2. The popularity of Bitcoin mining, as Musk said, has had a negative impact on the environment and energy, forcing the Chinese government to crack down on Bitcoin mining.
China wouldn't crack down bitcoin mining for this reason. Most probably the government saw bitcoin mining popularity increasing recently, so they became worried about a decentralized currency getting support among their citizens. Another reason could be also the one you mentioned on the first point: when the market crashes, it will harm chinese's investments in bitcoin. At same time bitcoin mining has been always very popular in China, no? This announcement and many others made before don't make much sense when you put the reality side by side, but as you said below: I could tell you that what OP mentioned is true while it seems ridiculous though. Do you know that China also shut down tens of large Aluminium refineries which consume enormous electricity just like crypto mining at the meantime? Bitcoin mining is just one of the many industries harmed by this so called carbon neutrality policy. BTW: Most Chinese citizens who take the ride of cryptos care no shit about decentralization but making them rich quickly. This is the least thing CCP would worry. I didn't know about it. I thought China wasn't taking the global deals to decrease co2 emissions seriously. But don't you think even chinese citizens not caring about decentralization it's still a risk for the government to have a decentralized currency becoming more popular each new day? In government's point of view, investors' money could be going to the national industry instead of a global currency which they have no control over it. Most guys here can't read Chinese so few here could hear about the sufferings of Chinese entrepreneurs aside from crypto miners. I just read some local news in Chinese about shutting down Aluminium refineries and was shocked by such foolishness. Taking CO2 emissions seriously might make China political leaders look nice on the international stage I guess. To put on make up of their leaders' faces, CCP won't have trouble damaging the interest of their own citizens (or I should use the word subjects in this case). This Chinese logic may just be hard to understand by free people. BTW, in my opinion the main reason why China gov hates crypto including bitcoin is it could drain fund away from their national stock and estate market where CCP could do their manipulation to deprive wealth from Chinese without foreign competitors. |
|
|
|
|
In a POW system, miners need to spend their coins mined to cover the cost eventually, which means a redistribution of coins.
However in a POS system, the cost of machines and energy is cut to an indifferent level. There would be no such forced redistribution as POW coins.
|
|
|
|
|
Off-chain bitcoin is bitcoin IOU actually.
When you buy bitcoin on Coinbase, you get bitcoin IOU.
When you withdraw your fund from Coinbase to your privite wallet, Coinbase would send corresponding amount on-chain bitcoin to the address you control.
The address you control means you control the privite key to that address yourself.
The bitcoin on your address can not be confiscated by gov unless you are arrested then interrogated or even tortured to force you give out the key.
However your bitcoin IOU in Coinbase can be frozen then confiscated by gov easily.
|
|
|
|
Then which miners belong to the 74% you mentioned? And who/how to judge? Now at least we know who wants to be the judge. |
|
|
|
|
They want to make bitcoin mining an industry with their permission.
|
|
|
|
2. The popularity of Bitcoin mining, as Musk said, has had a negative impact on the environment and energy, forcing the Chinese government to crack down on Bitcoin mining.
China wouldn't crack down bitcoin mining for this reason. Most probably the government saw bitcoin mining popularity increasing recently, so they became worried about a decentralized currency getting support among their citizens. Another reason could be also the one you mentioned on the first point: when the market crashes, it will harm chinese's investments in bitcoin. At same time bitcoin mining has been always very popular in China, no? This announcement and many others made before don't make much sense when you put the reality side by side, but as you said below: I could tell you that what OP mentioned is true while it seems ridiculous though. Do you know that China also shut down tens of large Aluminium refineries which consume enormous electricity just like crypto mining at the meantime? Bitcoin mining is just one of the many industries harmed by this so called carbon neutrality policy. BTW: Most Chinese citizens who take the ride of cryptos care no shit about decentralization but making them rich quickly. This is the least thing CCP would worry. |
|
|
|
I agree on the part that you said that it is difficult to regulate bitcoin by cracking down on it. How come they are interested in developing real economy but they find bitcoin uninteresting? Did they have a comprehensive study that says bitcoin isn't going to help them? Also I was pretty piqued with the fact that not a lot of people in China's crypto scene doesn't know about Satoshi, is it that heavily censored there?
It is not about heavy censorship but tons of misinformation(or disinformation may be more correctly) instead. Think about this survey in Australia. https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/56-25-of-aussies-think-elon-musk-invented-bitcoin/ar-BB1gST6c |
|
|
|
|
It is for so called carbon neutrality.
Crypto mining is just one of many industries in China affected by this stupid thing.
|
|
|
|
Okay does this Taproot update affect bitcoin's decentralization in anyway that will bring a backlash from the btc community?
By its own, no. However with the cooperation of MAST and schnorr signature which may be applied upon bitcoin in the future, it can improve the privacy of bitcoin thus improve its decntralization indirectly. |
|
|
|
|
Offline or cold wallet is just a signing machine, nothing more.
Why do you need a signing pen or stamp show you your bank balances??
Your odd need will make your cold wallet not cold any more.
|
|
|
|
I once used EPS. Yes, you need to put the addresses or master pub keys in the config. Then it may ask you to scan the txs after the date you type in. And the user needs to finish that scanning to see the correct balances on Electrum. Have electrum connected to my full node and everything looks fine.
Electrum can not connect to full node, electrum is a SPV wallet, but I guess you meant electrum has fully sychronized with the blockchain. OP uses EPS which helps electrum connect to the full node that OP he himself runs. |
|
|
|
|
No need to crack the code of bitcoin.
Govs or other big bad asses just need to brainwash the majority of bitcoin users to make them believe paper bitcoin they issue=bitcoin.
How many people will realise bitcoin on paypal or any software you think of is not bitcoin at all but bitcoin IOU instead.
When the majority of users can't distinguish this, the supply could be manipulated.
Yeah, you could shout out bitcoin IOU supply is not bitcoin supply but who cares?
This is exactly the same trick that has been screwing gold since many decades ago.
|
|
|
|
|
I read 1918 flu pandemic in India on wiki.
It says that one might wipe out 5% population of India at that time.
Not surprise the death toll of covid19 reachs 70 million which is 5% of current India population.
|
|
|
|
The question that I do not see answered is how far back they go in checking for blacklisted addresses.
Just the last transaction or 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 TXs back.
Going back too far is just going to cause problems and I can see some of the other mining pools forming a group that just ignores all blocks from them and then takes their chances that another friendly pool builds on top of their chain.
Not to be an ass about it but if Antpool, Poolin and F2 all get together and say fuck MARA I really don't think the rest of the world would give them any grief. Just because of what they are doing.
If they said lets do it to slush or btc.com I could see people freaking out about it.
Hell, if MARA wants to be 100% safe all they have to do it just mine empty blocks, no risk of bad coins ever....
-Dave
Antpool, Poolin and F2pool will bow down to another Chinese copycat of OFAC. I have never been so grateful that US and China are rivals and hope they hate each other in the future. Which means China will take US' blacklists as sh*t and vice versa. |
|
|
|
|
What I worry most is years of nosense talk of those fake quantum computers would make btc community so insensitive that no action would be taken when true threat arriving.
|
|
|
|
|
Being slow is a cost for one kind of permissionless assets.
The most important scarce resource is legitimacy? My ass!
|
|
|
|
|
Heard it 2012.
First bought it in late 2016 then sold most of it in the same exchange. No on chain transfer happened so I would not consider it used.
The first time I really used some BTC was in early 2017, on steam. Just several months before steam shut down its BTC payment.
|
|
|
|
I am inclined to agree with pooya87, that although this is obviously non-standard if the last word was actually picked randomly (and you didn't just work alphabetically down the BIP39 list starting at abandon) then you still have 128 bits of entropy.
However, you also didn't need to do this at all. When importing seed phrases in to Electrum with the view of generating a BIP39 wallet, although you will get a "checksum: failed" warning with an incorrect checksum, you can still proceed with your incorrect checksum and generate a normal functioning wallet and addresses.
I divided the wordlist into 216 pieces(9 or 10 words each) then rolled a 6 face dice 3 times to locate which piece I should picked up words from. (I actually rolled 9 times as first two rounds returned no valid word.) Maybe that method is sufficient of covering up the last 7 bits of entropy needed by bip39. My offline signer is a phone and it uses electrum android. The next button would grey out if the checksum of seed phrase fails. However what you said is true on desktop version, I generated some seeds for testing, they indeed could generate BIP39 wallets dispite of the failure of checksum. |
|
|
|
I don't think so.
The original seed phrase you are working with has to have been selected randomly and it represents 132 bits of entropy. When you drop the last word you still have 121 bits of randomly generated entropy, then when you randomly select a new word and brute force your checksum you are adding 7 more bits to the original entropy (making it 128 bit as defined by BIP-39 with 4 bit checksum) so it could be considered safe.
In other words you are reducing the size of the initial entropy but not by a lot and if the new word is also selected randomly it shouldn't matter.
Good explaination about the entropy and randomicity. Thanks! Any particular reason why you didn't just generate a new Electrum native segwit seed?  Did you specifically require a BIP39 compatible seed for some reason? I just want new wallets supporting native segwit while I don't need to update my existing backups in multiple locations. It once cost me quite a bit effect to make and place those backups. |
|
|
|
|
I have setuped an offline electrum standard wallet years before(Lagacy one, segwit not supported). I have written down the 12 word seeds as backup.
Days ago, I tried to generate a bipxx standard wallet on electrum by these seeds.
Of coz these electrum 12 word seeds won't match the checksum required by bip39.
So I picked the first 11 words then added another word picked randomly by myself from the bip39 2048 word list. I picked that last word about 20+ times to pick up one just meet the checksum with the first 11 words.
Then I choose 84/0/0 path to generate a bip84 native segwit supported wallet.
So my question is does this wallet generated by above steps have any flaw? (Say, its randomicity or anything else.)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
