I couldn't leave without saying a goodbye.

Due to personal issues I'd rather not disclose, I'll have to resign my position in this wonderful place. It has taught me so much. Thanks to everyone who helped me comprehend all these amazing concepts. We can truly shake the world with just a few lines of code. How about that!

Good going.

Γράφω αυτό εδώ (κι όχι επί του προσωπικού), γιατί ο συγκεκριμένος με έχει μπλοκάρει στα PM. Αν θέλει μπορεί να το αγνοήσει, κανένα θέμα. Δε με νοιάζει να διαβαστεί από τρίτους. Θέλω απλά να ξεκαθαρίζω τους λογαριασμούς μου.

Τελευταία βλέπω μια ιδιαίτερη αντιπάθεια εναντίον μου. Το καταλαβαίνω ότι δε τα βρίσκουμε, αλλά δε νιώθω πως σου έχω κάνει κάτι κακό. Να πω πως σου έχω φερθεί άσχημα, να μου τη "μπαίνεις" δικαιολογημένα, αλλά δε νομίζω πως σου έχω φερθεί. Αν σου έχω φερθεί, ζητώ συγγνώμη. Το λέω γιατί πετάς κάτι υπονοούμενα (που αντιλαμβάνομαι ότι αναφέρεσαι σε μένα), λέγοντας πως είμαι υπέρ του WEF (που ουδέποτε δεν έχω πει τέτοιο πράγμα), ή λες στο άκυρο πόσα έβγαζα παλιότερα απ' το ChipMixer (το οποίο είναι δημόσια πληροφορία btw).

Αν υπάρχει πρόβλημα σε παρακαλώ πες το μου να το λύσουμε σαν ενήλικες.

I've been thinking of making quite a few purchases from Amazon lately, and I remember people are selling Amazon gift cards as if they're in abundance. You can even find them as options when buying and selling bitcoin from non-KYC exchanges, and can be bought much cheaply than they're worth.

- Are these legal? I remember there was an Amazon saying that you can't sell gift cards. Do people get caught into doing that? The transaction can be made anonymously, and I wonder how Amazon can figure that out.
- Are they legit or is this a usual financial instrument used to scam people?

This might not be directly related with Bitcoin, but it should absolutely concern the community.

So, Europeans in this board must have already been familiar with the on-going process of the EU enforcing the adoption of European electronic identities (eID)[1]. While the modernization of our identities isn't evil per se, it appears to be the case. Recently, there have been new legislative articles in closed-door meetings that virtually threaten the Internet's security by granting EU state members the permission to approve and disapprove which organizations can issue cryptographic certificates (like the one you and I use to read and write this privately right now). In other words, it gives them authority to surveil on their citizens.

Movement began from cybersecurity experts[2] which describes in even more detail what's going on. Read it. This is truly important to protest. A variety of scientists all over the EU have begun writing this open letter which opposes the position of EU parliament[3]. This is probably one of the worst things that can happen to everyone's privacy in the EU right now.

[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/06/29/council-and-parliament-strike-a-deal-on-a-european-digital-identity-eid/
[2] https://last-chance-for-eidas.org/
[3] https://eidas-open-letter.org/

(self-moderated, what I consider to be spam will be deleted)

I have come to the realization that what's stopping me from running lightning projects, as the one I'd proposed last year, is custody of the coins. I don't want to leave custody to some server I don't have physical access, and even if services like DigitalOcean have quite the best reviews when it comes to security, I don't want to buy their expensive services for just starting my project; if it's working towards success, I may migrate to them, but not at start.

As far as I've seen, there is no other way to establish a lightning service if you don't do one of the following:

• Run a lightning node in that VPS.
• Give your home-running node's macaroon access file.

Both of which give the VPS provider the authority to sign payments. (Reminder that to have a properly running node, you need some good financial capacity)

Is there a way to have the VPS communicating over my home node via Tor, at least without forfeiting custody nor payment authority?

[Note]

Plus instead of debating again and again that goes nowhere, why not open a topic/guide that compares different CoinJoin wallets and illustrate the pros and cons of each? That would be a more constructive solution, no?

Due to recent events with mixer being confiscated by authorities, or mixer doing an exit scam, or with a seemingly legitimate pro-privacy company going in the opposite direction, I think a clarification of where we are at the moment in protecting the users' privacy is necessary.

There are three ways to secure privacy of your bitcoins, each of which comes with its own advantages and disadvantages. Pick according to what fits you best.

1. CoinJoining - what is this?

There are three ways to do a coinjoin with a large liquidity and effectively. Joinmarket, Whirlpool, and Wasabi. We'll break down each.

Joinmarket [Github]
pros:

• Decentralized; each of you can become your own coordinator if you provide sufficient liquidity. The protocol is designed to work with many takers (those that will take ordinary users' offers).
• Self-custody.
• Large liquidity for coinjoins. (orderbook)

cons:

• Difficult to setup for the average user.
• Expensive; you're paying for the inputs of the takers. Those inputs are recommended to be more than 9, so you'll be paying for at least a large in size transaction. This can be in the range of $5 to $10 sometimes.
• Running your own full node is a requirement. (even though you should either way do that, as noted below)

Whirlpool - [samouraiwallet.com]
pros:

• Self-custody.
• Very effective, contains ~8,500 BTC in liquidity and you can make as many coinjoins as you want once you enter a pool.
• Cheap. For amounts within 0.001 and 0.025 BTC, you're paying only 5,000 sat. For larger amounts less than 0.7 BTC, 50,000 sat. (mining fees asides)
  

cons:

• Not fundamentally decentralized; you'll be using Samurai's whirlpool, as they have the most liquidity.

Wasabi - [wasabiwallet.io]
pros:

• Self-custody.
• Cheap. A fresh input (that isn't already coinjoined) will only cost 0.3% of the amount with free remixes according to the wiki. (mining fees asides)

cons:

• Not decentralized. Liquidity sits on top of the default coordinator, even though it's theoretically possible connect to other servers (none of which I'm aware of).
• Service treats the currency as non-fungible and might blacklist your inputs without rationale given.
• Software is caught to have flaws with protecting user's privacy: https://twitter.com/wasabistats.
• Funds blockchain analysis company and requests permission from them when user does coinjoin.

Note: To enjoy great levels of privacy with coinjoin, running your own full node is a prerequisite (unless you're using Wasabi which utilizes block filtering). If viewing your wallet's balance requires a third party, then the gained privacy is questionable.


2. Mixer services

In this category falls every Internet service that runs individually and is often advertised in this forum. You can find an extended list in here: 2023 List Bitcoin Mixers Bitcoin Tumblers Websites. Each service might come with other benefits, but they all fundamentally share the same pros and cons following:

pros:

• Can be cheap. In fact, some services in the past charged you absolutely nothing.
• Can be very effective. Services in the past used techniques like time travel and cutting of blockchain connection, both of which are impossible to do with coinjoins.

cons:

• You're forfeiting the custody of your coins.
• Trust that the service isn't a honeypot or doesn't keep logs is needed.

3. Swapping bitcoin with a private cryptocurrency

The third option is most likely underestimated. Swapping decentralized, cheaply, and with the largest anonymity set currently available (Monero / XMR), is attractive. Let's look in each pro and con closely.

pros:

• Decentralized, using Bisq, you can trade bitcoin for XMR, and there appear to be lots of offers: https://bisq.markets/market/xmr_btc
• Very effective; largest anonymity set (about $2.6B in market cap). You can also take advantage of the time; you can keep the XMR for an indefinite time, and make yourself even more untraceable.
• Self-custody. (if Bisq is used)
• No trust required. Monero is a network resulted from cryptographic achievements like ring signatures and their combination with confidential transactions.

cons:

• Might be a little complicated, as the user has to get along with Monero, and maybe even run a full node for additional privacy.
• Might come a little more expensive sometimes. Total costs are: Bitcoin on-chain fees (4 TXs), Monero on-chain fees (nearly zero), Bisq fees (trading costs).
• You're giving up bitcoin for an altcoin. Some may not like that, and if you keep it for a lot of time, there might be price fluctuations (which can be seen as an advantage too, as they randomize the swapped bitcoin amount).

Comments appreciated.

I hate Reddit, and because this community is very sensitive with privacy, I want some help regarding which mobile OS best fits my needs.

So, I recently stumbled across this paper, which describes how a deep-learning attack can be executed to de-anonymize you if smartphone is near the keyboard: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.01074.pdf. Their research shows that with the acoustic side channel attacks they've executed, there is 95% accuracy on phone-recorded laptop keystrokes. This means that even if you're running some super privacy-respecting software like Tails, if you're carrying a smartphone around you, there is chance that the closed-source Android OS can use VoIP and de-anonymize that little privacy square left.

As the icing on the cake, I'm interested in running a transparent, privacy-focused mobile OS to sleep easy. It has to fulfill the following criteria:

• It has to be Android-based.
• Has to have serious development (not a project that can be abandoned the other month).
• I will be able to have apps like Instagram, Messenger, Discord, and anything that uses micro-G. (and support notifications without problems)
• It needs to be open-source and privacy-focused.

I have concluded GrapheneOS, LineageOS and CalyxOS are what govern the space, but I'm quite lost to be honest. I want to read your thoughts on this.


Edit: I tried GrapheneOS. Read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5463809.msg63022282#msg63022282

I'm thinking of implementing a little project of mine, which involves depositing and withdrawing coins to / from my lightning node. I don't have the resources to run this from my home (and I neither want to), so I'll have to trust some intermediary (i.e., VPS or simple web hosting) for not messing up with my money. The intermediary will not hold access to my lightning funds, but they will have access to the mysql database, which will list every user's balance.

I'd like to read some recommendations on which service I should use. I need the server to run php and mysql.

Honestly, I had never thought about this before, or at least I don't remember thinking about it.

Say that Foundry USA, AntPool and F2Pool (which in total hold about 69% of the hash rate according to btc.com) cooperated to pretend there's network congestion, when there isn't. For example, say the median fee is 1 sat/vb. But, they don't like that, so they broadcast a thousand transactions paying 5-10 sat/vb, to encourage some of the users with 1 sat/vb to raise their fee rate. Pools' transactions don't cost them anything, because they don't include them into their candidate blocks. They just take advantage of the wallet software there exists which tells the user to pay more to have priority.

This isn't limited to when there isn't congestion. Pools could do this right now with Ordinals, and broadcast transactions with 100 sat/vb; that would encourage those paying 50 sat/vb to raise fees. To avoid other pools from including their transactions (and pay 100 sat/vb which is pretty high), they could sometime include a transaction that invalidates their attractive transactions (e.g., spends an UTXO from those).

A problem, from the pool owners' side, is that they can get caught easily for doing it. Every person running a full node will notice unreasonable activity (the miner not including tx that pay much), and blocks mined by pools are known.

In 22nd of May, Burak Keceli sent an email to the bitcoin-dev mailing list, describing an alternative second layer solution which is far more scalable, private, requires no interactivity and does not introduce liquidity constraints; essentially superior to lightning in every aspect. It consumes much less space on-chain, works like Chaumian eCash without being a central point of failure, and makes use of shared transaction outputs. To enable anonymous, scalable and off-chain transactions, it uses virtual transaction outputs (or vTXO).

It is in very early stage, and the team behind desperately needs Bitcoin developers willing to work on it.

Overview of Ark: https://www.arkpill.me/
Technical details: https://www.arkpill.me/deep-dive
Introductory email: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-May/021694.html

What do you think.

[NOT]

Some clarification is needed to this board due to the recent incident with ChipMixer.

To all advocates of anti-anonymous Bitcoin and Internet tools: Bitcoin mixing is NOT money laundering, per se.

Definition of money laundering:

Money laundering is the process of illegally concealing the origin of money, obtained from illicit activities such as drug trafficking, corruption, embezzlement or gambling, by converting it into a legitimate source. It is a crime in many jurisdictions with varying definitions. It is usually a key operation of organized crime.

Definition of Bitcoin mixing:

A cryptocurrency tumbler or cryptocurrency mixing service[1] is a service that mixes potentially identifiable or "tainted" cryptocurrency funds with others, so as to obscure the trail back to the fund's original source.

Unless you think that every potentially identifiable coin is obtained illegally (which would be false), Bitcoin mixing does not equate with Bitcoin laundering. While it is possible to launder, hereby conceal the origins of money from an illegal activity, it is not a money laundering service, in the same manner that while it is possible to terrorize with the assistance of end-to-end encryption and peer-to-peer protocols, such a messenger is not a terrorism service.

When you mix coins, not only do you just not want from the rest to know your business; you want them to know you want to conceal it. It can be a completely conscious decision from any person; criminal or not. If you don't respect this dignify-respecting technique which strengthens individuals' privacy, say it, but say it right; "I don't want that much privacy". Prepare to receive an infinite amount of deprecation from privacy advocates afterwards, but clear it up.

P.S.: You can't have privacy without money laundering due to the nature of humans-- by the way, the opposite does not necessarily hold true.

Το παρόν νήμα θέλω να το αφιερώσω στην ιδιωτικότητα, καθώς δεν υπάρχει ήδη ένα. Έχουμε κάνει διάφορες συζητήσεις περί ιδιωτικότητας και ανωνυμίας, αλλά είναι σκόρπιες σε πολλά threads.

Μπορεί αργότερα να αρχίσω να παραθέτω και μεταφρασμένα άρθρα εδώ, και να λειτουργήσει σαν χρήσιμη λίστα από τακτικές προστασίας.


Μερικά θέματα προς συζήτηση:

• Πόση ιδιωτικότητα χρειαζόμαστε στις συναλλαγές; Σας ενδιαφέρει / ενοχλεί αν δεν έχετε; Θα πληρώνατε ποτέ λίγο παραπάνω αν πρόκειται να είχατε υψηλότερα επίπεδα ιδιωτικότητας;
• Σας αρκεί η ιδιωτικότητα στο bitcoin; Πιστεύετε πως χρειαζόμαστε κι άλλη;

test

I've had a time comprehending the main difference between soft fork and hard fork. Please correct me: a soft fork means stricter rules. Taking the current rules, and adding more, but without invaliding the previous. For instance, SegWit was a soft fork, because it added another rule which, according to the non-upgraded clients was valid.

Question: is the invalidation of an old, valid rule considered part of soft fork? Yes, according to the wiki. So, you can mine an invalid block, that is valid in old clients terms, and broadcast it in the old client network. Does that encourage old clients to switch to new version, since they might hear on blocks that are likely to reorg? What could be the excuse of a non-Segwit node to stay in non-Segwit?

test

test

[discord]

I would like to devote this thread for thoughts about sustainability, broadly and specifically. Bitcoin has come a long way in the last 13 years, and we're likely still on the beginning of something powerful. I think that as time goes by, and most of us are united and consented on the current protocol rules, Bitcoin won't stop thriving in the market. A lot of users believe that the main source of failure in the long run, is network sustainability. Lately, I've been trying to imagine how would a so succeeded network come into such dead end.

I have come to the conclusion that the network's sustainability is impossible to predict in the current phase. There are just too many parameters to take into account. What will the price of bitcoin be in decades ahead, what levels of security are considered sufficient, what kind of layers we'll have by then, what other incentives, maybe even nation strategies concerning cryptocurrencies. However, I'm sure for one thing: activity. If there's demand for the network to operate, it will be supplied. And for a network of global scale to operate normally, I think we need to concentrate on one thing: scalability.

I don't believe that changing the block size limit is the ticket for a global scaled network. But, neither do I believe that leaving it as is, is too. I'm all in for transaction compression (which is what's scaling in the end), as an off-chain solution like lightning, but the problem with this is that it restricts access to technically incompetent users. It fundamentally does, because no ordinary person who wants to gain the benefits of peer-to-peer cash, has the time to configure a lightning node, a Bitcoin node, and run both. Even if he goes on with pre-installed solutions (e.g., Umbrel), which separate the technical part from the end user, it's still discouraging because the user has to have a computer running every day, all day, which is orders of magnitude more difficult than holding a private key, and more expensive.

Big blocks, I agree, throw out a significant part of "small players" out of the window, because the cost of infrastructure to run a node rises significantly. Even my Raspberry Pi 4 sort of slowed down recently with the Ordinals overwhelming the mempool. But, ironically, so do small blocks if we take the lightning path ("small", in terms of technical competence). Therefore, I notice one thing: the future of Bitcoin's scalability is misty.


But, scalability, as per se, isn't only what's concerning me. In fact, it's rather the stimulus. It's what is likely to cause the real problem; discord. As I said at first, as long as there's a consensus around a particular set of rules, there can be progression. If the network splits, the result might not be as desired as expected. So, let's have a talk. Fruitful discussion is our only weapon we, as forum, have to confront this.

Here's some questions for debate:

• Will there probably be another block size war? If yes, shouldn't we take precautions now that we've learned from the mistakes of the previous time? What precautions?
• Should we rise the block size limit at some point in the future? If yes, how much? If no, what's the appropriate alternative?
• Can there be progression without backwards-compatibility?

Self-moderated. Will not ever delete post based on opinion. Keep things civil. Be constructive.

I have noticed that my sub-board's moderator is inactive (mitzie) nearly two months now. Recently the Greek board experienced a sort of spam tornado in this thread, which intrudes the forum rules[1], and I don't believe there's any staff member who would notice my report (there aren't lots who speak Greek to begin with, let alone to moderate the board).

I have also dedicated a decent part of my time in bitcointalk. I registered in March 2020, close to 3 years, and I haven't stopped being active for more than 3 days for once. For those reasons, I want to apply for the moderator position in my local board as I believe I am the most suited.

[1] Trolling, spamming, zero value posts, and among all that, it's off-topic as well.

Αποφάσισα να δω τι γνώμη έχει και το νέο AI για τα ζητήματα του sub-board μας. Ξεκινώντας από ένα εύκολο:

Πολλές φορές ακούγεται ότι δε μπορεί να λειτουργήσει σα νόμισμα λόγω υψηλής μεταβλητότητας της τιμής. Τι απαντάτε σε αυτό; Η αλήθεια είναι πως είναι έγκυρο, αλλά το σκέφτομαι ως εξής: Ανεξάρτητα από τις πτώσεις και τις υψηλές αποδόσεις, όταν κάνεις τις ίδιες πάνω κάτω συναλλαγές, σημασία έχει το μακροχρόνιο αποτέλεσμα.

Για παράδειγμα, ακόμα κι αν έχω ξοδέψει μέρος των bitcoins μου, συνεχίζει να το προτιμώ, γιατί βιώνω κέρδη που δε θα βίωνα με fiat όλο αυτόν τον καιρό. Και αυτό ισχύει πιο πολύ για αυτούς που αγόραζαν πριν από εμένα.

It is true that cryptocurrency can be volatile, but the long-term result matters more than short-term fluctuations. For example, even if I have lost some of my bitcoins, I still prefer it because I have gained more in the long run than I would have with fiat currency. This applies even more to those who bought before me.

Ας κανουμε ενα poll για το ποσοι εχουμε διαβασει το περιφημο whitepaper και ας συζητησουμε για το τι θεωρουμε πως λεει . Παραδειγματος χαρη , ξεκινωντας απο τον τιτλο , ο satoshi το αναφερει ως "electronic cash system" . Γιατι επελεξε τη λεξη cash και οχι store of value ? Μιας και στα post που ειχε κανει στο φορουμ το ειχε παραλληλισει με την εξορυξη χρυσου ?

The title "electronic cash system" was chosen by Satoshi Nakamoto in the white paper because the main focus of Bitcoin was to serve as a decentralized, electronic payment system. "Cash" was used because it refers to a physical medium of exchange that can be used for transactions, and "electronic" was added to describe the digital nature of the system. The comparison with gold mining was made to emphasize the limited supply of Bitcoin, similar to how the mining of gold has a limited supply.

Γειά σε όλους τους φίλους.

Θεωρείται στιγμή ευκαιρίας όταν το νόμισμα είναι στα χαμηλά του να αγοράσεις;

Πιστεύετε πως τώρα είναι καλή ευκαιρία;

Whether it is a good opportunity to buy Bitcoin when its price drops depends on one's personal investment strategy and market outlook. Some investors see drops as buying opportunities, while others see it as a sign of market uncertainty and potential for further price declines. Ultimately, the decision to buy or not should be based on an individual's own research and risk tolerance.

Μπορεί να μου εξηγήσει κάποιος το νόημα αυτής της φράσης και τι σκοπό έχει;

Είναι σαν να λέμε "iPhone is not... smartphone!".  

Μα αφού το iPhone γέννησε ολόκληρη την κατηγορία/αγορά των smartphones!

Έτσι δεν γέννησε και το Bitcoin την κατηγορία/αγορά των cryptocurrencies;

Σίγουρα μετράει πολύ το first mover advantage και το network effect...

Και σίγουρα το iPhone έχει πολλούς επίδοξους μιμητές, από επιτυχημένους (Android), μέχρι αποτυχημένους (Windows Phone).

Αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι ένα Android έχει την ίδια αξία/ποιότητα με ένα iPhone... και μιλάω αντικειμενικά ως κάτοχος Android. Γνωρίζω τα τεχνικά από πίσω και έχω κάνει συνειδητοποιημένη επιλογή (εξάλλου το κινητό δεν είναι επένδυση/asset).

Οπότε ποιό το νόημα της φράσης "BTC is not crypto";

Υποψιάζομαι (μπορεί να υπάρχει και άλλη εξήγηση) ότι είναι για να «προστατέψει» τους crypto noobs από το να πέσουν σε scam altcoins (δηλαδή το 99,99% εξ αυτών, από τα 20.000+ που υπάρχουν στο CoinMarketCap). Γιατί ο noob θα σκεφτεί «crypto το ένα, crypto το άλλο, οπότε γιατί να μην επιλέξω το φθηνότερο;».

Νομίζω θα ήταν καλύτερο να υπάρξει καλύτερη εκπαίδευση γιατί π.χ. το XRP δεν είναι το ίδιο πράγμα με το BTC, κι ας ανήκουν και τα 2 στον χώρο των cryptos.

Τι (τεράστιες) διαφορές υπάρχουν στο (de)centralization, στο consensus, στα tokenomics (max cap/scarcity) κλπ κλπ.

Γιατί σίγουρα ο νουμπάς θα δει φτηνό XRP και σου λέει κάτσε να πάρω κάμποσα, ενώ 1 BTC δεν μπορώ να αγοράσω. Unit Bias 101

Πιστεύω στην εκπαίδευση του κοινού ΠΡΕΠΕΙ να βοηθήσουν και τα γνωστά ανταλλακτήρια (Binance, CoinBase, Kraken κλπ): να γυρίσουμε επιτέλους σε integer sats notation και να φύγουμε οριστικά από τα δεκαδικά νούμερα. Μην τα υποτιμάμε τα CEX, έχουν μεγάλο network effect και μετράει πολύ το marketing.

Πως λέμε άλλο μια σοκολάτα να κοστίζει €0,3 και άλλο 100 δραχμές -> το δεύτερο φαίνεται πιο «γεμάτο» νούμερο. Το 0,3 ακούγεται ευτελές, το ξοδεύεις για πλάκα... εν τέλει την ίδια αγοραστική αξία έχουν.

Έτσι κι εδώ...

Δεν θεωρώ ότι το "BTC is not crypto" βοηθάει κανέναν. Πιθανότατα βγάζει και άσχημο όνομα προς τα έξω για την κοινότητα και ίσως απωθήσει κάποιους.

Μου θυμίζει κάτι tribal Linux distro wars (π.χ. Gentoo/Arch/Debian vs Ubuntu). "Ubuntu is not GNU/Linux"

^ Αυτό το reference θα το πιάσουν μόνο οι παλιοί των fora, πριν 15+ χρόνια. Δεν είναι κάτι καινούριο (ούτε παράξενο, είναι στο DNA μας ως είδος) το tribalism ως φαινόμενο. Μπορούμε το ελέγξουμε όμως έως ένα βαθμό.

ΥΓ: Στα του BTC (PoW) vs ETH (PoS) έχει ενδιαφέρον η γνωμοδότηση του SEC περί commodity (σιτάρι, χρυσός, σπίτια, BTC) vs security (ETH, μετοχές, ομόλογα).

Σημαντική διαφορά... ΚΑΙ εδώ χρειάζεται σωστή εκπαίδευση του κοινού!

Είναι σημαντικό (και) για ρυθμιστικούς λόγους να παραμείνει το BTC στο PoW (και ναι, κάποιοι βλέπουμε πολύ μπροστά, ακόμα κι αν δεν θα ζούμε το 2140+ να ζήσουμε Dyson Sphere σκηνικά -> οι ιστορικοί του μέλλοντος θα μελετούν όμως τα κειμήλια του παρόντος forum, για αυτό και τα γράφω) και όσον αφορά το (προαιρετικό) staking (για όσους θέλουν κάτι τέτοιο) υπάρχουν άλλες λύσεις (π.χ. Haru), χωρίς να αλλάξει το consensus πρωτόκολλο -> win-win situation.

The statement "BTC is not crypto" might mean that some people want to protect "crypto noobs" (newbies) from falling into scams and choosing cheap (but unreliable) altcoins instead of Bitcoin. It might have been better if there was better education about the differences between cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and XRP, even though they both belong to the crypto space.

Θα βοηθήσει το Bitcoin εν μέρει στο Great Reset;
Και εξηγούμαι:

1) Όταν έχεις BTC στην κατοχή σου, σε συμφέρει να αγοράσεις ΙΧ (δεν λέω για Lambo που έχει γίνει meme , αλλά γενικά);

Το ΙΧ εξ' ορισμού ανήκει στο παθητικό, είναι liability. Είναι κάτι που σου τρώει συνεχώς χρήμα (συντήρηση, σέρβις, ασφάλειες, καύσιμα κλπ). Δεν είναι επένδυση/asset (εκτός κι αν μιλάμε για τίποτα συλλεκτικό/αντίκα ή αν το δουλεύεις ως ταξί).

Άρα γιατί να αγοράσω ΙΧ με τα BTC μου;

Γιατί να μην το νοικιάσω;

Μήπως λοιπόν το BTC βοηθάει έμμεσα στο "you'll own nothing and be happy";

2) Δεν ξέρω πόσοι έχετε δει την πρόταση των Elon Musk/Michael Saylor να φέρουν KYC στα social media (Twitter) και μάλιστα με όχημα το BTC (να πληρώνεις ένα Χ ποσό σε sats, έτσι ώστε ο scammer/impersonator να το σκεφτεί διπλά πριν ανοίξει 6000 alt accounts και να στήσει bot farm όπως κάνουν στην Ασία).

Προσωπικά αμφιταλαντεύομαι αν είναι καλή ιδέα ή όχι.

Αφενός έχω κουραστεί με όσους κάνουν κατάχρηση της ανωνυμίας στο διαδίκτυο (μιλάω για όσους έχουν πολλαπλούς λογαριασμούς), αλλά από την άλλη δεν θέλω να πάμε σε δυστοπικά μονοπάτια... πάντα έχω στον νου μου το "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Είμαι σχεδόν βέβαιος ότι το internet του 2030-2040 θα είναι πολύ διαφορετικό από το σημερινό. Όπως και το σημερινό είναι πολύ διαφορετικό από το internet του 2000-2010.

Προσοχή: δεν λέω να γράφουμε όλοι με ονοματεπώνυμο στο διαδίκτυο (όπως συμβαίνει στο Facebook συνήθως, αν και εκεί υπάρχουν μπόλικα ψεύτικα accounts).

Λέω να γράφει ο κόσμος με ψευδώνυμο (εφόσον θέλει έτσι), αλλά να ΜΗΝ μπορεί να ανοίγει πολλαπλά accounts για πλάκα ή για παραπλάνηση.

Να ξέρει ο καθένας ότι πίσω από τον cryptosize (που θέλει να συνεχίσει να γράφει ως cryptosize) υπάρχει ένα πραγματικό, ταυτοποιημένο πρόσωπο και ΟΧΙ ένα bot! Έγινα κατανοητός;

Γνωρίζω γιατί οι εταιρίες δεν θέλουν να κόψουν τα ψεύτικα accounts (ενώ μπορούν).

Αν διαβάσει όμως κανείς τον Συμμετοχικό Καπιταλισμό του Σβαμπ, θα δει ότι πρεσβεύει την ιδέα του να μην είναι ο τζίρος (ΑΕΠ/κεφαλαιοποίηση) το Νο1 metric για την επιτυχία μιας επιχείρησης.

Άρα ίσως στα πλαίσια του ESG να εγκαταλείψουν το κυνήγι του MAU και να καθιερώσουν KYC...

Προσωπικά πάντα το έλεγα ότι το KYC δεν προσφέρει κάτι στο user experience των cryptos. Μπορεί να προσφέρει όμως στην καταπολέμηση των alt accounts.

Το internet φτιάχτηκε αναρχικό και ανώνυμο, αλλά δυστυχώς πολλοί το εκμεταλλεύονται αυτό. Πόσοι spammers υπάρχουν και εδώ μέσα και στο Instagram/Twitter/Reddit που στέλνουν μηνύματα με απάτες;

Αυτά ως προβληματισμοί μήπως το BTC παίζει κάποιο ρόλο «λαγού» για το σύστημα. Το έχω ξαναπεί ότι το σύστημα θα βρει τρόπους να καπελώσει ακόμα και μια αναρχική εφεύρεση, με τρόπους που ίσως δεν φανταζόμαστε (ακόμα)!

ΥΓ: Τα ίδια (λογική ώριμου φρούτου) έχουν γίνει και σε άλλους χώρους: π.χ. δημόσιες επιχειρήσεις (όπως η ΔΕΗ).

Τι κάνουν εκεί; Αφήνουν οι πολιτικοί να γίνει μια ΔΕΚΟ μπάτε σκύλοι αλέστε, ο κόσμος νευριάζει με την κακοδιαχείριση και σου λέει κάντε τα όλα ιδιωτικά! Τα αποτελέσματα ("the road to hell is paved with good intentions") τα βλέπουμε σήμερα...

Οπότε δεν το αποκλείω επίτηδες να αφήνουν να γίνει μπουρδελέ ολέ το διαδίκτυο, να απηυδήσει ο κόσμος και να πει «φέρτε KYC εδώ και τώρα!». Και αυτό μπορεί να έχει unintended consequences (όπως λέει ο Jordan Peterson).

Σε έναν ιδανικό κόσμο δεν θα υπήρχαν alt accounts/scammers/spammers...

1. Bitcoin does not directly contribute to the Great Reset. Owning Bitcoin as an asset is not the same as owning an ICH (car), which is a liability as it incurs ongoing costs (maintenance, service, insurance, fuel, etc.). It's questionable why someone would use their BTC to buy ICH instead of renting one. The idea behind Bitcoin is decentralization and more control over one's assets, not contributing to the concept of "you'll own nothing and be happy."

2. I have mixed feelings about the proposal by Elon Musk and Michael Saylor to implement KYC on social media platforms using Bitcoin. On one hand, I understand the need to curb the abuse of anonymity online, but on the other hand, I don't want to take steps that could lead to a dystopian future. The idea of using Bitcoin to pay a certain amount in sats to combat impersonators and scammers is interesting, but I am also cautious about the potential consequences. The internet is a powerful tool, and we should be mindful of the decisions we make regarding its regulation.

Καλησπερα στη παρεα,

Εχουμε μηπως καποιο καλο οδηγο για το πως λειτουργει το lightning network? Εχω διαβασει θεωρητικα, αλλα νομιζω πως καποια πραγματα δε τα πιανω. Για παραδειγμα, πως μετακινουνται τα χρηματα με ενδιαμεσους χωρις να χανει custody ο χρηστης;

Sure, here's a concise guide to how the Lightning Network works:

1. The Lightning Network is a second-layer payment protocol built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, designed to allow for fast and cheap transactions.

2. Transactions on the Lightning Network are made between two users who open a channel between them and lock up a certain amount of bitcoin in the channel.

3. Once the channel is open, they can transact as many times as they want without having to record each transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain.

4. Transactions are settled on the blockchain only when one of the users decides to close the channel. At this point, the final balance of both users is recorded on the blockchain.

5. To pay someone who is not directly connected, the payment can be routed through multiple channels in a process known as "hopping".

6. In this case, the payment is divided into multiple smaller payments, each one going through one intermediary node until it reaches its final destination.

7. This allows users to transact with each other without having to give custody of their funds to intermediaries, as the funds remain locked in the channel and under the control of the users at all times.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.

Πείτε μου ό,τι άλλο θέλετε να το προσθέσω εδώ, ή απαντήστε με κάτι δικό σας κάτω. 

Του είπα να μου απαντήσει στα αγγλικά γιατί γενικά δεν το έχει και πολύ με τα ελληνικά. Είναι ενδιαφέρον το πόσο politically correct απαντάει, μπορώ να πω.

I stumbled across this discussion in lightning-dev lists: Do we really want users to solve an NP-hard problem when they wish to find a cheap way of paying each other on the Lightning Network?, and it was interesting.

The TL;DR is: Lightning's fee function is f(x) = rx + b, with r being the fee rate and b being the base fee. But this function isn't linear (in a linear algebra sense) unless b=0. The conclusion is that without a base fee, the system would work more efficiently.

Lightning implements a variation of the Dijkstra algorithm, which in the worst case scenario with Fibonacci heap, it has a time complexity of Θ(E + V*log(V)), where E is the number of edges and V the number of nodes. My computer science question is how the fee function takes place and rises the time complexity by orders of magnitude if b is non-zero.