Which block marks the halving? Which one do we celebrate? Is it 840000, 840001, or 839999?

Is it the last block of the previous epoch or the first block of the new epoch? Is the number of first block 0 or 1?

I would like to remind those of you who believe the answer is straightforward that most people believe that the 21^st century began in the year 2000.

Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto or the author of the Bitcoin whitepaper, U.K. Judge James Mellor said after closing arguments in the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) trial on Thursday.

The evidence presented during the month-long trial was "overwhelming," the judge said, adding that he plans to write a ruling detailing his conclusions – including that Wright did not create the Bitcoin system.

"I will make certain declarations, which I am satisfied are useful and are necessary to do justice between the parties. First, that Dr. Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin white paper. Second, Dr. Wright is not the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto in the period 2008 to 2011. Third, Dr. Wright is not the person who created the Bitcoin System. And, fourth, he is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin software. Any further relief will be dealt with in my written judgment," Judge Mellor said.


https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/03/14/justice-james-mellors-ruling-on-craig-wright-copa-trial/

This ruling will make it impossible for CSW to continue has campaign of lawsuits against developers and others in U.K. courts.

Some have the opinion that his actions in the trial could result in charges of perjury and forgery.

[Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi, Didn't Author Bitcoin Whitepaper, Judge Rules]

Craig Wright Is Not Satoshi, Didn't Author Bitcoin Whitepaper, Judge Rules
By Camomile Shumba

COPA took Wright to court to try and prevent him from suing developers and other members of the crypto community, claiming intellectual property rights over Bitcoin's technology.


Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto or the author of the Bitcoin whitepaper, U.K. Judge James Mellor said after closing arguments in the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) trial on Thursday.

The evidence presented during the month-long trial was "overwhelming," the judge said, adding that he plans to write a ruling detailing his conclusions – including that Wright did not create the Bitcoin system.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2024/03/14/craig-wright-not-satoshi-didnt-author-bitcoin-whitepaper-judge-rules/

The SEC made an announcement on X:

Today the SEC grants approval for #Bitcoin ETFs for listing on all registered national securities exchanges.
 
The approved Bitcoin ETFs will be subject to ongoing surveillance and compliance measures to ensure continued investor protection.

The head of investigations at Chainalysis testified she was “unaware” of scientific evidence for the accuracy of Chainalysis’ Reactor software used by law enforcement.

We all know how the technology works -- inputs of a transaction, as well as other characteristics, are assumed to be able to associate the transaction with a specific wallet. However, nobody knows how accurate it is. That nobody includes Chainalysis, who whose whole business is based on it. Coming to a conclusion without being about to show that is correct is a hallmark of junk science.

This is all coming to a head in the case against Roman Sterlingov, who is accused of running Bitcoin Fog, because the evidence against him relies almost exclusively on the claims made by Chainalysis.

Relevant links:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/wall-street-backed-crypto-tracer-under-attack-ahead-of-trial-1
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chainalysis-investigations-lead-unaware-scientific-221931194.html
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/chainalysis-investigations-lead-is-unaware-of-scientific-evidence
https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/l0la-l33tz

I am writing Bitcoin-related software in C/C++ and I need to select a cryptography library that supports the usual stuff -- ECDSA, ECC math, SHA2, RIPEMD, PBKDF2, HMAC, and a secure RNG. Any suggestions?

I just assumed that I would be using OpenSSL, but I have discovered that with OpenSSL 3, all of the "low-level" functionality has been deprecated, and that is exactly what I was intending to use. Perhaps, I could use the "high-level" features, but I don't know how or if they even do what I need. Also, I can't find any examples of anyone using these features anywhere, which is weird.

Perhaps sticking with a legacy version of OpenSSL is a good solution.

A friend suggested WolfSSL. It does what I need but it has some drawbacks -- it is a pain to integrate and 75% of the API is undocumented.

What are you using?

[The curious case of the half-half Bitcoin ECDSA nonces]

This paper discloses an interesting vulnerability in an unknown/undisclosed wallet's method of signing transactions. It reminds us again of a major weakness in ECDSA: the nonce.

The curious case of the half-half Bitcoin ECDSA nonces

Bitcoin Core does not have this vulnerability.

Here's a crazy idea. Rather than embedding stupid jpegs in the witness data, what about embedding solidity scripts? The capabilities of Bitcoin could potentially be expanded tremendously. Opinions?

A simple question really. Regardless of how people feel about Ordinals or Inscriptions, is it possible to ban them or otherwise restrict them without a hard fork? How would it work? I suppose a limit on the size of the witness data can be imposed after a designated block. Will that work?


I am not looking for opinions. Replies stating opinions on Ordinals or Inscriptions, and any replies to those opinions will be removed.

A couple of years ago, yield farming was the next big thing, but I no longer see it mentioned anywhere. What happened to it? Did the players lose all of their money and slink back into the darkness?

[BTC payments though Bitpay seem to be broken]

The same thing that was reported here on Reddit happened to me: BTC payments though Bitpay seem to be broken

I used bitcoins to buy gold through APMEX and was presented a BitPay invoice. I paid exactly what the invoice said to pay and the transaction was quickly confirmed. Regardless, the invoice timed out.

I got an email after contacting BitPay and it is clear that the problem is on BitPay's end -- the exchange rates didn't match. The exchange rate used for the invoice was higher than the exchange rate used by their servers.

I plan on avoiding purchases that go through BitPay until I hear that they have fixed the problem. It's too much of a hassle.

You can try using BitPay, and it might work. And while you can get your money back if it doesn't work, keep in mind that they deduct a fee from your refund.

This is an interesting post: Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary

This article will show that a fixed block reward does not lead to an abundant supply. In fact, due to the inevitability of lost coins, a fixed reward converges to a stable monetary supply that is neither inflationary nor deflationary, with the total supply proportional to rate of tail emission and probability of coin loss.

I think his analysis is a little naive, but it could be the start of something interesting.

[Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation]

The Federal Reserve has released their white paper on CBDCs.

Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation

The Federal Reserve is asking for comments on their paper, so it is my intention to take the most notable points in the comments below and submit them to the Federal Reserve.

The Executive Summary introduction:

For a nation’s economy to function effectively, its citizens must have confidence in its money and payment services. The Federal Reserve, as the nation’s central bank, works to maintain the public’s confidence by fostering monetary stability, financial stability, and a safe and efficient payment system.

This paper is the first step in a public discussion between the Federal Reserve and stakeholders about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). For the purpose of this paper, a CBDC is defined as a digital liability of a central bank that is widely available to the general public. In this respect, it is analogous to a digital form of paper money. The paper has been designed to foster a broad and transparent public dialogue about CBDCs in general, and about the potential benefits and risks of a U.S. CBDC. The paper is not intended to advance any specific policy outcome, nor is it intended to signal that the Federal Reserve will make any imminent decisions about the appropriateness of issuing a U.S. CBDC.

Note: This topic is moderated. Comments that are not related to the white paper will be removed.

Politicians are telling us that the current level of inflation is caused by "supply chain issues". That is a lie. They are lying in order to hide the fact that rising inflation is a direct result of their policies.

The truth is what was said by the famous and highly respected economist Milton Friedman said: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." The problem is not the supply chain. The problem is that the huge influx of money into the economy from central banks and governments has fueled a tremendous surge in demand.

Companies can't find workers to fill the demand. Why not? Because the government paid everyone a bunch of money so they don't need to work. This is shown by the fact that the labor participation and unemployment rates are both low.

I am trying to use Electrum to burn some dust UTXOs (547 sats) by creating a custom OP_RETURN transaction. Everything seems fine until I broadcast, and then I get this error:

The server returned an error when broadcasting the transaction.
Consider trying to connect to a different server, or updating Electrum.

The transaction was rejected because it is too large (in bytes).

Here is the "pay to" line (basically OP_RETURN <random 16 bytes>, 0):

Code:

OP_RETURN B03240B863832E01B44D3BCBC8308E8F, 0

Also, when I export the transaction and try to broadcast it through various sites, they have problems with the transaction. Here is the raw transaction (go ahead and try to broadcast it if you like):

Code:

0200000000010166988a1d333797b5c3cbf24b26212205d023f0ff8c7392f41594b1dee4ea953c3801000000fdffffff010000000000000000126a10b03240b863832e01b44d3bcbc8308e8f02473044022055022ae713c275e3feb37dd48f19bf07bc190e2f382038e3328e6ad939f93bbf0220431bc40ba285e9f167d45afd62986358f461744d0c301423e09aa2e1dc5874c1012102b514df7be7511c3baf72afb6df5d5cdcbd9989ef0ef1b294c5be9c7b28f68f2018aa0a00

This has worked in the past, but now it doesn't. Does anyone know what might be wrong and how I can succeed?

I am using Electrum 4.1.4 on a Mac with various servers.

We all know about flat earth, but there are some other crazy alternative theories about the cosmos that just won't die.

Here are some videos to watch:

Electric Universe debunked: https://youtu.be/T9q-v4lBGuw?t=75
SAFIRE debunked: https://youtu.be/vmVdPgkudC8?t=127

I'm not that familiar with Ethereum, but I constantly read about people sending the wrong stablecoin to an exchange, and that the money is lost because the exchange doesn't support that coin. I was wondering if creating a special protocol for sending tokens would help.

The protocol would simply add the first 4 bytes of the contract's address to the destination address. The sending wallet would simply compare the suffix to the token being sent to make sure that the correct token is being sent. This does not guarantee that the wrong token is not sent, but the odds of sending the wrong token by accident are 1 in 4 billion.

For example, instead of telling you to send USDT to 0x71C7656EC7ab88b098defB751B7401B5f6d8976F, the receiver would tell you to send it to 0x71C7656EC7ab88b098defB751B7401B5f6d8976F-af5dcebb, where af5dcebb is the first 4 bytes of the USDT contract's address.

Does that work?

[(m) Currency.]

Presently, Bitcoin is considered by the U.S. government to be a "convertible virtual currency".

The term “virtual currency” refers to a medium of exchange that can operate like currency but does not have all the attributes of “real” currency, as defined in 31 CFR § 1010.100(m), including legal tender status.1515. CVC is a type of virtual currency that either has an equivalent value as currency, or acts as a substitute for currency, and is therefore a type of “value that substitutes for currency.”

(m) Currency. The coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that is designated as legal tender and that circulates and is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance. Currency includes U.S. silver certificates, U.S. notes and Federal Reserve notes. Currency also includes official foreign bank notes that are customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in a foreign country.

According to FinCEN guidance, if Bitcoin becomes legal tender in El Salvador and is used as a medium of exchange, it would no longer be classified as a "convertible virtual currency" or even "virtual currency". It would become a "real" currency.

That would result in a huge legal change in the treatment of Bitcoin. The laws and regulations that apply to it as a CVC would no longer apply. Instead, I believe that it would be treated as a foreign currency, with all the laws and regulations surrounding that.

I'm not an expert on foreign currency regulations, but I do know that one change would be that small amounts of a foreign currency can be spent or converted without being taxed. No more need to track every single time you spend or trade bitcoins.

I'm going to the Bitcoin 2021 Conference in Miami. Who else is going?

Day 1: the line to get in is literally a mile long

Craig Wright (aka Faketoshi) is once again making legal threats that can only be described as absurd.

In this round, his law firm sent letters to developers and organizations involved with BTC, BCH, BCHABC, and BSV, claiming that the developers must give him access to the coins at two addresses or face legal action. According to the letter, hackers managed to obtain the private keys to these two addresses on February 5, 2020 and then erase the originals.

1. One of the addresses appears to hold bitcoins stolen from Mt. Gox. Why would Faketoshi implicate himself in the theft of bitcoins from Mt. Gox?
2. Apparently, Faketoshi couldn't be bothered to back up private keys containing millions of dollars worth of bitcoins. That fact damages the credibility of his claim.
3. The demand is impossible to fulfill, at least for the BTC and BCH chains.
4. A letter was sent to his own BSV developers.

Here are  the letters: https://www.ontier.net/ia/a1letter-before-action-from-ttl.pdf

Obviously, there must be some rational motive behind this. I can think of two possible motives:

1. The purpose is to establish the claim that Faketoshi once had a lot of bitcoins, but now he no longer has any. Perhaps this is preparation for the classic "I lost my keys in a boating accident" defense. It looks like he has lost the lawsuit by Ira Kleiman, so he will be on the hook for a lot of bitcoins, and he might be trying to plead poverty in order to avoid having to pay.

2. There are about 110,000 coins at those two addresses, and the BSV is worth about $20 million. He might be laying the legal (and moral) groundwork to justify confiscation of the BSV from those two addresses. That is something that he probably could pull off.