level, i fail to see how it's possible when each UTXO have different own unlocking/spend condition and maybe also have different script type. So the basic idea is that we can consolidate / aggregate multiple UTXOs into one without needing to represent on chain that the aggregate UTXO is an aggregate theoretically (so it looks like a normal consolidation but it is actually spending to multiple parties who are (probably?) not sharing a Schnorr commitment). I am not currently confident enough to give a reasonable solution of how it might work within Bitcoin script, I just want to float the idea around to get some opinions. I think one technical constraint is how many UTXOs could be aggregated at once, I feel as if this will have a computational limit that should be considered as well as cryptographically avoiding collisions within the aggregate.
By creating a UTXO that aggregates other UTXOs, you would be able to greatly reduce the size of the UTXO set on the blockchain. This could potentially lead to faster and more efficient transactions.
However, this approach may lead to increased complexity in the verification process. In order to verify that a UTXO is valid and can be spent, the blockchain would need to verify not only the inclusion proof of the aggregate UTXO, but also the inclusion proofs of all of the individual UTXOs that make up the aggregate UTXO.
Can you make up a solution to this problem?
Keeping in mind these are all just pie-in-the-sky ideas at the moment, my theory is that similarly to how a prover of a taproot script only has to reveal tagged branches of the commitment to spend, the prover of an aggregate UTXO would reveal tagged branches of the aggregate UTXO. Such that they don't need to prove for any other keys or outputs except for the ones that are explicitly theirs. So in some sense this means the UTXO itself needs to be cryptographically encoded to retain these commitments. Edit: Furthermore Schnorr is batch validatable which as far as I have heard is good for efficiency, ideally these would have the same property which would preserve the scaling properties of Taproot/Schnorr.
By creating a UTXO that aggregates other UTXOs, you would be able to greatly reduce the size of the UTXO set on the blockchain. This could potentially lead to faster and more efficient transactions.
However, this approach may lead to increased complexity in the verification process. In order to verify that a UTXO is valid and can be spent, the blockchain would need to verify not only the inclusion proof of the aggregate UTXO, but also the inclusion proofs of all of the individual UTXOs that make up the aggregate UTXO.
Can you make up a solution to this problem?
All a UTXO is, is a pair of a hex string (in this case, of a 32-byte transaction hash) and an integer which denotes output number (which usually can be represented in just 1 byte with an unsigned uint8_t, though even if that overflows, a 2-byte uint16_t will definitely be enough. Either way, its a numbers problem of other areas. Suppose you have billions of UTXOs - this will equate to several GB of UTXO data. You can't simply just compress the UTXO set as that will only delay the inevitable. So perhaps, a shredding algorithm could be implemented, where the oldest set of UTXOs past a particular threshold are ruthlessly shredded from the UTXO set (even if it represents thousands of bitcoins), and spending such a UTXO would require any node to scan for it from the beginning of the blockchain - in other words, we don't cache extremely old UTXOs. And in case blockchain culling is also implemented - where instead of the Genesis block and the first X thousand blocks, you have a "coinbase transaction" of output UTXOs from those X blocks - there still isn't any fear of UTXOs being wiped out of the blockchain because they would still be there. I think what you are suggesting is a commitment based pruning of very old utxos which I think might be efficient for things that are not considered full nodes but I think would be controversial to push into a full node. My idea may be controversial also but not for the reason that it would require old UTXO owners to maintain their chainstate, but more-so because it implies a new convolution in the way that an output can be spent. However I want to be clear my idea does not include altering the way old chainstate is processed, it would only affect blocks that adopt it. Edit: Although on second thought, I think there could be a way this model is used to scale old chainstate at the discretion of the node operator |
|
|
|
|
In a Schnorr signature we basically commit to an inclusion proof of an aggregate public key.
What if we can create a UTXO which is an aggregate of other UTXOs, then when one wants to spend they can commit to an inclusion proof similarly to how one would in Schnorr?
Thoughts? Obviously this is just a rough idea at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Mt Gox and FTX aren't both company should be blamed, but the whole centralized exchanges should be blamed especially if they're included in this list [1] It's not surprising regulation will keep coming because hacker is always clever and better rather than the current security, this is why everyone should avoid to use centralized exchange. If people are move all from centralized exchange to decentralized exchange, there's will no regulation coming due to security excuse, they only want to control everyone activity.
[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5090869.0While we talk about blame, I think especially in the case of FTX it has become apparant that as long as everybody involved (from the huge fish at FTX headquaters down to all the youtubers and other shills promoting FTX) makes good money, nobody even tries to take a look at all the red flags. So my personal stance on the matter is, money speaks, the responsibility for the FTX mess may be mostly within SBF and associates but goes a long way down to thousands of people involved that allowed the corrupt system to keep running for so long. 100% and I would add a big percentage of people trying to make a profit from $hitcoins dont realise that they are feeding that system, I didnt realise it when I was trading $hitcoins. Like wise the youtubers and ordinary people following and promoting FTX werent aware of the corruption. Stuff like this also gives the likes of the FED and ECB more excuses and reason to lump Bitcoin in along with $hitcoins under the general term of Crypto. They can make up whatever BS they want as they have been for the entirety of Bitcoin's existence. This is a particular problem with shitcoins specifically. This is a problem with centralized companies acting like they provide the same guarantees as Bitcoin. They can blame themselves for not doing the research, lying to themselves and the public, and going all in on their own centralized pre-mined IOU receipt token of which there are thousands. |
|
|
|
you don't need it right now. 1 satoshi is $0.0002822 USD. the value of bitcoin would have to increase 70/80 times to make a Satoshi equal a cent. at that point Maybe you will need it
One easy way to think about Satoshi: when Bitcoin go to 1 million dollars (Hal's terminal value would be 10 million, actually) one satoshi would be worth 1 cent. So when receiving 100 satoshi today, you are receiving one dollar when bitcoin gets to 1 million dollars (nothing is said about the real purchasing power of such a sum. It is probably hard to imagine 1 bitcoin being worth 1 million in the next few years. It's more likely that such a price point would be reached in the range of 10 to 20 years from now, assuming it is even possible. However, it is highly unlikely that bitcoin will ever reach a value of 100 million dollars, and the idea of 1 satoshi being worth 1 dollar is currently unrealistic.
For OP, sending half of a satoshi would be impossible because satoshi is already the smallest unit of Bitcoin. However, there are other cryptocurrencies or altcoins that use different units of measurement for that to make it happen. It is not impossible, you can send millisats, but you wouldnt because it is an extremely tiny amount of money. |
|
|
|
|
