Thanks for this, I went through the links. Nice historical references to the progression to where we are now. All the concepts involved are very interesting and significant. Math & science at its best. My only concern is that the more of such elements one adds to the protocol, the more complex it becomes, and this has the potential to make it less robust (more vulnerable to attacks and other complications). I'm very supportive of any improvement that can add important features to the protocol, but I'm just a tiny little bit concerned of the end result, once the beast is released out in the wild. I trust the developers and I'm sure they've tested everything thoroughly, so hopefully nothing wrong will come out if this, but just a stronger, more capable, more flexible protocol. I get your concern, any code added increases the attack surface. BUT the beauty is you don't have to use the newly added functionality (as with most other software upgrades). It is a softfork, legacy addresses or multisig not using Schnorr signatures and Tapscript will keep on working just fine (and the Schnorr signature scheme is from 1990 so already rather proven). It is now up to the wallet software providers and blockchain explorers to update their software, for exchanges and third party custodians it will (and probably should) take even longer. Guess I am trying to say the adoption of Taproot will be slowly over time. It is not that with the Taproot activation in November anything immediately changes to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I tried to bought every dip, I am kinda broke in my bank wallet. Let's hope it's bull time now  Welcome. Join the club. |
|
|
|
Was thinking the current price action is a clear example of an irrational market. Bitcoin just got legal tender in a fucking country! But maybe the market is scared of the potential consequences. The US surely is not going to like a declining demand for their USD, which is was the only currency of El Salvador. Need to stop it in its tracks, before some other countries get wild ideas? I was a bit afraid when Jack Mallers announced the El Salvador bitcoin adoption while the bill had not been passed yet. The US could have acted quickly. Perhaps the market was afraid El Salvador would get stopped, which would surely have been bearish news. Let's see. I think with El Salvador now having Bitcoin as legal tender, Michael Saylor buying another chunk, and Taproot surely being activated this difficulty epoch, we might have seen the bottom for now. |
|
|
|
Think the El Salvador news is one of the most fundamentally bullish news we had in quite a while. So testing my new hat (a Homer original) since no doubt in my mind we will now reach $100k and beyond (and Bitcoin has to do exactly nothing for that to happen). Joe Cocker - You Can Leave Your Hat On (Official Video) HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfgwrdYUQ2AEdit: Laser eyes still charging it seems. Please hodl. |
|
|
|
Jack Mallers Announces El Salvador Bitcoin Adoptionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uGOfqN2y9kWatch it in case you have any doubts about the future of Bitcoin. Worrying about the ticker price can sometimes almost be embarrassing. Bitcoin is hope. Edit: 
|
|
|
|
Click below link to a whole thread. TL;DR historically we are severely undervalued atm:  Putting it all together. We run a 2 year moving median of NVT Ratio, that gets us an estimate of the mid-line value also accounting for the drift upwards due to the missing exchange activity. Multiply this by the on-chain volume, and we get a fundamental network valuation. https://twitter.com/woonomic/status/1399644947565879304 |
|
|
|
Bearish news, now it can be banned again. |
|
|
|
... the Metcalfe's law concept for the value of a monetary network reflected as bitcoin price in fiat that is related to the number of transactions or number of wallets is definitely interesting, and has worked well for Bitcoin in the early days when the network was small but growing exponentially fast.
... now I'm wondering if it Metcalfe needs to be tweaked to include a weighting to the value of transactions on the network, or value in wallets, rather simple numerical quantity of TX or wallets? The value of the phone network clearly increases as the number of users adopt the network but each user can make more or less or longer or shorter calls and doesn't really affect the total value of the network. Bitcoin is somewhat more like the electricity grid network where the size of the user, or generator, that connects to the network would have a bearing on the total value of the network different from simply number of users. E.g. if a large utility, or aluminum smelter, decided to abandon the electricity network that clearly has a bigger impact on total value of the network that some random Joe that goes off-grid but each represent a single user on the network.
I always thought that Metcalfe was a bit of a simplification. Clearly, connections have different weightings, some potentially negative. The same overall square law applies but this introduces several nuances. More users has meant an increase in connections but restricted transactions (without a fully functioning second layer) and hence increased friction has reduced the value of many/most of those connections. This is, apparently, an acceptable tradeoff for being able to run a full Bitcoin node on a smartphone from 2012. "As long as the participants in the network keep growing over time, the value of the network rises exponentially. Generally speaking, the more volatility the price has, the higher the return over time IF the network grows." Google:  Amazon:  Facebook:  Bitcoin:  https://twitter.com/RaoulGMI/status/1396837047336329218@Richy read about Infura and the several 'levels' of POS nodes mess written by Lyn Alden. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
