FTT is worthless See how Bed Bath and Beyond stock was made useless and delisted? Well, for FTX, as it is bankrupt now, the FTT token is worth even less than its stock. Even in the remote scenario that FTX is up and running again as part of the bankruptcy compensation, it's very likely that the FTT token would be scrapped as it would be considered a security.
Many are still trap from this and they are just hoping that one day it will rise again. How can an exchange token rise again if the exchange itself was dead already? This is dead end for FTT and sooner or later it will lose its value. If you are still holding this and lose almost all your capital, you can’t do anything about it aside from hoping from a miracle, FTT is too risky to deal right now. It's very much correct that FTT has absolutely no value at the moment but still some people continue to speculate on it for some reason. It doesn't seem to make any sense at all to be honest but perhaps some people expect FTT to be favored in some way by bankruptcy court? Still that's not realistic. There's a ton of other priority claims and having bought the coin on the open market doesn't change any claimant's position. So yes, sooner or later it will go to 0. |
|
|
|
Welp, here we go... Over half of bitcoin transactions are Ordinals: https://geniidata.com/user/orddata/ordinals-transaction-shareThis takes into account data from Yesterday. And to those saying that this will pass... Think again! Okcoin exchange literally integrated an embeded dashboard that users can utilize to create and mint ordinals as well as sell them all within their platform. They literally made ordinal inscriptions easier than they make it to withdraw BTC off their platform... Exchanges and "NFT Artists" don't care for the well being of the ecosystem. Us the community should consider that if some malignant miners want to profit off of an attack on the protocol perhaps we should cut them off because not only is this not the first time this happens, but this time also it seems bound to continue getting worse. |
|
|
|
Damn, I didn't expect Olympiacos to be losing today at all!  That second quarter Olympiacos really underperformed and lost it against Baskonia. Amazing how they were able to tople the result like that, albeit in a narrow finish in the end. That surely was not the result people expected given Baskonia's season so far but surely they turned the tables good. Big congrats on this well deserved win. Sadly it's surely going to make qualification chances a little harder for Olympiacos. |
|
|
|
|
Lightning network has so many CVEs to work on, I don't think the devs will have time building more features given how large the backlog of critical things to fix is.
Regardless, saying lightning will solve everything isn't a solution. We're dealing with a fundamental issue on the L1 level. Attack vectors have to be addressed before more features are built.
|
|
|
|
Today we have Greek teams Olympiakos playing Baskonia and tomorrow Panathinaikos playing ALBA Berlin. Since I'm Greek I know from heard that both these Greek teams have had good performance on the European level in the past. Moreover Olympiakos has had a better performance in the last few games played and they're also playing at home:  It makes sense that the odds currently heavily favor Olympiakos because they're also playing at home. These odds don't look bad at all:  Panathinaikos is having a clean sweep on their national league which is probably what favors them to win as much. But nevertheless Germany is a more competitive league so it's not a certain result by any means. |
|
|
|
Currently the monetary gains the miners on PPS (and variants) pools get from this is marginal, almost equivalent to a boom where there are even more real transactions processed. But it's the pools themselves who gain the most out of these fees.
Small detail but it's an important distinction to make that there's a lot at stake for miners. Current block reward is 6.25 and even set to halve in a few months. That means that there's currently ONLY around 900 BTC mined every 24 hours (1440 minutes / block time of 10* block reward of 6.25. So let's compare miner revenue to fees. Miners based on current prices earned 37.14M USD worth of BTC on the 8th of November 2023: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_miners_revenue_per_dayMiners also earned 4.180M USD worth of BTC from fees on that same day: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_total_transaction_fees_per_day Also look at the above chart and observe that the ongoing BRC-20 boom caused total fees to skyrocket 10x! So with BRC-20 only currently being supported by SOME of the exchanges, and a single wallet, already ~10% of miner revenue comes from the fees it has created. This is bound to get worse unless somehow addressed. |
|
|
|
Let me set the stage with the most recent upcoming matches for the 14th of November:  I think an obvious favorite for a win would be Benfica here as they have been performing better in their recent matches than Galatasaray. Another interesting match is Promitheas vs Dijon:  Odds favor a Dijon win, but Promitheas is actually doing surprisingly very well in their national league so far, so let's see... Being Greek I'm hoping for an upset here  Let's see if we can get some buzz discussing how our favorite teams our doing. Maybe more odds providers will appreciate this tournament and start featuring it. |
|
|
|
The Basketball Champions League features the top teams from European countries based on performance each year. It can be considered the second-tier pan-European competition for basketball associations after EuroLeague basketball. Groups: https://www.championsleague.basketball/23-24/groupsGame schedule:https://www.championsleague.basketball/23-24/gamesLet's use this thread for discussion and prediction of our favorite teams. If you have a message to showcase your support to your favorite team ping me @alani123 and I'll edit this post to put you up here.  |
|
|
|
|
@d5000 have you considered why Tether users abandoned minting USDt on-chain on bitcoin via the Omni layer? Or perhaps why Counterparty failed?
The answer is simple. The costs didn't justify it. Even in Ethereum's full congestion, Omni layer token minting and transfer transactions were so expensive in comparison that nobody wanted to mint and transact tokens on bitcoin's blockchain with it. So riddle me this, if developers limited taproot functionality to a reasonable extent so as to prevent abuses like BRC-20 and Ordinals inscriptions, what would happen then?
Are we to assume that the demand for these types of transactions would remain the same if the cost to complete them went from a few dollars to a few hundred dollars? Because economically speaking, when prices go up, demands go down. This is ECON101.
Taproot was never meant to be a gateway to make bitcoin's ledger a dumping ground for trash like NFTs. Bitcoin runs on a different philosophy from day one. If things were different we could have been having 20 TB full nodes and hosting them all on AWS with transaction filtering to comply OFAC regulations. But that's ethereum, not bitcoin. The shit can stay there. Bitcoin should simply strive to keep on-chain transactions as immutable as possible, even if that means that on-chain tokenization must die.
|
|
|
|
The general tone of the thread, to my understanding, could be summarised as "Everyone else needs to take action because I'm personally not happy with something".
If that's what you're going with, I can tell you right now you're in for some disappointment. You're up against people who went right ahead and just did what they wanted to do. They didn't make requests for others to act. They didn't ask permission. They just did it. That's how you get shit done in this environment.
This isn't the customer service department for Bitcoin. You don't get to come here and moan at everyone until your problem is fixed for you. Find your own solution.
I guess I missed the memo that said discussion is bad now. Honestly though, any meaningful change that's meant to last keeps the needs of the people in mind. Were bitcoin users consulted about rising fees by those that inscribe Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens? Of course not, so there's the downside of "going ahead and fucking doing it". However, there's still a slight chance that even though "inscriptions" do harm on bitcoin's basic functionality, maybe most bitcoin users aren't against them. How else are we supposed to find out if not through discussion in the community? |
|
|
|
Να που μας κρύβεται λοιπόν ο chek2fire χαχαχα Καλά, το αν το conclavio είναι απάτη η όχι είναι οφθαλμοφανές αλλά ακόμη και αν κάποιου δεν του φαίνεται με την πρώτη, ένα google δεν ξέρουν να κάνουν αυτοί οι άνθρωποι; ΑΜΑΝ! |
|
|
|
|
In my view, if a poster later realizes their post was posted in a section that wasn't appropriate, it's not their responsibility if those that responded didn't notice while it was in the 1st board. And hence shouldn't be liable for simply moving their own thread to the appropriate section, or making a mistake initially (we're all human, shit happens). Those wearing a signature are the ones that should be careful making responses in the appropriate section, and that includes reading the contents of the post thoroughly as well as reviewing the section.
Well, in this case though, it does indeed seem as if the topic was moved to the wrong section indeed. Perhaps the intended goal was the speculation board under bitcoin discussion, and not under the altcoins section. Bitcointalk gets a little confusing for having so many otherwise identical sections mirrored between bitcoin/altcoin discussions.
|
|
|
|
So if some party or group has enough money to pay to make Bitcoin unusable for transactional purposes, should be create special OP codes just to make it even easier for them to destroy bitcoin's utility?
It's like you're saying that you want the door open for another protocol attack...
Where did I say you should create special opcodes?... By supporting Ordinals and BRC-20 shit-tokens you're essentially saying that they're a valid use of the blockchain. And since you seem to not know this already, BRC-20 and Ordinals only work on Taproot enabled new standard addresses and utilize the Taproot opcodes of OP_FALSE, OP_IF, OP_ENDIF and OP_PUSH. So if bitcoin was patched to invalidate these opcodes we would have no more "inscriptions" clogging the ledger. There very ability to create these wastes of space could be removed from bitcoin's functionality with a single patch. No hard-fork needed. |
|
|
|
How can you be so sure that Bitcoin users are not opposed to Ordinals?
You can be certain that there are Bitcoin users not opposed to Ordinals because they are paying for them. Money talks. So if some party or group has enough money to pay to make Bitcoin unusable for transactional purposes, should be create special OP codes just to make it even easier for them to destroy bitcoin's utility? It's like you're saying that you want the door open for another protocol attack... |
|
|
|
Satoshi specifically opposed the blockchain being used for data storage. But its apparent Bitcoin's users do not oppose using the blockchain for data storage, which is why they pay fees to Bitcoin miners to do it.
How can you be so sure that Bitcoin users are not opposed to Ordinals? First of all, when Taproot was introduced and finally implemented, "Ordinals" and "BRC-20" weren't realized yet and probably not one of the Core developers were considering that people would be burning images on-chain when they were building these features. For instance core developer Luke Jr. Is known for calling on-chain "inscriptions" garbage and speaking against them. But now that transactions are so expensive I'm pretty sure that if someone was to poll the Bitcoin community on if they would like "inscriptions" to stop being supported in order to help with mempool bloat and transaction fees, most would be very supportive. |
|
|
|
What are you going to do about it? Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant, so you can't just "end ordinals".
Bitcoin is also designed to be a payment system and not a cloud storage. You can't just pick one definition of it and ignore the rest whenever it doesn't suite your view. In that case, Bitcoin has even more features than it was originally designed to have. This is not exactly true and many people have no idea. Early versions of the bitcoin client included an IRC client as well as some code relics of a would be poker game. Satoshi's early vision of bitcoin was probably that it could do multiple things from within the very client the payments are also launched. But nowhere do we get any idea that satoshi would have wanted the blockchain to be used as storage... |
|
|
|
 $ORDI, short for ordinals, is the first token on the BRC-20 standard, which allows tokens tokens be "inscribed" on the bitcoin blockchain. Total number of coins: 21.000.000 (twenty one million) Date created: 9th of March 2023 [1]Creator: https://twitter.com/domodataUtility: N/A (it helped demonstrate BRC-20 is feasible) Block explorer: https://unisat.io/Wallet: https://github.com/unisat-wallet/extension/releases/tag/v1.1.33Exchanges: Binance.com, Gate.io, Kucoin.com, OKX.com, HTX.com, ByBit.com, Poloniex.com, BitGet.com, Bitrue.com, [...] and more WARNING:
The ORDI token is not associated with the ordinals.com project or the ORD client. [1]: https://twitter.com/domodata/status/1633658974686855168I alani123 am in no way associated with ORDI and have no stake in the project. This thread is created for informational purposes only. |
|
|
|
Regarding the current situation, it's important to note that the block size of Bitcoin is actually limited to 1MB, not 4MB. However, the implementation of SegWit allows for more transaction capacity by separating some of the transaction data. This has helped alleviate some congestion on the network.
I thought this stood true: A 300-byte transaction is 300 bytes on-disk and over-the-wire. Segwit just counts those bytes differently toward the maximum block size of 4M weight units. If not, someone would have to correct the bitcoin wiki itself here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units#Misconceptions |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
αφού οι moderators αγρόν αγοράζουν εκεί μέσα (ενίοτε σε μπανάρουν κιόλας αν δεν τους αρέσουν αυτά που γράφεις).
