My emphasis on profits seems to hinder the actual message I was trying to pass. I wasn't actually trying to bring this from the angle of trading.

For the first point, I was trying to say that: even if Bitcoin gets to a ATH along the line of someone's investment, giving him/her the impression that they've gotten more than what they invested, it still doesn't affect the long term decision of the investor in anyway.

For the second point, I was trying to say that: when some investor realize that they've gotten more than what they've Invested, it has a way of affecting their decisions on whether to continue or stop investing.

Which I then trace back to what an investor might prioritize most.


Sure. 4-10 years isn't bad in anyway.


Oh, I get it now. In other sense, the set of people who fall in point 2 should be treated as traders rather than investors.


My intention was not to talk about alts, but rather to use it as a simple reference. I couldn't find a better reference that everyone could easily understand and would also fit the context , but I guess I must edit and fill it with something random so It doesn't deviate in anyway.

As the replies keep getting deeper, I realize that there are two points of view most replies are coming from:

1. A situation where the investor has the will to keep investing and holding with no plans of stopping or no specific time to quit.
2. A situation where the investor has a specific time frame for investing and holding.

Now let me make reference to these two.

Aside from Bitcoin investment, there are certain people in the world today who make massive investments in several projects with the mindset of doing it just for future benefits. Mind you, just for future benefits doesn't mean they already have plans on how to spend or use their profits. The ability for them to make such long term investments is because they prioritize investment over profits, and not profit over investment. Let me give an example:

Let's take a scenario of someone who has realized the future potential of Bitcoin and decides to invest in it. Due to how well this person understands long term investment, he or she won't have the urge or plan to tamper with the Bitcoin investment along the line because of the high priority placed on making investments only. Some of us here might have been in such situations, especially when it comes to alt. We sometimes invest massively but have no interest in spending it. We might even forget the seed phrase where those coins are kept.

Being able to do this is not for everyone. The ability to make your present profit a lesser priority and your continuous investment a major priority would enable you to invest longer.

As for the second point, the very moment an investor drafts a specific time frame for investing and holding, then getting quick profits becomes the number one priority rather than investing and holding for long term.

I am not saying that making profits is bad. But what we choose to prioritize most will determine how long we can invest. When we prioritize consistent investment and holding over making profits, we tend to invest for long term. But, when we prioritize profits over consistent investment and holding, we tend to invest for only a short period of time, and any ATH might even end our investment.

Competition?. Well from the general angle of business matters, competition plays a massive role in determining the price of goods, but looking at the massive gap in terms of price and market cap between Bitcoin and alt, can we really say that competition is a huge factor in determining price?. I think this point (competition) can be trace back to one thing, which is: demand and supply . If you had use "demand and supply", then there should have been a better form of correlation.

From the principle of economics, when the demand is high, and the supply is low, the price tend to increase. While going the other way round would lead to a decline in price. We've seen this happen for years.

Aside demand and supply, I think Rumors also play a significant role.

As for the underlined text above, there is a bit of misconception there as you've also stated that market correction can't slow the price. I will appreciate If you could explain better on how that point matters.

These are the few I can mention -
1. Demands and supply
2. Rumors(news)
3. Regulations ( which can also be traced back to number 1, by either increasing or decreasing it), etc.

Very forward and easy to understand. Now everything is beginning to make sense.


Correction noted.


I have seen something like wrapped SegWit before, but was wondering how it fits in. You've just explained a scenerio of its application. So good to learn this.

Choosing SegWit over Legacy for most(if not every) of our transactions is no longer a decision to contemplate on as everyone seeks cheaper and fast transactions these days. Though, this thread have nothing to do with Legacy, but focuses on two addresses: SegWit and Native SegWit.

When we look at the difference between SegWit and Native SegWit addresses, most articles prefer to publish only the primary (basic) difference between them, with a possibility of leaving out some of the key points. They only tend to focus on the difference between how their transaction data are stored on the Blockchain. but my primary aim here is to understand the technicalities behind both, if there is.

The introduction of SegWit was intended to fix transaction malleability and increase transaction capacity for the purpose of increasing block size. This could only be done by separating transaction data from its corresponding signature data, leaving just the transaction data as the only means of calculating the transaction ID.



From the two images above, Bech32 is enclosed in parentheses representing a Native SegWit address, while P2SH is also enclosed in parentheses representing a SegWit address. Upon checking the meaning of Bech32, I discovered that it is just an encoding scheme that governs the set of characters found in every Native SegWit address. SegWit addresses which are also known as P2WPKH, make use of the P2SH script function. These observations are literally not enough to explain the technical difference to why native segWit address have a lower tx fee compare to a compatible segWit as most online articles would speculate.

My Question:
1. Apart from the basic differences between these two, what do you think could be the technical factor to why Native SegWit address have lower tx fee than SegWit?.

---

Please note that I haven't observed this personally, but just asking based on general speculation.


I am 100% open to correction as I still see myself as a learner. Pardon any of my error and share your personal opinion. You might want to also DOYR after reading this.

Same question I would have asked the OP. The reason why I have chosen not to pay too much attention to this aspect of attack is simply because there haven't been any potential cases. Many people keep suggesting that it's possible but there isn't much evidence to back it up. Here is my recent research on both SHA-3 and SHA-256. When we observe the vulnerabilities, there haven't been any so far as the article says. Am not even sure if most Bitcoin developers are thinking of this potential risk, but Incase the OP can share possible attack scenario with us, then I might start paying attention to that area.





https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/sha-256-and-sha-3/

As it stands now, even owning Bitcoin as a youth puts you at risk especially when you are around security agencies wey dey wear black and black. To be honest, owing Bitcoin of your own as a hardworking person makes you even enjoy it better. I can't really tell the same from the angle of those who got theirs illegally.

Bitcoin is never a get rich quick scheme. It requires your own funds, it's basic knowledge, and also patience to make reasonable profit from it.  As most Nigerians would say "Na moni dem take dey find moni". No matter the approach we choose to use in getting Bitcoin, we must spend money as well for it.

Last tournament dance for Toni Kroos. There will be lots of expectations from him as he will be making most decisions in Nagelsmann's midfield. Exciting games ahead.

Interesting designs so far. My vote

All corrections and opinions have been NOTED. Regarding coin control, I can't find the feature on the Mycelium wallet

It is generally advised that users should always change address often so as to reduce  privacy risk, but what if such risks are still possible even when we follow this advise?. This question actually came to my mind earlier today, as I had to perform some drawings inorder to explain things to myself and also ask questions in the lower part of the post.

UTXO as we all know are like small amount of bitcoin in different portions that we can receive or spend via transaction. By spending UTXO, it is destroyed and created in another portion of amount. So the image I drew below was the best way I could interpret it to myself and to others.



The first image is based on so many UTXOs in a single wallet address. This particular wallet address has received 3 separate transactions of 0.5BTC, 1BTC, and 3BTC. Now, here is how UTXO can work on a single wallet address assuming we are to send 0.7BTC to someone else:
1. Using a UTXO model, the UTXO 2 (1BTC) is used in performing this transaction.
2. The entire 1BTC is been spent as an input, while the two outputs are produced, which are 0.7BTC to the recipient, and 0.2BTC as change that goes back to same address (this can be found in the second image).
3.  After performing the output calculation, we realize that it doesn't amount to the initial input (1BTC) i.e 0.7+0.2 ≠ 1. well this is because the remaining 0.1BTC is assumed as the tx fees, so 0.7+0.2+0.1 = 1.

It is important to note that when a transaction wants to be performed using a UTXO model, it uses  first in, first out pattern to choose a satisfactory UTXO. Which means for every address that contains multiple UTXO, the older UTXO are used (spent) for transactions before the new ones. Though, an UTXO can be skipped if it doesn't contain the neccessary input amount to be spent.

---

Simplifying my questions with a diagram and example


The image above is slightly different from the first, as this one involves multiple address in a wallet. Here we have address 1, 2 and 3. Address 1 and 3 contains one  UTXO each of 0.05BTC and 0.9BTC, while address 2 contains two UTXO of 0.003BTC and 0.0014BTC.

Assuming we were asked to send 0.8BTC to someone using an UTXO consolidation, it is ideal for all the UTXO in all addresses to combine their UTXOs into a single input before sending. Let's assume this input(0.9544BTC) also produce two outputs of 0.1244BTC(change) and 0.8BTC(to recipient), with a tx fee of 0.03BTC.

My Question:
1. Which address will the change(0.1244BTC) be sent to ?.( Address 1,2 or 3) - I am not quite sure if the first in, first out pattern would be used in this case.
2. Could this result to privacy risk since any of these addresses belonging to a single user can possibly get involve with a cex exchange ?.
3. Is there such thing as consolidation fee ?. If Yes, how is it different from tx fee ?.


I am 100% open to correction as I still see myself as a learner. Pardon any of my error and share your personal opinion. You might want to also DOYR after reading this.

Oh I see. They've seen another possible threat to their proposed centralization.

Just because the two-party multisignature payment channels will not allow them to monitor all transactions that looks to be happening behind the scene, they find it as a heavy threat. They are scared because the only thing they might have access to are all finalized transactions.

The choice of not including a non-standard transaction in the block, was it a general community agreement?. Because I read an article which am not too sure of the authenticity, that says : Non-standard transactions are submitted to a miner directly rather than dropping them in the mempool waiting for approval. The article specified that this transactions are hard to get approval especially when they are seated at the mempool. I am not really sure of how certain transactions are given to miners directly because it sounds strange to me.
 Please clarify me on this, so I don't learn something wrong.


Noted
So, for more clarity, does this mean that the ScriptPubKey acts as a locking script, while the other two (ScriptSig and ScriptWitness) act as unlocking scripts for SegWit and Legacy individually?.

But we also have to consider the fact that the Bitcoin network wasn't massive then compare to now. The difficulty level wasn't too complex, meaning linking up with the Bitcoin network then didn't require much power and and internet connection, which I think the modern day device can compete well.


The modern day device are quite advanced and have made so many upgrades. with the upgrade in internet connections, RAM, ROM, battery life, clock speed and others. So practically, it would have been possible for smart phones to compete. But there must be prons and cons attached.

NOTED


With the basic knowledge I have in C++, I was able to remember some syntax here, so reading wasn't that difficult. But the last line of code Is a little bit confusing

Does the NULL_DATA represents txoutput(data) with zero value entry?
.


This part was a little bit complex to understand, but with list of switch statements written above the code, I will assume that they were all threated in the main code.




Noted. Have just bookmarked the rules for future referencing.


Noted. Should probably add this to the rules also.

Bitcoin is unarguably the best investment asset. From what you've just explained, I noticed something quite interesting. During the three years when Bitcoin didn't reach the top due to bearish occurrence, it shows that many people are drawn to Bitcoin when its price is doing well. This also indicates that the FOMO is still very much present even since 2013. Just imagine for 11 years which is more than a decade, Bitcoin made it to the top spot due to the less bearish experiences in those years. But for the three years that Bitcoin didn't make it, it ended up at the last spot. This proves that the bullish trend of Bitcoin's price gains the attention of new investors.

There is no longer a debate about which asset is worth investing in. The rise in the price of Bitcoin since 2013 is already enough evidence for everyone to see. And as for this year (2024), Bitcoin has already won the top spot even before the end of Q1. We just can't forget the year of the ETF approval.

So lately, I have been finding it difficult to understand the relationship between ScriptPubKey and standard transactions. When I try to relate the ideal meanings of both terms, there seem to be some similarities.

ScriptPubKey is a script that contains steps on how Bitcoin can be spent. In other words, we can say that it helps to control how one can spend Bitcoin. Standard transactions from my perspective are transactions that meet all the necessary criteria, including confirmation and validation.

There seem to be several(types) attributes tied to both of them, which are:
1. P2PK
2. P2PKH
3. P2SH
4. P2MS
5. P2TR
6. P2WKH
7. P2WSH

I am quite familiar with few of the types listed above, such as P2PK, which means paying(pay) to public key. P2PKH, which means paying(pay) to public key hash(same as paying to an address. P2SH, which means paying(pay) to script hash. P2WKH, which means paying(pay) to witness key hash, and P2WSH, which means paying(pay) to witness script hash.

Aside from that, I also observed that there is a phrase "non standard transactions", which sounds like the opposite of "standard transactions". I tried to find a straightforward article to give me a better explanation of its meaning which I couldn't get, but had to reason from an ideal perspective which is: non standard transactions are transactions that might not meet the necessary criteria.

There are speculations that such transactions end up in the block, which I don't understand because the phrase says "non standard".

My questions:
1. Is there any proper definition for ScriptPubKey, standard and non standard transactions?.
2. Do ScriptPubKey and standard transactions mean the same thing?.
3. How do P2TR and P2MS work?.
4. Is it possible for a transaction to be non standard and still be valid?.
5. Can you explain the last paragraph above?.

This thread is basically to seek answers to my questions and confusion, which means, only the reply section is likely to be %100 accuracy.

I am 100% open to correction as I still see myself as a learner. Pardon any of my error and share your personal opinion. You might want to also DOYR after reading this.

---

Mod, please move the thread if it doesn't fit or contain enough technical matters

And they always tend to emphasize the word "Definitely"  , while In reality, things turns out the opposite.

And what if some of these banks are making their investments behind the scene. Well, we can never tell. Seeing silver ahead of Bitcoin was quite surprising. I remembered how Bitcoin surpassed silver in it's last ATH break out. Seeing the entire list, Bitcoin has a better potential as there are more price discovery to be seen. As Bitcoin continue to break it's ATH with more investors coming on board, Bitcoin will unarguably climb to compete with the top 5 on the list. As Bitcoin continue to grow and break it's ATH, we won't even be competing with most of this banks and companies in terms of market capitalization. As for those of us here, HODL shouldn't be a debate again as the journey keeps getting interesting.

Quite an interesting story, but a sad one for those that couldn't get their funds back. Though I don't really know much about this cloud mining service, but I think everyone should have a knowledge that any company offering a cloud mining service must have a physical location where their mining equipments are set. So, does this mean that none of the investors could even confirm the actual location of the mining site where everything is done?. Just imagine buying cryptocurrency to pay off your investors when you actually mine cryptocurrency on your own. A very funny situation I must say.