 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
|
I came across this wonderful resource for those new to the space. If you have not taken the time to read the whitepaper or have but you are finding it difficult to understand, this animated edition of the whitepaper will help you visualize the concepts rather than just read about them. https://textframe.app/examples/bitcoinRemember, every time you reread the whitepaper, you understand it a little more with each read.
|
|
|
|
|
As of this moment, 0.01 USD is about 15 satoshis.
So I beg this question, once we are beyond the 1 Sat = 1 Cent how will bitcoin be further denominated?
Will current wallet software automatically be able to adjust for this or will this need to be programmed in? Or is there nothing that needs to be done?
Could we end up with even smaller denominations of bitcoin?
I would imagine that this does not involve the protocol in any way so nothing would need to be changed software-wise, correct?
edit: I am beginning to realize there is no need for further denominations. Considering price has literally nothing to do with bitcoin denominations.
We will only ever need 1 sat.
|
|
|
|
|
So Liquid and RSK are both sidechains to Bitcoin.
Is the Stacks Network considered to be a sidechain to bitcoin? I can't find them using the term sidechain on their webpage nor anywhere else.
I am trying to find the proper term to describe Stacks to my colleagues.
|
|
|
|
|
For those not familiar with what it means for something to be fungible, it refers to how interchangeable individual units of a commodity or good is.
Your Bitcoin is the same as my Bitcoin. My gold bar is the same as your gold bar.
For the longest time, I had always viewed Bitcoin as a perfectly fungible store of value. As I continue snooping the forum however, it seems that many members aren't so sure.
Bitcoin that has been 'tainted' by illicit activity has allowed exchanges to flag (and possibly freeze) any Bitcoin they deem to not be clean. Something as simple as using mixing services, coinjoin transactions, or other anonymity features is enought to have your Bitcoin flagged. Obviously, this poses a major issue, a fungibility issue. Now, my Bitcoin is not the same as yours. Mine is "tainted", while yours is "clean". This undermines the entire definition of fungibility.
I hate to come with a problem and not a solution..but I beg the question(s)..
What do we do about this?
Are there people actively trying to fix this?
Is this something that can be fixed by devs or is this a political game?
What do you do with "tainted" coins? Use a DEX and exchange back for a new set of coins?
Is this all just a bunch of nonsense and nothing to worry about?
If you recall any good discussion on this topic somewhere on this forum please drop a link.
|
|
|
|
For those of you who are not familiar, ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria are a set of standards for companies to screen potential investments. This enables them to make informed decisions on the companies or individuals they are investing in. Environmental criteria consider how a company performs as a steward of nature.
Social criteria examine how it manages relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates.
Governance deals with a company’s leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights. It is arguable that Bitcoin presents issues in all three criteria. Particularly Governance in the eyes of ESG. ESG has been around since 2006, and for a while, major companies found it laughable to follow such restricting standards. ESG companies even found it harder to survive when they were being outpaced by entities that could invest their money as they pleased. Larry Fink, the big man at BlackRock, recently met with other financial giants at the World Economic Forum and discussed ways they will standardize these criteria and make it challenging to survive for those who don't adhere. If you are familiar with CoinBureau (loves alts) then you may have seen his video on ESG and how much of a threat it poses to Bitcoin in particular. In his video, he goes into great detail discussing Bitcoin's potential Environmental, Social, and Governance issues in the eyes of ESG. The video is very informative and well researched, so I recommend taking the time to watch it. (Link at the bottom) In my attempts to dismiss it as FUD, I went to the comment section of the video to see what his viewer base had to say. As expected, it's just a bunch of fanboys telling him about how quality his content is with minimal discussion of the discussed topics. I want to discuss this further here. Kevin O'leary stated on the What Bitcoin Did podcast that the May crash from our ATH was not due to China's infamous ban. He suggests it was ESG concerns over Bitcoin's environmental concerns. He explains that Tesla dropping Bitcoin payments was not because governments threatened to pull carbon credits, like many thought. In reality, it was ESG issues brought to him by ESG rating companies. Could something like ESG criteria bring issues to Bitcoin? Are all of Bitcoin's potential issues surrounding Environmental, Social, and Governmental factors in the eyes of ESG legitimate or just FUD? ESG Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVxiFEzCp2U |
|
|
|
|
I have been re-reading many of the old BIPs and I stumbled back upon BIPs 100-109.
For those of you who remember, BIPs 100-109 are a collection of attempted hard forks with the aim of increasing the max block size from 1mb. Clearly, these proposals were rejected.
I know this community is not very keen on increasing the block size, but it seems that everyone agrees it will need to be addressed in the future.
But when does this become "okay"?
When does it become okay to increase the block size, and by what increment? Or is it completely unnecessary because of L2's?
I understand the centralization issues a larger block brings, but how bad could it actually get from a small increase?
Educate me!
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have any reliable resources regarding properly/safely mixing BTC?
This is not for any nefarious reasons, I am just interested in trying the service.
I have tried to find some reliable service providers online however I get a lot of scam reports when I look into the services a bit deeper.
Are there any services you folks have used?
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin DeFi projects have been a huge focus for companies like Square. Jack Dorsey has been working with his team to create a DeFi business built on Bitcoin's rails. It has been reported that there are around 26 active Bitcoin-related DeFi projects. That is just what Square is doing. As we are all aware, DeFi projects have been primarily dominated by the likes of Ethereum & Binance Smart Chain. Projects like Aave, Uniswap, Compound, and PancakeSwap already have tens of billions of dollars locked up in their network. This will grow exponentially. It seems rather clear these DeFi projects will take place on sidechain/layer-2 solutions. The on-chain network is currently not fit for these projects. Regardless of the technical aspects, however, I am wondering if Bitcoin DeFi will be able to draw similar liquidity to what we are seeing in ETH & BSC. Will Bitcoin DeFi be able to compete? Will we be able to offer the same yields? Will it be as effective/efficient as DeFi on other networks? Could Bitcoin DeFi be superior? Assuming Bitcoin devs (not just Square's) are able to create a system that is both efficacious and secure, I believe that it could become the primary DeFi network. This is much easier said than done, however, and is certainly an uphill battle. Then again, maybe the goal isn't to be #1 in DeFi.  What do you folks think a Bitcoin DeFi network would look like? Do you think we would see anything truly unique? |
|
|
|
For the past decade or so, there have been people who have practically dedicated their lives to finding the creator of Bitcoin. Even over a decade later, there are still folks who are actively seeking to track down this ghost. All with the hope of finally knowing the truth. Who created one of, if not the most important invention of our generation? Naturally, this would be something everyone would want to happen. We want to give credit where credit is due. We want to put a face to this now mythical pseudonym. Under all of this curiosity, however, lies a rather dubious double-edged sword. Especially when Bitcoin was in its infancy. (Arguably still is.)Obviously, Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym. Meaning if we were to find this individual, their true name would likely have to surface. While we would ultimately have found Bitcoin's beloved creator and his real name, we would have opened ourselves to a whole new planet of FUD. Not FUD towards Bitcoin itself, but its creator. I want to be clear that the impact of finding Satoshi now would be very different than finding him 7+ years ago.Governments and financial institutions would now have the identity of the individual that is attacking the very infrastructure upon which they made a fortune. This is bad news. While I am not insinuating they would have gone after Satoshi's life, I firmly believe they would have done everything in their massive amount of power to defame, discredit, and slander the founder of Bitcoin. This includes:
- Fraud Allegations
- Terrorism Funding Allegations
- Allegations for Funding Criminal Enterprises
Etc.. They could even make this man look like a pedo by "linking" him to certain organizations and saying that THIS was the sole purpose of Bitcoin. The problem is, they now have a face to attack. We know the media, they can say whatever they want. With zero accountability.Accusations like these would not be as effective as they would have been 7+ years ago like I had mentioned. These days, the Bitcoin community is more vast and immeasurably stronger than it was during these early times. Much of this would have been recognized as manipulation by big government and HODLers would remain headstrong. Even still, it would be ignorant to think there would not be some considerable problems in an event such as this. However, in the earlier days of Bitcoin, FUD at these levels combined with a face to attach to it could have been fatal to our still fragile ecosystem. If Satoshi had chosen not to remain anonymous from the beginning, financial institutions/governments would have stopped the party well before it got out of hand. They could have exercised any of the aforementioned options and given themselves more than enough justification to make Bitcoin highly illegal globally. On a different timeline, something like this would have greatly hindered crypto development. This is why it was inexpressibly important for Satoshi to remain anonymous. If you ask me, this is why he should stay anonymous. I am in no way suggesting that people looking for this figure stop looking for this figure. If it is your mission, accomplish it. Just understand there are more serious implications at hand once he/she is identified. |
|
|
|
Recently on this forum, this post was created: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5346148.0 Thank you, JohnBitCo. The post discusses what would happen to your Bitcoin in the event that you pass away. We are all very well aware if no one knows your keys or the location of your keys, they will not be able to access your funds. This means it is imperative to make sure our coins end up in the correct hands in the tragic event that something were to happen to us. This brings me here...I recently read an article about creating a Dead-Man's switch to ensure specific people will get specific information if you are not present for a specific amount of time. The idea is that if you were not to log in to a specific email account for a predetermined amount of time, a message (containing your keys) would then be sent to the trusted individuals that you selected. The Google platform has this feature built into it. You first need to navigate to 'Inactive Account Management': https://myaccount.google.com/inactiveThen you would need to formulate a plan for when your primary email account is inactive for X amount of time. This includes selecting the recipients and the message itself. That's it! You may be able to rest easy knowing that if something happened to you, your funds would be secured in the right hands. ... Notice I said may. By inputting this information to Google's server, you are inherently trusting them with this information. If your Google account were to be compromised, that data could end up being compromised as well. So it is important to use this information wisely. Maybe get creative with it. Do what you will with this information, but I am sure many of you will be able to put it to good use. Is anyone familiar with any similar services from a more trusted provider? |
|
|
|
|
Maximalism: The opposite of minimalism; a tendency toward excess.
Bitcoin Maximalism has always been a contentious subject for many. Especially myself. The idea that one, and ONLY ONE cryptocurrency can succeed is something that has been met with both acceptance and complete disbelief.
Some believe that we will see an unimaginably complex crypto ecosystem that is built on a plethora of algorithmic protocols. All working together to build a more cohesive, efficient, and safe society. However, there is no place for something like bitcoin. These people tend to view bitcoin as "outdated technology", "slow", and will compare it to the likes of Windows '95 while other "faster" cryptocurrencies will make bitcoin obsolete.
Others believe that we will see a revolutionized financial system all built on Bitcoin's infrastructure. After all, bitcoin is perfect money. It solves all of the problems of today's ineffective financial policies. We are all aware that the current financial system is broken on the fundamental level. There is no fixing it without a complete overhaul and the introduction of "sound money". (Which we did not have until BTC). In the minds of these folks, if Bitcoin were the only cryptocurrency, we would be perfectly fine. These are our Maximalists.
Furthermore, there are those that believe in a combination of these. They believe that we will see a revolutionized ecosystem all built on bitcoin, but differ in the belief that they see how other cryptocurrencies could complement bitcoin in a number of ways. They see that blockchain technology is something that is here to stay, and will disrupt many industries outside of the financial market. This includes music, health care, gaming, art, real estate, and legal industries alike. These people tend to think bitcoin will always be #1, but also think there are too many industries to disrupt that it would be impossible for all other cryptocurrencies to fail.
The only mindset that I personally have distaste for is the first one. To think bitcoin is "outdated" is a complete delusion.
Some condemn Bitcoin Maximalism, saying that such a mindset is "close-minded" and "dangerous to progress". These comments do not come without strong arguments.
What these folk do not realize is that Bitcoin Maximalists are why we are all here. They are why Bitcoin has been able to live through the never-ending FUD. They are one of the largest reasons bitcoin has survived so many vicious attacks.
This brings me to my point...
Let's first discuss the dangers of Bitcoin Maximalism. Being a Bitcoin Maximalist generally means you do not believe in any other cryptocurrency that describes itself as a store of value. If you are a hardcore Maximalist, you generally do not believe in any other crypto at all regardless of its use. Inherently, this is not good because this includes you shutting out new ideas that could be highly beneficial for our society. We have all seen companies and individuals fail because they were resistant to change. Maximalists will counter that its not "change" if it's produced by shitcoins. This is a good point. We are seeing many different cryptocurrencies all trying to solve the same problems. For example, smart contract/defi platforms are all trying to disrupt the same industries. They are also so young that we do not know which will come out on top, making many alts a gamble rather than an investment.
Nonetheless, Bitcoin Maximalism is inherently dangerous in the eyes of many because it denies the fact that there are other industries to disrupt that could not be disrupted by bitcoin. There are projects that use blockchain in ways that would twist your brain. There are also far too many practical applications for blockchain outside of the financial ecosystem that bitcoin would not be able to accommodate as efficiently as other protocols.
Regardless of these notions, these kinds of individuals almost always miss the major role that Bitcoin Maximalists have played. This is where we get into the blessings of our friendly-neighborhood Bitcoin Maximalists.
Maximalism is why bitcoin has been able to keep the integrity of its protocol. There have been a handful of "geniuses" and "influencers" that have tried to come in, tinker with the code, and attempt to "improve" it without considering the intrinsic values of bitcoin. They twist and contort the code until it is virtually unrecognizable. The Bitcoin Maximalists act almost like the white blood cells of the bitcoin ecosystem. (BTCM, 2021) They attack bad actors attempting to make bitcoin what it was not meant to be. They stick to bitcoins original values. Without them, bitcoin could very well be looking at 10MB block sizes and a planned POS transition. (I gagged typing that). Even that issue with Marathon producing "clean" blocks. Who fixed that? Maximalists. Look at the threads on here from when that was going on.
Maximalists are also a huge reason we have been able to survive through some of the most vicious FUD attacks. From bitcoin bans to bitcoin killers, Bitcoin Maximalists have calmed the waters on some VERY significant storms. Just this past year we have received some of the harshest FUD bitcoin has seen in quite some time. Maximalists to the rescue.
But who are these Maximalists? Are they Whales? Devs? No. They're everyone.
We are the Maximalists. If you defend bitcoin and what bitcoin stands for, you're a Maximalist in my book.
Maximalism is bitcoins best defense system. Without it, bitcoin would not be the bitcoin we know today.
Next time you see your favorite Bitcoin Maximalist, give them your best regards.
Feel free to drop your 2cents.
|
|
|
|
|
EIP 1559 is being added within a month.
The Scarcity Engine (EIP 1559) goes live August 4th.
The combination of EIP1559 & The Merge (PoS) will create a triple halving.
"The next update to the Ethereum blockchain, which calls for changing how ETH is paid out to miners, is likely to come on August 4 with block 12,965,000—not mid-July as earlier suggested.
That block number was officially proposed today on Github by developer Tim Beiko, the Ethereum Foundation's point person on network upgrades. If various Ethereum client teams—the groups who code the various software onramps to the blockchain—agree to the proposal, that target will become official."
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to be the guy that is already looking ahead, given that Taproot has not even been activated* yet.
Nonetheless, what is the next move for Bitcoin? Bigger Blocks? (Kidding) POS? (Kidding'er)
On a more serious note, I am curious as to what the focus will be for the next upgrade in a year or two. Will everything be more focused on L2? Security upgrades? Anonymity upgrades?
I have read many of the BIP's on GitHub, but I am unsure of what is likely to be accepted or not.
I'd rather ask you folks than the clowns on Reddit. What upgrades do you see coming next?
|
|
|
|
Not too long ago, I created this post: https://tinyurl.com/yw2k4wfmIn this, I expressed my distaste towards Michael Saylor's presentation/philosophy of bitcoin. He was using lingo such as: "Bitcoin is surrounded by a wall of energy." This, combined with a slew of other corny phrases, really put a bad taste in my mouth. Initially, I found everything he said to be a complete and total load. While his understanding of bitcoin was clearly quite vast, his ways of expressing it were cringey to say the least. Then I began to learn more about Michael Saylor. Michael isn't your standard cookie-cutter business major. He's not some guy, pumped out by the conveyor belt of todays universities. He graduated from MIT with dual degrees in aeronautics and astronautics as well as science, technology and society. This man is a literal engineer. His comments, such as the one I mentioned above, are a product of this. He is able to see bitcoin in a light that many can't. He is able to see it for much more than the supply/demand aspect. He is able to see the beauty of bitcoin and how it's value is related various scientific/engineering principals. You will find that he brings up concepts like the different laws of thermodynamics. Specifically the 1st Law. (States that energy can be converted from one form to another). Honestly, I feel quite silly posting criticism of someone without understanding how they think, or without considering their background. I hope I did not step on any toes here by imposing my premature judgment of this man. I strongly encourage many of you watch his interviews to get a clearer understanding of what I am talking about. Keep on keeping on Michael! |
|
|
|
|
So Bitcoin has been around of a little over a decade, and we can see it already takes people a considerable amount of time to download the entire Bitcoin blockchain with the purpose of running a full-node.
What happens to the folks wanting to run a full-node in 20+ years when downloading the entire blockchain takes months and months to complete?
Will they just have to suck it up?
Will pruned nodes be their only option?
Do we already have solutions for this?
|
|
|
|
This post written by Vitalik himself, discusses the implementation of Verkle Trees (as opposed to Merkle Trees) on the Ethereum blockchain. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/06/18/verkle.htmlTL;DR Verkle trees are a powerful upgrade to Merkle proofs that allow for much smaller proof sizes. Instead of needing to provide all "sister nodes" at each level, the prover need only provide a single proof that proves all parent-child relationships between all commitments along the paths from each leaf node to the root. This allows proof sizes to decrease by a factor of ~6-8 compared to ideal Merkle trees, and by a factor of over 20-30 compared to the hexary Patricia trees that Ethereum uses today. |
|
|
|
I read something rather interesting on reddit earlier this evening. It discusses how ALL cryptocurrencies that use Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake are inherently screwed. " "TL;DR: My thesis is that cryptocurrencies relying either on PoW or PoS, cryptocurrencies with inflation, fees & staking, cryptocurrencies with block subsidies and reward schedules are all screwed in the long run. My reasoning for this is that cryptocurrencies using PoW, PoS, or anything like it, actively undermine their own goals by incentivizing centralization over time at their core. In doing so, these protocols encourage a loss in stall resistance and a loss in security. I also argue that at least 2 cryptocurrencies (IOTA and Nano) solve this issue through their feeless/inflation-free proposition."https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/o4wl85/all_powpos_coins_are_screwed_in_the_long_term/I have many disagreements with this stance, especially their stance on the incentives that Nano and Iota have to offer. I want to know what my maxis think about this. I strongly encourage you give the article a read before you give input because the writer takes a very interesting stance. Let me know what you think. |
|
|
|
|
For those of you who listen/watch the Lex Fridman Podcast, he just uploaded an episode where he interviews Charles Hoskinson, the founder of Cardano (ADA).
If you fast-forward the podcast to 1:38:50 Charles begins to discuss his issues with Bitcoin and what he finds to be the "problems" with Bitcoin. Initially, this really excited me because I love a good argument against Bitcoin from one of the cryptospace's most popular. While I was hoping for a unique, fresh take on Bitcoin's issues, I ended up getting the same progressive response aimed at Bitcoin's lack of "improvement". This turned out to be the same regurgitation of words mixed with some clever verbiage, which I found boring put quite frankly.
He sites that the community has become a religion to the maximalists, resistant to change in any meaningful way. He talks about how Taproot should have happened a long time ago and is shocked at how long it takes this community to produce upgrades for a system that is already so far behind. He argues that a currency with a single-use-case scenario (Bitcoin) will eventually be left in the dust to more ambitious projects that aim to solve more problems. Brushing off the fact that Bitcoin is the strongest reserve currency in crypto or the world.
I expected a little more respect for Bitcoin from Hoskinson. I really thought someone of his mental stature would see that Bitcoins single purpose is its only needed purpose. Being a store of value is far more than enough. While the institution of Smart Contract Platforms will inevitably grow and explode in the years to come, you are simply not able to rule out Bitcoin in any way, shape, or form.
Go visit his Podcast's page and listen for yourself because there is much more that he talks about that you all may find quite interesting. Let me know what you guys think.
|
|
|
|
|
