Bitcoin Forum
June 15, 2024, 02:47:32 PM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 460 »
1  Other / Meta / Re: Small improvement regarding activity / "Show others your online status" on: June 13, 2024, 07:39:01 AM
I think it was more about blurring out the exact time a user is/has been online, thereby creating some level of pseudonymity - I may be wrong, but if it goes your own way, everyone knows you haven't been on - That doesn't really differ from what we had.
That is entirely different from what we had. Having your last time active "hidden" indefinitely is the exact opposite of having it displayed.

Hidden means it is not displayed at all, I don't know the purpose of recently.
"(Recently)" obfuscates when you're online. "(Hidden)" obfuscates when you were active. Your own posts would only then betray that.

Too bad he only gets merits, and not tens of thousands of bitcoins.  :/
Tens of thousands of bitcoins is a lot but we don't know what price we are paying. Obviously it looks like there are some selfless contribution so far from PowerGlove.
Voluntary contribution is very respectable, but it wouldn't hurt if theymos opened up that dusty cold storage for the most dedicated contributor.  Smiley
2  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: 🚩 Blackjack.Fun | BTC Price Prediction ' June 16 | WIN $50! on: June 13, 2024, 07:25:31 AM
Second prediction: $70,000
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Internet don't forget, many times Donald Trump says bad about Bitcoin on: June 13, 2024, 07:19:44 AM
Instead they see it as "Bitcoin is money for criminals".
This might also be controversial, but when a critically thinking person hears that Bitcoin is money for criminals, it raises some important questions about its utility. "Why is it for criminals?" Because criminals need privacy. "Well, I want privacy too". "What other reasons?" Because criminals distrust money issued and controlled by the state. "Why is that?" The way fiat currency works has poisoned societies and corrupted free markets for decades.

I expect a reasonable person to ask themselves these kinds of questions before eventually drawing a conclusion.
4  Other / Meta / Re: Small improvement regarding activity / "Show others your online status" on: June 12, 2024, 07:43:26 PM
Nice! Just went invisible.

I may be asking for much, but wouldn't it be more appropriate if the user had the option to choose not to display any activity at all? For example, if you were inactive for 73 hours, display "(Not recently)" instead of "June 09, 2024, 08:40:33 PM". Or just "(Hidden)" regardless.

Someone might want to take a break without letting anyone know about it.
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: [Jun 2024] Fees are high, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs on: June 12, 2024, 06:25:43 PM
It would be nice if someone has some input here because I can't tell whether a block reward penalty would really solve the problem at scale.
It doesn't solve the problem. Block reward penalty applies to the block subsidy, and it is really negligible with only 0.6 XMR as subsidy. With Monero transactions sized at at least a few kilobytes, it only takes a few hundred transactions to incentivize the miner to burn the subsidy; it only takes 600 transactions paying 0.001 XMR each (which is essentially nothing). In an envisioned global adoption, the system should be able to handle more than 600,000 per 2.5 minutes, let alone 600. Your Monero client would need to verify 4000 transactions per second, which is infeasible.

The difference with Ordinals is that someone can spam the network and others can't use it.
Others can use it; they simply pay a higher price. This distinction is significant. Bitcoin relies on the assumption that there will always people who will compete for an on-chain price. The solution is not to censor your fellow users, but to work on scaling.
6  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: 🚀 Sportsbet.io ⚽ EURO 2024 ⚽ Group Stage - Matchday 1 ⚽ 14 June on: June 12, 2024, 05:02:07 PM
44 goals
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What will Bitcoin look like in the future? on: June 12, 2024, 04:51:23 PM
Bitcoin's future is bright. It's freedom flourishing. I'm convinced that a second layer solution will thrive within this decade. Lightning was practically not a favorable option for the most part. It will still have usage, but it's not what will drive the global adoption.

Global adoption will eventually emerge when these four aspects will be simultaneously provided by one piece of software:

  • Self-custody
  • Nearly zero transaction fees
  • Nearly instant payments
  • Privacy

Will it make everyone free? Will it be regulated and become government controlled?
It won't make everyone free, because not everyone wants to be free when it comes to financial sovereignty.
8  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Why does transaction works this way?? on: June 12, 2024, 03:56:45 PM
Because Bitcoin has a UTXO model. A coin is an output, and each output comes with a value. When you spend an input, it cannot be partially spent. It has to be spent entirely, which means to create two outputs; one for the receiving address, and another for the change.

"Why does Bitcoin have a UTXO model?". Because it's more private and scalable. With proper coin control, you gain some privacy, and with enabling parallelism, you can spend coins before your receiving transactions become confirmed.
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: [Jun 2024] Fees are high, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs on: June 12, 2024, 02:41:38 PM
Then adaptive block size is the answer. To be honest, I think that Monero is what many Bitcoin enthusiasts and supporters want Bitcoin to be. Maybe it's time to migrate to Monero?
Since privacy is one of the most important principles of the ancestors of Bitcoin, I'd have to say yes. Monero does better what Bitcoin was envisioned to become; peer-to-peer cash.

Unfortunately, the dynamical block size is neither the answer. It's just another temporary solution. It can render the system dysfunctional. See what happened last March in Monero: https://monero.observer/monero-daily-transaction-new-ath-100k/. A single spam attack might not seem of significant matter right now, but if you're running a node (as you should), it takes a decent time to verify those 100k transactions. And consider that if more people join, it no longer becomes "spam". It's regular transactions that slow down verification.

And since there's a dynamical block size, imagine what can happen if an attacker with a decent amount of money (dynamical size -> cheap fees), actually executes a spam attack for many months.

The aim of Satoshi was to create a non-reversible transactions without a trusted party. The main idea of Bitcoin also was to keep low transaction costs. I am quoting the whitepaper.
Which part of the whitepaper talks about "low fees"?

Yes, freedom is good and there is nothing wrong with it but Ordinals clearly abuse Bitcoin and use it for purposes that were never meant.
Centralized exchanges abuse Bitcoin, as it was meant to be peer-to-peer cash without trusted third parties. So, let's ban centralized exchanges.

Do you get it now?
10  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Cloud storage for BTC on: June 12, 2024, 02:02:34 PM
Proton is my favorite company when it comes to private file storage, email and VPN, and they do accept Bitcoin. You can get 200 GB with 84 EUR every 2 years: https://account.proton.me/u/0/drive/upgrade?ref=upsell_drive-button-user-dropdown.

If you want more than that, then I recommend pCloud. For 2 TB, either 100 EUR yearly payment, or 400 EUR for a lifetime*.

* which is actually the company's lifetime
11  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ark: An Alternative Privacy-preserving Second Layer Solution on: June 12, 2024, 07:45:58 AM
There are a lot of covenant proposals, which one is the safest & most efficient?
I think BIP-119 is the most popular covenant-proposal, but I'm not sure about its efficiency comparably to the rest.

I don't know which one is the safest and most efficient, but I've noticed people to propose enabling OP_CAT lately, which can incidentally allow covenants to be implemented: https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2022/05/18/#when-would-enabling-op-cat-allow-recursive-covenants. In Liquid, they've enabled OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK, which is said to be more efficient than OP_CTV: https://blog.blockstream.com/tapscript-new-opcodes-reduced-limits-and-covenants/.

Your insights would be appreciated.
12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ark: An Alternative Privacy-preserving Second Layer Solution on: June 12, 2024, 06:45:29 AM
Which upcoming soft fork, exactly?
Covenants (when proposed).
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: [Jun 2024] Fees are high, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs on: June 11, 2024, 08:35:57 PM
Really bad decision to use TrustWallet. The red flag is in the name.

Sorry for your loss.
14  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: 🚩 Blackjack.Fun | BTC Price Prediction ' June 16 | WIN $50! on: June 11, 2024, 07:04:02 PM
$67,130
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: [Jun 2024] Fees are high, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs on: June 11, 2024, 06:56:20 PM
If the coinbase transaction decreases further, obviously the incentive to raise fees artificially is getting stronger and stronger, thereby reducing the potential use base in return.
There is nobody raising the fees apart from the natural law of demand and supply. A mining pool can decide to not mine any transaction paying less than 10 sat/vb as a policy of theirs, but these transactions will eventually be mined by other mining pools that don't like throwing their income to their competitors.

Is this a dilemma that may not be reasonably solvable?
The problem is simple: You need to ensure those securing the chain will always have the incentive to do so, and the only ways to practically accomplish it is either by relying on transaction fees, or by subsidies. Bitcoin is capped at 21 million, therefore it has to rely on transaction fees. This means that being congested should be embraced, not criticized.
16  Local / Ελληνικά (Greek) / Re: Συζήτηση περί big blocks (κ.α.) on: June 11, 2024, 06:34:23 PM
Έτσι όπως πάει καλύτερα να πάρεις ένα φθηνό Thinkpad από Ebay παρά RPi. Βέβαια αν θες οικονομία ρεύματος δε το συζητάμε, Raspberry.
17  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ark: An Alternative Privacy-preserving Second Layer Solution on: June 11, 2024, 01:53:15 PM
One year after, let's see what has changed.


If and when implemented via a softfork, covenants will enable non-interactive use of Ark, meaning users do not need to be online constantly to send and receive satoshis. However, Ark can also be implemented without covenants (cl-Ark), although it will require interactivity as an disadvantage, so we better support the upcoming softfork.
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: [Jun 2024] Fees are high, wait for opportunity to Consolidate your small inputs on: June 11, 2024, 10:22:21 AM
If block size won't increase, there will be no space for new customers who want to make Bitcoin transactions daily and there are billions of people on earth.
This is precisely my point. If we are billions, then we can't all fit by making on-chain transactions on a daily basis. This is true for 4 MB blocks as much as it is for 40, or for 400 MB. It is only a matter of time before these sizes become considered insufficient as well, and we need to go even higher than that.

And this is the good scenario. For if the adoption (or demand for on-chain transactions) does not follow the block's capacity increase, then the network will not be sufficiently self-sustainable.

At the moment, a slight block size increase is necessary
I agree, but you know what they say. The best argument for 4 MB block size is that we already have 4 MB block size. I would rather have something close to 20 MB, so that the network could be less hostile to people who just want to make on-chain payments, but political issues will arise. It'd give Bitcoin some "breathing space" until the softforks, though, I agree it wouldn't harm (apart from politically).

Normal users, who want to use Bitcoin as a p2p payment method, should be able to use Bitcoin as it is without 2nd and 3rd layers.
"Should" is a complex and problematic verb. One person's actions impact another. If you think about it, your transaction occupies the space another person could use. It might sound exaggerated, but your freedom to make on-chain transactions directly influences another person's freedom to do the same. Just because something is considered a "human right" or "privilege" doesn't mean it comes without a cost. Dictate who should bear that cost, and you've essentially created a government.

Second layer solutions aim to minimize your influence on others' freedom as much as possible. That is the goal, in my view.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mempool Observer Topic on: June 11, 2024, 07:43:09 AM
Yes, I know it's possible to use 256-bit addresses to store arbitrary data indirectly (kinda like using ASCII art to store/transmit images if JPEG didn't exist), but just like ASCII art, it will never be particularly efficient or attractive for mainstream usage. That's why most people use JPEG these days (we don't live in the 80s anymore).
Storing arbitrary data is not attractive in general, be it in 256-bit chunks or otherwise. It's expensive and inefficient. People who permanently want to store their garbage will find the way to do it.

So ideally I believe the BTC blockchain should just host financial transactions and nothing more than that. No scripting ability either. As lightweight as possible (too bad MimbleWimble didn't exist back in 2008).
Being programmable is the beauty behind Bitcoin. Without Script, sidechains and Layer 2 solutions would not be possible, and the system wouldn't be able to scale. And not only that. Nearly every change would require a hardfork. Being programmable provides the flexibility to support the creation of solutions that have yet to be conceived.

Or, read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611.
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Internet don't forget, many times Donald Trump says bad about Bitcoin on: June 10, 2024, 03:47:29 PM
It is not a good image for Bitcoin that a convicted felon is receiving bitcoin payments and some people use terms such as "crypto president" to describe this criminal. Do bitcoiners really want that image? Criminals receiving bitcoin payments?!!
Apparently, some "Bitcoiners" will praise for anyone who will pump their bags. Be it Trump for donations, Elon Musk for Tesla, or Larry Fink for an ETF.

Might be controversial nowadays, but criminals receiving Bitcoin payments is absolutely normal and expected, because Bitcoin is for everyone, including criminals. So, the short answer is yes. We do want Bitcoin to have the image of being used by criminals, if that's what it takes for it to be accessible to everyone.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 460 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!