This is my understanding of reorgs. Please correct me if I'm somewhere wrong.

• Assume we're at block height 700,000.
• Miner A mines block 700,001.
• Miner B mines block 700,001.
• Both miners broadcast their success at the same time.
• Some nodes receive coinbase transaction A, and some coinbase transaction B (let's call one group A, and the other B).
• Miners from group A mine on top of coinbase transaction A, and miners from group B mine on top of coinbase transaction B.
• Group A mines the candidate block successfully, it adds it on top of 700,001 and shares it with everyone.
• Now block height is 700,002, and the coinbase transaction from block 700,001 is A, meaning that both miner B and miners from group B wasted their computational power.

The correct chain is the one with the most work. The group's A chain is correct, because their chainwork is greater. As far as I can tell, chainwork is calculated in amounts of blocks. If difficulty is 1, and you add a block on top of the chain, 0x100010001 of chainwork is added.

Now my question is: isn't a block hash based chainwork more accurate than a block amount based one? If, instead of difficulty, we used block hash as a meter for chainwork, there would be no reorgs, because either miner A or miner B would find a hash with more work than the other.

Example:

• Assume we're at block height 700,000.
• Miner A mines block 700,001: 0x00000000000000000002f39baabb00ffeb47dbdb425d5077baa62c47482b7e92
• Miner B mines block 700,001: 0x000000000000000000010e76862af418f16ddb538f6f03ef7a7052b751d79b829 (hash is lower than A's, and therefore B has probably worked more)
• Both miners broadcast their success at the same time.
• All nodes will discard Miner A's block, because Miner B's block's hash is lower than A's.
• Everyone works on top of Miner B's block.

Doesn't that drop the cost of reorgs to 0?

Το παρόν ποστ αποτελεί απάντηση σε ένα άλλο. Το thread φτιάχτηκε για να μην κάνουμε derail εκείνο.

Βλεπω την ιστορια , και αυτο που βλεπω ειναι πως σε μικρα δικτυα σε σχεση με το δικτυο του btc τα πραγματα κυλανε οπως ειναι αναμενομενο . Δεχτηκαν επιθεσεις , ξεπεραστηκαν τα προβληματα και η ζωη συνεχιζεται .

Ούτε καν. Όσα "ξεπέρασαν" τα προβλήματα που είχαν δεν ήταν ποτέ decentralized εξ αρχής, και όσα ξεκίνησαν decentralized και παρουσίασαν προβλήματα στην πορεία εξαφανίστηκαν.

Δεν αντιλαμβανομαι και το σκελος με τα 10kk tx/block . Ποιες θα ειναι οι τεραστιες επιπτωσεις ?

Δεν θα αντέχει ο average user. Αν επιτρέπονται 10kk tx σε κάθε μπλοκ, τότε σημαίνει πως το δίκτυο θα πρέπει να λειτουργεί νορμάλ κάτω από αυτές τις συνθήκες. Αν όμως επιτρέπονται 10kk, σημαίνει πως το spam attack είναι πάνφθηνο. Δες BSV που έχει 1GB blocks. Βλέπεις να πηγαίνει καλά το πράγμα; Το blockchair (κι άλλοι explorers) ανακοίνωσαν πως θα το κάνουν delist, όχι μόνο λόγω ελάχιστης χρήσης, αλλά και επειδή η αλυσίδα έχει φτάσει terabytes χωρίς λόγο. (Κάποιοι ανεβάζουν παράνομα βίντεο επειδή απλά μπορούν)

Δοκίμασε spam attack στο Bitcoin network με 1MB blocks αν το αντέχει η τσέπη σου.

Θεωρω πως το επιχειρημα σου δε στεκει . Για ποιο λογο να μη θελει καποιος να περασει η συναλλαγη του το συντομοτερο δυνατον ?

Όλοι θέλουμε να γίνει το συντομότερο δυνατό, απλά κάποιοι θέλουμε περισσότερο από κάποιους άλλους. Αφού υπάρχει κόστος χώρου, είναι λογικό να δημιουργείται αγορά, στην οποία ο καθένας κάνει τη δικιά του προσφορά φόρου ανάλογα με την ανάγκη του.

Το να λες οτι πρεπει να δημιουργηθει ανταγωνιστικη αγορα μου φερνει στο μυαλο την προταση του Luke Dashjr που ηθελε 300kb/block . Συμφωνα με τη συλλογιστικη σου αυτο θα ηταν ακομα καλυτερο γιατι θα δημιουργουσε ακομα μεγαλυτερο ανταγωνισμο

Όχι. Μάλιστα, θεωρώ πως το δίκτυο θα άντεχε περισσότερα από 1MB block size. Είπα πως θέλω και τα δύο μέλη να πληρώνουν το κόστος (miners, users), αλλά με 300kb καταλήγουν να πληρώνουν τα περισσότερα οι χρήστες. Το ότι έχουμε βρει συναίνεση στα 1MB όμως δε βλέπω να του δίνεις μεγάλη προσοχή. Είναι πολύτιμο. Επίσης, απ' ότι φαίνεται άλλοι διαφωνούν με εμένα, αλλιώς θα είχε πετύχει το Bitcoin Cash (αν και δεν υποστηρίζω τέτοια αύξηση στο size). Το γεγονός ότι το hard fork το παράτησαν οι χρήστες μακροχρόνια όμως λέει πολλά.

Μαλλον μιλας για καποια χρονια πισω . Υπηρξε οντως μια περιοδος που θεωρουσε ο καθενας πως μπορει να τρεξει mining node .

Όχι, αυτό που λέω ισχύει ανεξάρτητα με το αν υπάρχουν 2 mining pools όλα κι όλα ή κάνουμε όλοι mining με CPUs απ' το σπίτι. Όταν υπάρχουν άνθρωποι που έχουν αισχρή σύνδεση στο ίντερνετ (σε σχέση με κάποιους άλλους) είναι λογικό τα big blocks να κάνουν περισσότερη ώρα να γίνουν propagate. Αυτό σημαίνει περισσότερα stale blocks.

Τα stale ειναι μερος της διαδικασιας , δεν ειναι αναθεμα . Αν αντιληφθουμε οτι οι miners θελουν να παρουν αμοιβη και οχι να συνεχισουν να παραγουν blocks χωρις να παιρνουν αμοιβη σε καποια τυχαια αλυσιδα , να εισαι σιγουρος πως θα κανουν τα παντα για να επιστρεψουν το συντομοτερο .

Είναι μέρος της διαδικασίας που πρέπει να αποφευχθεί όσο γίνεται. Στο XMR πριν λίγα χρόνια είχαν block interval 1 minute, και το ανέβασαν στα 2.5 minutes για τον ίδιο λόγο. Περισσότερα stale blocks κι άρα περισσότερη σπατάλη δουλειάς. Το ίδιο συμβαίνει και στο Dogecoin χρόνια τώρα, αλλά who the fuck cares about that.

Το να κανεις συναλλαγη σε μια αλυσιδα δε σημαινει πως τα χανεις στην αλλη

Αυτό πότε το είπα; Που κολλάει;

Που το διαβασες οτι αυτο ειναι το νοημα του bitcoin ?

Το νόημα του bitcoin, περιληπτικά, είναι να επιτρέπει σε οποιονδήποτε να στείλει και να λάβει χρήματα μέσω ίντερνετ χωρίς να εμπιστεύεται μια αρχή για δύο πράγματα:

• Την ακεραιότητα των συναλλαγών.
• Την προσαρμογή της ποσότητας του χρήματος.

Για να το καταφέρει ο χρήστης αυτό μόνος του πρέπει να γνωρίζει όλες τις συναλλαγές που έχουν γίνει πριν από αυτόν (σελ. 2, παρ. 3). Αν δεν το κάνει, και επιλέξει να συναλλάσσεται με SPV (σελ. 5, παρ. 1) σημαίνει πως παρουσιάζει ένα μέρος εμπιστοσύνης. Όχι πως είναι απαραίτητα κακό αυτό, αλλά αυτό συνεπάγεται πως δεν μπορεί να είναι σίγουρος για τα δύο παραπάνω, και πως δεν έχει τα ίδια επίπεδα ιδιωτικότητας.

Για να ξεκαθαρίσουμε κάτι: Δε περιμένω η πλειοψηφία να τρέχει full node. Θέλω όμως όποιος θέλει να μπορεί.

Για τις συναλλαγες του Ho Lee Fuck στην αλλη ακρη του κοσμου τι σε νοιαζει αν πηγε για ψωνια ?

Δε πρέπει να επιβεβαιώσεις την εγκυρότητα του Proof-of-Work αν δεν επιβεβαιώσεις την εγκυρότητα όλων των συναλλαγών στο block πρώτα.

Ποσες φορες καποιος σε εχει εξαπατησει με double spend ?

Δε κατάλαβες το κείμενο που παρέθεσα, σου προτείνω να το ξαναδιαβάσεις. Δε μιλάω για 51% attack. Overpowering the network δε σημαίνει με επεξεργαστική ισχύ αναγκαστικά. Μπορείς να κάνεις επίθεση αν απλώς έχεις μεγάλο μέρος του δικτύου (π.χ. πολλές IP). Κάτι τέτοιο δεν κάνει ζημιά στους full nodes, αφού τα επιβεβαιώνουν όλα, αλλά οι χρήστες των SPV μπορεί να την πατήσουν όταν θα συνδεθούν σε malicious SPV node, που θα τους σερβίρει πληροφορία που δεν ισχύει, και δε θα το ξέρουν.

Due to recent events with (another) exchange collapse from hack, and millions in stolen funds that must have got mixed already, I got this concern of mine. Should users who advertise mixing services feel confident in this place? According to our Privacy Policy - Variation, administrator might choose to share individuals' information, even without law enforcement involved.

Has it even happened, or does it seem probable to you, for some agency to request any kind of take down due to the advertisement of a service that might be one of the top targets of the authorities when it comes to bitcoin as we speak? As far as I can tell for ChipMixer, bitcointalk is the gateway. It's unlikely you happen to access it otherwise.

Graduate from department of economics Matthew Ferranti recently published this paper that describes how bitcoin can serve as a sanction hedge, alternatively to gold, and especially if acquiring gold shares isn't sufficient for the respective central banks, which does present some interest: https://blackhatcoiner.com/Cryptocurrency_in_Central_Bank_Reserves.pdf (source)

Here are some parts worth to highlight:

Countries that import valuable military equipment from geopolitical rivals of the United States, particularly China and Russia, plausibly face a heightened risk of U.S. sanctions. In 2017, then-President Trump signed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, providing for sanctions on entities that transact with the Russian defense sector. In 2020, President Trump issued Executive Order 13959, establishing financial sanctions against certain Chinese military companies. As previously discussed, entities that transact with sanctioned entities face the risk of secondary sanctions, so importing military goods from China or Russia raises the importer’s sanctions risk.

As a risky asset, Bitcoin has historically not exhibited a flight to safety effect; Bitcoin’s price tends to fall during periods of economic turmoil. Indeed, Figure 25 shows that Bitcoin declined concurrent with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. However, the figure also shows that Bitcoin sharply appreciated immediately following the US Treasury’s sanctions against the Central Bank of Russia. Therefore, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin may provide some insurance value against deglobalization shocks, such as the disruption caused by sanctions. This hypothesis is consistent with Aysan et al. (2019), who find that Bitcoin hedges geopolitical risks.

Third, Bitcoin’s volatility does not preclude its functioning as a store of value. Gold, a reserve asset widely regarded as a store of value, has experienced significant real losses over prolonged periods of time. Harmson (1998) illustrates that gold tends to maintain its purchasing power over centuries, but the price of gold can experience significant fluctuation over 10- or 20-year periods. Indeed, Figure 26 illustrates that the real price of gold experienced an 86% decline over approximately a 21-year period beginning in 1980. Similarly, since Bitcoin’s third ”halving” event in July 2016 (which reduced the rate at which Bitcoin is mined), Bitcoin experienced a maximum real drawdown of 83% from December 2017 to December 2018.31 Superimposing the Bitcoin and gold price graphs reveals several similarities, including the concavity, the pattern of volatility clustering towards the beginning of the series, and the magnitude of the price decline.

I was just testing a clean machine and realized this; why does a syncing node have a mempool? A node that hasn't reached the chain tip can't know if the received unconfirmed transactions are valid or not. I don't know if it propagates them too (haven't made any github search), but since it receives them, and keeps them in memory (confirmed it with a getmempoolinfo), I presume that it's reasonable to propagate them as well.

But, since it hasn't reached the chain tip, the conclusion is that it receives (and propagates) transactions whose validity hasn't been checked (by consensus rules' enforcement). Is this true? If yes, why? Can't there be an attack established on non-synced nodes who'll propagate invalid transactions and have their IP blacklisted?

I'm confident that there's always an answer for everything in Bitcoin Core.

Edit: I misinterpreted getmempoolinfo. With a getrawmempool, it returns an empty array. So... no mempool for non-synced nodes?

I am not affiliated with Stacker news, nor do I want to seem I advertise them. I have no relation.

Recently, I found out about this hacker-news-like website which drawn my attention. Stacker news is an open-source project that emphasizes on one thing: make blog posts payable in bitcoin. You can buy karma via lightning, and send it over to posts that you think they deserve it. Posters can withdraw their karma in lightning as well. Commenting comes also with a cost (1 sat), and comments can also be rewarded with karma.

The result is to incentivize for quality content, and minimize shitposting / spam. What do you think?

Recently, Paypal announced that they will be charging $2,500 if you're caught to spread "false, inaccurate or misleading information" as they say[1]. It'd be planned to be effective by November 3rd, but they must have realized it does some harm to vaguely and subjectively suspend accounts and confiscate people's money, so they've reversed it according to Dailywire[2]. However, some users do have had their accounts canceled. Specifically, accounts linked to Toby Young[3].

This[4] is the updated list of prohibited activities, taken from web archive. They have removed it from paypal.com, as I said because they must have withdrawn it. This isn't much different from the this year's GoFundMe case, wherein millions of dollars from truckers were seized due to protesting. It might be a common phenomenon from now on, especially with the existence of such ambiguous and subjectively-taken legislation[5]. Let me highlight some:

Act in a manner that is defamatory, trade libelous, threatening or harassing

Provide false, inaccurate or misleading information

Send or receive what we reasonably believe to be potentially fraudulent funds

Control an account that is linked to another account that has engaged in any of these restricted activities

Leaving savings to your Paypal account means you're fully agreed with having them confiscated if you're caught to do something that might be considered shady or inappropriate, not according to you, but according to Paypal.

Friendly suggestion: Don't. Move to bitcoin. I can't assure you that it will rise or stabilize in value over the long term, but I can tell you this: It doesn't have Terms & Conditions. You're censorship protected.

[1] https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-paypal-policy-lets-company-pull-2500-from-users-accounts-if-they-promote-misinformation
[2] https://www.dailywire.com/news/paypal-reverses-plan-to-fine-users-2500-for-misinformation-after-daily-wire-report
[3] https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/paypal-suspends-toby-youngs-free-speech-union-accounts-over-covid-misinformation-335762/
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20220927223312/https://www.paypalobjects.com/marketing/ua/pdf/US/en/acceptableuse-full-110322.pdf
[5] https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities

I've already opened a github issue, but due to lack of responses, I'll ask it here as well. I don't know if it's a REST related issue, or mine, but probably the latter. Executing GET commands using REST works fine (e.g., getinfo), the problem is with POST commands.

For example:

Code:

curl -X POST "https://localhost:3001/v1/invoice/genInvoice" -H  "accept: application/json" -H  "Content-Type: application/json" -H 'macaroon: Ag[...]l4=' --insecure -d "msatoshi=1000"

The above returns:

Code:

SyntaxError: Unexpected token a in JSON at position 0
    at JSON.parse (<anonymous>)
    at createStrictSyntaxError (/home/bitcoin/c-lightning-REST/node_modules/body-parser/lib/types/json.js:158:10)
    at parse (/home/bitcoin/c-lightning-REST/node_modules/body-parser/lib/types/json.js:83:15)
    at /home/bitcoin/c-lightning-REST/node_modules/body-parser/lib/read.js:121:18
    at invokeCallback (/home/bitcoin/c-lightning-REST/node_modules/raw-body/index.js:224:16)
    at done (/home/bitcoin/c-lightning-REST/node_modules/raw-body/index.js:213:7)
    at IncomingMessage.onEnd (/home/bitcoin/c-lightning-REST/node_modules/raw-body/index.js:273:7)
    at IncomingMessage.emit (events.js:314:20)
    at endReadableNT (_stream_readable.js:1241:12)
    at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/task_queues.js:84:21)

It needs more parameters (label, description), but the error is the same. And I don't know what it means. (I mean I do know, I just don't know what it has to do with c-lightning-REST)

Core Lightning: v0.10.2
C-Lightning-REST: I don't know the version. I'm trying to figure out where it is located.

I can launch a signature campaign, and manage it for you.

- I'm a bitcointalk user since 2020, and haven't stopped being active for a week.
- I know the business. What campaign managers do, how they do it etc.
- I'm looking forward to cooperate with you.
- I'm charging ridiculously low.

No images, no colorized writeups, no significant effort to convince you I'm trustworthy. Everything done simply.

I'm in an exercise mood, and said to have some fun with custom scripts. But, I have some hard time understanding signrawtransactionwithkey, and said to open a thread, to avoid any testnet coin losses. To begin with, isn't it improper grammar-wise to name it "sign with key" when in a scriptSig, ECDSA signature isn't necessarily required? Spending custom scripts, such as for hash collisions, requires no signature (but does require scriptSig).

Let's take my input:

• scriptSig: OP_PUSHDATA1 80 0x0100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002ba3e dfd7a7b12b27ac72c3e67768f617fc81bc3888a51323a9fb8aa4b1e5e4a29ab5f49ffff001d1dac 2b7c
• scriptPubKey: OP_HASH256 32 0xd751d5b58a9d143185a943cf85753ec3c0738bd4a1f27af94bac591033428036 OP_EQUAL

Resulting in an input hex of:

Code:

0x4c500100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002ba3edfd7a7b12b27ac72c3e67768f617fc81bc3888a51323a9fb8aa4b1e5e4a29ab5f49ffff001d1dac2b7caa20d751d5b58a9d143185a943cf85753ec3c0738bd4a1f27af94bac59103342803687

Address: 2NDNgMiVUtDADp3iTgcure2s857ohwhfduP according to bitcoin-script-debugger. (You can take the tBTC if you want)

What I don't understand (assuming I've understood everything correctly so far) is how to spend it. Bitcoin Core spends inputs of such transactions with createrawtransaction followed by a signrawtransaction.

I do create the transaction:

Code:

$ bitcoin-cli --testnet createrawtransaction "[{\"txid\":\"9f3e800aeef891ad654aa453bcff843014bec82f0f95bea9beaadf6053b40d76\",\"vout\":0}]" "[{\"tb1q3xyzqkylfj9p5nhulcggwtgdmuy608kdg05c8p\":0.00099}]"
0200000001760db45360dfaabea9be950f2fc8be143084ffbc53a44a65ad91f8ee0a803e9f0000000000ffffffff01b882010000000000160014898820589f4c8a1a4efcfe10872d0ddf09a79ecd00000000

But, I don't know what to submit with signrawtransactionwithkey. According to the docs, private key(s) are required as an argument, but I don't want to sign anything. I only want and need to enter the redeemScript.

Είχα στο μυαλό μου να φτιάξω κάποια στιγμή ένα thread που θα μαζέψουμε όλα τα γελοία posts από no-coiners, κι αυτό εδώ μου το θύμισε σήμερα.

Θέλω να κάνω μία προσωπική δήλωση: Γελοίος no-coiner είναι κυρίως αυτός που δε γνωρίζει τα βασικά από όλες τις απόψεις (οικονομικά, τεχνικά, πολιτικά) και έχει το θράσος να δίνει τόνο στην αποψάρα του. Τι δεν είναι γελοίος no coiner; Αυτός ο οποίος γνωρίζει τι εστί bitcoin κι απλώς δεν συμφωνεί πως είναι στην τελική οφέλιμο. Για παράδειγμα, το βρίσκω παντελονάτο να έρθεις να μου πεις πως δεν γουστάρεις το bitcoin, γιατί διαφωνείς με το gold standard, ή συμφωνείς με την κεϋνσιανή θεωρία / φιλοσοφία, όπως για παράδειγμα αυτός εδώ, που από πολύ νωρίς (Μάιος 2011) πίστευε πως θα αποτύχει σαν concept (εδώ γελάμε λίγο): https://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201105*. Παρ'όλα ξεκαθάρισε πως δε γουστάρει το gold standard, και το σέβομαι μέχρι ένα σημείο.

*Disclaimer: Διαφωνώ με πολλά απ'όσα λέει. Point being made.

Τι είναι γελοίος no-coiner; Adslgr Αυτός εδώ: http://tav.espians.com/why-bitcoin-will-fail-as-a-currency.html, που αν διαβάσετε το άρθρο (επίσης του 2011) θα καταλάβατε τι εννοώ. 

I recently read this article, and excuse me for not understanding Satoshi's explanation, but why is the MIT licensed chosen, when that very license allows closed-source bitcoin-related software to be created, when this very action is against the pro-transparency philosophy?

Unless I haven't acknowledged how licenses work, and if it'd be legally okay to re-create closed-source wallet software from scratch (such as Exodus) even if Bitcoin Core was released under AGPL (which prohibits re-distribution if source code isn't going to be disclosed).

I'm developing a free forum service which will be consisted of a plugin, a front-end and a back-end. I need some feedback from the community to know how should I orientate this project.

This is how I currently think about it: Users can tip each other via Lightning by either using lightning invoices (BOLT 11), lightning offers (BOLT 12) or keysend. My server will hold no funds, it will only act as an intermediary that'll exchange invoices, offers or nodes' public keys. To have your tip shown publicly (like merits), you'll need to pay in invoice, because that's the only way my server can know the money is sent (other options like offer and keysend don't interact with my server*).

I'd like you to complete this form so I can have a better idea of what you'd like. Please make a post, replacing "Y/N" with "Yes" or "No" according to you. 

Code:

1. I would want such service: Y/N
2. I have a Lightning node running: Y/N
3. If yes, I use: (Choose: "Core Lightning", "LND", "eclair")
4. If I don't have a Lightning node running, I'd still want a tipping service with an option to not hold custody of funds: Y/N
5. I prefer paying in: (Choose "invoice", "offer", "keysend", "other")
6. I want my tipping be shown just as merit (i.e., "merited by BlackHatCoiner (8)"): Y/N
7. If such service was available I'd submit my node to earn tips: Y/N

* Paying an invoice is neither known exactly by the intermediary, but installing a Core Lightning donation plugin and make it connect to it, makes it possible to know if someone paid it.

I'm searching for an API that allows me to request an invoice from a lightning node, without owning that node. C-Lightning-REST does generate invoice with /invoice/genInvoice (see localhost:4001/api-docs/), but it needs access to the macaroon file (access.macaroon), because whoever has access to it can move the money. Therefore, only the owner can query the invoice (using RTL for example).

What I want is a REST API that does not involve control of funds, and just returns information about that node (getinfo, invoice). Is there such thing or do I have to write the node js myself?

Code:

┌──────────┐    1. get invoice              ┌──────────────────┐
│          ├───────────────────────────────►│                  │
│  Server  │                                │  Lightning Node  │
│          │◄───────────────────────────────┤                  │
└──────────┘    2. lnbc...4gj5hs            └──────────────────┘

[bankrupt casino]

I'm requesting a ban for user Snowshow due to violation of three forum rules. Specifically, ban evasion, troll posting and pointless talking.

1. Ban evasion.
Snowshow is the person behind multiple accounts, one of which is already banned. Specifically: fxsurfer (banned), antikvark, Antithesis. Besides raising the same kind of "issues", such as "Bitcoin has no value", "Satoshi lies", "Bitcoin doesn't exist", "Bitcoin exists to Satoshi's imagination" etc., they also have similar writing style.

Let me find some strong similarities that make a splash:

Numbers in a database:

Bitcoin is a name that creates the illusion of asset. And thus, a scam. Those who are in the system are deceiving people by claiming they own asset or money while only name and numbers attributed to their addresses exist. That's why one can benefit only if new investors enter the system. Hence, classical investment scam.

And now the questions: if I can purchase a picture of a sunset for a couple of bucks on Shutterstock and watch something aesthetically rich, why on Earth would I purchase number "1" for $37,000 and watch something aesthetically poor?

So bitcoin is just a worthless number in a database that was smartly disguised as a real money and market instrument in order to lure the public to purchase it. And this is basically how investment scams operate. Every investment scam uses some worthless item that is disguised as something valuable to attract investors. In our case this item was a number in a database.

Also, bitcoin is not a commodity. That's why bitcoin is NOT money. Bitcoin is just a fancy name for a DB entry.

Satoshi Nakamoto fools the world:

But regardless, Nakamoto’s false claims fooled many people around the world and made them to invest in the system.

Namely, an anonymous author called Satoshi Nakamoto wrote a computer program that sends quantity data to the virtual addresses of people who maintain a database with these quantities and addresses.

What you all have in common is that you were fooled into believing that you participated in an economic transaction. But you didn't. An economic transaction is the exchange of ownerships.

YouTube videos FTW:

Here's a more detailed explanation of the discovery: https://youtu.be/AUvPzegOuZA

Bank notes or numbers on my banking account secure the capital that I invested in them because the borrowers are forced, via collateral, to use these notes or numbers to repay their loans. Here you have video explaining that: https://youtu.be/p37Wg6h2PJ4

Or: https://youtu.be/aBl-O_3g_58

When I presented arguments like the one in the the video below, people just ignored them. Now, they will learn the hard way what it means to be a part of a Ponzi scheme.

Bitcoin And Cryptocurrencies - Ponzi Schemes Dressed Up And Sold As Money
https://youtu.be/gcNngl8fCUY

In the below linked presentation, Bitcoin is exposed as a fake investment product, which as such, is a total waste of energy. This also applies to all cryptocurrencies.

Why is bitcoin a fake investment product? Or, to put it another way, how do we even differentiate between real and fake ones. Well, it's easy. In a real investment product, your investment of property or work is invested into something actual, which in the future, can provide you similar benefit. In a fake investment product, your investment is not actually invested into something, but is rather, just transferred from you as a new investor to old investor. Historically, there is no exception to the rule that all such products end up collapsing.

The rest here: https://youtu.be/N5RKm7_scL4

Casino mania:

First, any price of bitcoin above zero is infinitely expensive (price of bitcoin devided by zero redemption value gives infinity). Second, bitcoin is similar to a losing lottery ticket, to a stock of a bankrupt company, to a currency of a former county or to a casino token of a bankrupt casino.

So, if that guy Satoshi claims that the numbers that his system is writing down are coins than he is actually claiming that someone has the liability to redeem them. Like banks redeem their records via loan repayments, like casinos redeem their records (tokens), like retailers redeem their gift cards, or corporations their bonds. But no entity exists that has the liability to redeem the record next to addresses in Satoshi's system.

Even casino chips are form of money as they grant specific rights, i.e. - casinos are legally obligated to cash chips they issued. On the other hand, when numbers are added next to someone's virtual address in a DB called blockchain, NOBODY is legally obligated to cash these numbers or to exchange them for goods or services, which means that no right is granted by bitcoin.

In fact, he's even reported of evading ban before.

2. Troll posting
This scumbag appears to annoy the Bitcoin Discussion board by making the same kind of posts wherein he reveals his completely lack of comprehension of the subject. No matter how many times we've debunked all these concerns he does did have, he'll just continue seeking for attention with the same nonsense; "Bitcoin is a scam", "Bitcoin doesn't exist", "Bitcoin is Nakamoto's ponzi scheme" etc.

3. Pointless discussion
As you might have understood so far, there's no point in having a conversation with him, because what he wants is to just make some noise so a few Internet strangers can take the time to engage with him. His furious behavior to create alts, just to be proved right, no matter the endless list of arguments we've used, proves it.

In 19th this month, he made another thread: Bitcoins are Not Real — Or how People Blindly Accepted Nakamoto's Nonsense. Can we just give an end to this drama?

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.

[wasteful system]

This 1st of August some ECB authors published this paper: https://blackhatcoiner.com/ecb.pdf (paper from the official site, but it denies access from Tor)

I said the authors and not the actual chairmen of ECB, because:

Disclaimer: This paper should not be reported as representing the views of the European Central Bank
(ECB). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ECB

Comments:

5. Unbacked crypto-assets such as Bitcoin

Isn't it annoying to read this term? Implying that it isn't backed by anything makes it sound like a non-licensed liability, hereby a scam. Since when do we use the term "unbacked" for assets?

Even if additional payment layers like the Lightning Network attenuate speed and capacity issues in the sphere of micro-payments, this does not change the fact that these solutions also rely on the Bitcoin blockchain as an eventual settlement layer, which remains a wasteful system

The underlying technology (and in particular its “proof-of-work” layer) is inherently expensive and wasteful.

If the energy is used to secure the network, it isn't being wasted. How many times do we have to debunk this weak argument? Granted, centralized solutions are more efficient, but they don't provide the same benefits. Period. Plus, bitcoin mining can be used to save up costs of wasted energy.

Also, a number of other crypto assets (like Ethereum)

Ugh. Ethereum, "the crypto asset". This opens up a big discussion, but I wouldn't call asset a completely centralized decision-wise digital currency whose monetary policy is yet unknown, with 70% of the current cap being pre-mined. Rather a unit of a feudal system.

It'll make sense if, in the not far future, CBDC's will be backed by digital asset, that is bitcoin.

Δεν παρακολουθώ κανένα κόμμα, αλλά όταν μιλάει αυτός μου τραβάει το ενδιαφέρον. Σε δύο διαλέξεις του μιλάει για χρήμα, πόλεμο και τεχνολογία, και αγγίζει και το bitcoin. Δεν περίμενα τέτοια στάση, στα όρια του γελοίου, από έναν άνθρωπο που φαίνεται τόσο σοβαρός.

Η πρώτη αναφορά γίνεται στο Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων: https://youtu.be/IFSQ3dcgAfk?t=5857

Εδώ έχουμε γνωστό επιχείρημα, απομυθοποιημένο χιλιάδες φορές, με την αναλογία bitcoins-τουλίπες. Με το που το άκουσα ξενέρωσα, και είμαι σχεδόν σίγουρος ότι ξενέρωσε και ο καθηγητής που τον ρώτησε. Θα ήθελα αλήθεια να τον ρωτήσω εκείνη τη στιγμή, ποια ήταν η τελευταία φορά που τα φυτά σάς επέτρεψαν να μεταφέρετε αξία από το ένα σημείο του κόσμου στο άλλο, με έναν ανθεκτικό στη λογοκρισία τρόπο, γρήγορα, με σχεδόν μηδενικό κόστος;

Η δεύτερη αναφορά γίνεται στο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλίας: https://youtu.be/97pUJTB8Ges?t=3658 (έχω κάνει και σχετικό σχόλιο-μακρυνάρι)

Εδώ όχι απλά κάνει βεβιασμένη γενίκευση, αλλά λέει και ψέματα. "Το 97% ανήκει σε μια ομάδα ατόμων, το ξέρεις". Όχι ρε φίλε δεν το ξέρω, μήπως μπορείς να μας το αποδείξεις εσύ; Επίσης το ποσοστό των bitcoin που λέει ότι δεν έχει μετακινηθεί από το 2009 είναι τεράστιο ψέμα, αρκεί να κοιτάξεις μόνος σου στην αλυσίδα και να το επιβεβαιώσεις.

Κάτι επίσης που με ενόχλησε είναι το "χρησιμοποιείται ελάχιστα για συναλλαγές". Έχει κάποια απόδειξη για αυτά που λέει ή σπεκουλάρει; Το ότι μια τεράστια οικονομία έχει χτιστεί, διαμορφώνεται και θα συνεχίσει να αναβαθμίζεται πάνω στο bitcoin θα του το πει κάποιος;


Πάμε παρακάτω. Ο λόγος που έγινε η αναφορά είναι επειδή θέλει να καταργηθεί το σημερινό λογιστικό χρήμα, και να υϊοθετηθεί digital currency (AKA, CBDC) που θα ελέγχεται από το κράτος. Λέει η τεχνολογία blockchain θα βοηθήσει σε αυτό, εγώ ακόμα προσπαθώ να καταλάβω πως. Αφού μιλάμε για μια οντότητα που θα το ελέγχει, τι να την κάνουμε την διαφάνεια (βλ. Tether);

Keynesian economists argue that macroeconomic outcomes such as recessions or crises that arise due to fluctuations in demand can be mitigated by coordination of the state, if it controls the money supply. For example, if there's a pandemic and we're experiencing high levels of unemployment, the state can just create more money, regardless of the production rate, to blunt it. In the same way, they can intervene and, deliberately or not, abuse it.

Bitcoin's monetary policy reminds of the Austrian school that focuses on individualism that's, as they say, what causes all economic phenomena. It's the exact opposite of Keynesianism, because it's money whose supply and policy can't be altered by anyone effectively.

Is that probably the reason most economists attack it? And, if something happened, and it became the world's main currency, do you believe we'd have to face outcomes similar to the Great Depression of 1929? Please justify your opinion.

[ Relevant to: Is democracy an utopia nowadays? ]

This thread is relevant to "Bitcoin and Keynesianism".

I was watching an economist-politician's dialect, about war, money and technology[1]. He was asked of why he disapproved of bitcoin. He justified that it leads to oligarchy and makes it impossible for the state to control the money during crises and recessions. While the former is already debunked, the latter appeared to create me some interest, at least in the way he described it. He said he prefers of a digital currency that's controlled democratically from the citizens, essentially focusing on society's benefit instead of individual's.

My first thought was: Sure. If the supply of that money changes based on the people's benefit, democratically, it can only help on blunting inflation and deflation, during recessions and crises.
My second thought was: Isn't impossible to have the italicized part nowadays?

We're being spied from nearly everywhere. Phone calls, messages, internet activity, movements, biometrics, conversation recordings etc., having our privacy invaded in most inches. Isn't utopian to try and convince people to civilize democratically under these conditions? There can't be true democracy without true privacy, and that's a fact, not an opinion.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97pUJTB8Ges, talks about bitcoin at 1:01:01. Don't know if English subs are available, though.