In other words if Bitcoin ceased to exist right now, LN would cease to exist too but Ordinals may not!
This is incorrect. LN operates independently of Bitcoin and is not contingent upon its existence. LN possesses the capability to facilitate transactions across various blockchain platforms, not limited solely to Bitcoin. LN is not reliant on Bitcoin; were Bitcoin to cease to exist, the Lightning Network would continue to function autonomously. |
|
|
|
In the coming decade, we're likely to see some cool new tricks and tech pop up in the Bitcoin world to make it faster, greener and more efficient all while keeping it decentralized and secure. Theres a talk of exploring different consensus mechanisms, like proof-of-stake, to cut down on energy use. And let's not forget about other tech like sharding and sidechains which could also help with scalability while being eco-friendly. It's an exciting time for Bitcoin and there's no shortage of smart minds working on ways to make it better for everyone
You are crazy if you believe that bitcoin will transition to a proof-of-stake mechanism. Proof-of-stake would undermine a lot of the fundamentals that bitcoin was built upon. PoW is often seen as more secure than PoS due to its reliance on computational power. In PoW, miners compete to solve complex mathematical puzzles to validate transactions and add blocks to the blockchain. This requires significant computational resources, making it expensive for malicious actors to attack the network. PoW is also considered to be more decentralized compared to PoS. In PoW, anyone with the necessary hardware can participate in the mining process, whereas PoS typically requires participants to hold a certain amount of the cryptocurrency, potentially leading to centralization among those with the most coins. |
|
|
|
Navigating the Quantum Threat: A Call to the Bitcoin Community
Let this message serve as a call to action. I encourage developers, cryptographers, and all community members to engage in this vital discussion. Together, we can confront the quantum challenge and secure the future of Bitcoin against the unforeseen threats of tomorrow.
In unity and anticipation,
[A Legendary Member of Bitcointalk]
Subject: The Quantum Quandary: NIST's Candidates vs. Bitcoin's Block Size Limit`
As we stand at this crossroads, I invite the community to engage in a profound and forward-thinking dialogue. Let us pool our knowledge, creativity, and spirit of innovation to address this challenge. Together, we can navigate the complexities of integrating quantum-resistant algorithms into Bitcoin, ensuring its security and legacy in the face of quantum advancements.
In the spirit of collaboration and progress,
[A Legendary Member of Bitcointalk]
Mod note: Consecutive posts merged
Are these posts that are here on this forum? I would love to dive into the discussions that were provoked by these words. Is there a real difference between quantum-proof and quantum-resistant algorithms? Is there even such thing as an algorithm that is quantum-proof? |
|
|
|
|
In this forum, a recurrent theme centers around the growing apprehension concerning the advancements in quantum computing and its potential implications for Bitcoin's security. Numerous responses assert that, when the time comes, the network will undergo an upgrade to adopt a quantum-resistant encryption algorithm, thereby reinforcing its security.
My inquiry delves into the logistical intricacies of such a transition. Does this create a scenario where all users must transfer their Bitcoin holdings to these new quantum-resistant addresses? Moreover, the consideration arises regarding the implications for dormant Bitcoin holdings, such as those belonging to Satoshi. Without an entity to initiate the transfer to these fortified addresses, does this proposition imply the eventual reactivation of dormant bitcoins? Will all "lost" coins eventually be reclaimed by the advancement of quantum computing?
How would the transition to a quantum-resistant encryption algorithm impact the overall user experience, especially considering the potential requirement for users to transfer their Bitcoin holdings to new addresses?
Are there any potential downsides or trade-offs associated with the adoption of quantum-resistant encryption that the community should carefully consider before moving forward with such a significant upgrade?
In the event of transitioning to quantum-resistant addresses, what measures could be put in place to ensure a seamless and secure migration, considering the diverse range of users with varying levels of technical expertise?
|
|
|
|
...but I am also surprised that Tor project exist. Their existence doesn't make sense for me in a world where governments want control.
Development of TOR was heavily funded by the United States Navy. TOR is used by government assets all around the world to ensure secure communication in areas where it may be dangerous to do so. The initial goal of the project was to develop a technology that could protect government communications and intelligence information from being intercepted or traced back by adversaries. While Tor had its roots in military-funded research, its evolution into a widely-used privacy tool is the result of collaboration and contributions from the global community, emphasizing the broader applications of the technology beyond its original military context. If the utilization of TOR were exclusively restricted to government assets, it would be plausible for adversaries to infer that a connection made through TOR originates from a foreign government. Hence, the imperative arose to disseminate this technology publicly, thereby rendering the associated network traffic indiscernible from that of an ordinary citizen. |
|
|
|
|
I mean.. he was convicted for creating and operating an online black market that facilitated illegal activities such as drug trafficking, hacking tools, and other criminal enterprises. The evidence presented during his trial demonstrated that he knowingly enabled illegal transactions, contributing to drug addiction, violence, and above all else the solicitation of murder. Ulbricht's platform provided a haven for criminal activities, undermining public safety and the rule of law. While some argue for the libertarian ideals he claimed to champion, the undeniable reality is that the Silk Road facilitated a wide range of illegal and harmful activities.
It may be an unpopular opinion here on this forum..but Ross is a criminal.
|
|
|
|
A while back I wrote a topic [1] on why identifying SN would not be in our best interest. I recommend giving it a read. Identifying this individual would provide governments worldwide with a tangible target for scrutiny, beyond mere anonymity. The potential repercussions include a surge in negative publicity and unfounded allegations against the newly revealed persona. Despite the speculative nature of any accusations, the community could face an unprecedented wave of FUD. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5349129.msg57454873#msg57454873 |
|
|
|
Switching topics back to the emails, I've been reading them quite carefully (and therefore slowly) for a better understanding. What do the esteemed ladies and gentlemen think about https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/#email-19, where Satoshi's email confirms that Bitcoin was meant to be a digital cash, not an investment tool, as outlined in the Bitcoin white paper title? The transition of bitcoin from a digital cash concept to an investment tool is a natural evolution driven by several factors that have unfolded since its inception. While SN initially designed Bitcoin with the vision of it being a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, its use and perception have shifted over time. Fiat-currency uncertainties, mainstream news SoV narratives, and speculative interests have all shaped bitcoin's current image. While the original intention of Bitcoin may have been as a digital cash system, its journey through a decade of development, market dynamics, and changing perceptions has led to its predominant role as an investment tool. |
|
|
|
I said meaningful hinderances. There are freakin Super Bowl commercials selling Bitcoin to millions of people. This sure doesn't look like a country where Bitcoin is banned to me.
And not only not banned, but not hindered in any way such that it would meaningfully reduce adoption.
And doing a little KYC--which is required for every sort of financial instrument, not just Bitcoin--does not hurt anything.
And for what it's worth, if I understand it correctly, most of that stuff is done voluntarily by the brokerages to protect themselves from fraud, not some commandment from the government. At minimum they would have to do at least some checks or they would get ripped off. This is not some government killing their business through regulation specially targeted at Bitcoin because they want to eliminate Bitcoin because it "competes with the dollar" or something.
While the government may not explicitly aim to eliminate Bitcoin, regulatory actions can impact the ecosystem. For instance, stringent regulations could stifle innovation and deter investment in the industry. It's crucial to acknowledge that regulatory challenges might not manifest as an outright ban but could include restrictive measures that impede the development and adoption of decentralized technologies. The absence of an outright ban and the visibility of Bitcoin in mainstream media do not necessarily mean that the cryptocurrency faces no hindrances in the U.S. The regulatory landscape is multifaceted, and a more comprehensive understanding is required to evaluate the potential challenges that could affect Bitcoin adoption in the long run. |
|
|
|
Also, how are they able to censor it? What is the technology that they are implying here that is calling them to do so? Until now I thought we were on a public ledger meaning anything that is sent or received can be seen on the chain if we know the BTC address. From where is the topic of censorship stated or was it included in the white paper already? I would say I am still #weakintechnicals
If you give the article a read, you will see they explain it in pretty decent detail.Bitcoin miners have a significant influence on which transactions get included in a block when they successfully mine one. While Bitcoin is designed to be a decentralized and censorship-resistant system, miners, especially those in mining pools, have some degree of discretion in selecting transactions for inclusion. Miners choose which transactions to include in a block based on various factors. These factors commonly include the transaction fee attached to the transaction, the size of the transaction in terms of block space, the priority of the transaction, and network latency. Based off what the writer says, these factors aren't always intentional or malicious. But in certain cases, there has been evidence showing that certain pools (F2Pool) may be censoring intentionally. |
|
|
|
*Also, fuck F2Pool. I could at least understand why a wallet would do it, but for a bitcoin miner to violate the decentralization of the network they directly profit from is a mortal sin.
This is what I struggled with the most..the fact that one of the largest pools is openly violating one of the core principles of the network is just shocking. I really want to understand their motivation for censoring the transactions in the first place. Would they even face any legal issues if they simply included the transaction? How does F2Pool benefit from the censorship? Political ass-kissing? |
|
|
|
Recently I was scrolling on Twitter(X) and I came across something rather interesting.. A bitcoin developer that I follow on there (@0xB10C) posted this on his page. [1] Given the community's commitment to upholding the censorship resistance of our network, I deemed it appropriate to conduct a thorough reading. Here's what I found:
Firstly, the developers project aims to detect instances where Bitcoin mining pools fail to mine transactions they could have included. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), a bureau in the U.S. Treasury Department, is responsible for enforcing economic and trade sanctions aligning with U.S. foreign policy, targeting countries, terrorists, and threats to national security. Over the past weeks, the project identified six missing transactions from OFAC-sanctioned addresses, prompting an investigation into whether these omissions were intentional or had alternative explanations. The RSS feed reported missing transactions from ViaBTC, Foundry USA, and F2Pool, involving OFAC-sanctioned addresses.The analysis explores various reasons for transactions being absent from blocks, such as network propagation, individual node differences, and pool transaction prioritization. The primary goal is to determine whether mining pools intentionally filter OFAC-sanctioned transactions and assess the impact on Bitcoin's censorship-resistant properties. One missing transaction from ViaBTC's block 808660 was due to the prioritization of other transactions by ViaBTC's Bitcoin Transaction Accelerator, indicating it was not intentionally filtered. Foundry USA's block 813231 did not include a sanctioned transaction due to potential delays in transaction propagation. Again, unintentional. According to the report, the analysis suggests that F2Pool omitted transactions from OFAC-sanctioned addresses in blocks 810727, 811791, 811920, and 813357. The reasons for the omission vary for each block, but the common thread is the likelihood of intentional filtering by F2Pool. Here's a breakdown of the reasons for the omission in each block: Block 810727:
F2Pool did not include this transaction, and instead, another transaction was included. The report suggests that the missing transaction had a slightly higher fee rate but was 3 vBytes smaller than the included transaction. Despite the fee rate advantage, the larger transaction was chosen. Block 811791:
The report indicates that F2Pool omitted this transaction, and despite having enough space in the block, it was likely intentionally filtered. The presence of extra transactions in the block did not affect the inclusion of the sanctioned transaction, making intentional filtering more plausible. Block 811920:
F2Pool did not include this large consolidation transaction in the block, and the report suggests that the transaction might not have propagated to F2Pool in time, but it's also likely that it was intentionally filtered. The transaction was marked as "recently broadcast" on mempool.space. Block 813357:
F2Pool excluded this consolidation transaction from the block, and the report indicates that, similar to the case in block 811791, it's likely intentionally filtered. The transaction had been in the node’s mempool for more than 25 minutes, making it less likely that it wasn't known to F2Pool when building the block. In summary, the report concludes that these transactions were likely intentionally filtered by F2Pool, This raises the question of why F2Pool, a pool with origins in Asia, is the first pool to filter transactions based on US OFAC sanctions, especially considering that other transactions with similar or lower fee rates were included in the blocks. The original report can be found here. I highly encourage giving it a read. [2] ---------- I find myself uncertain about how to interpret all of this information. Despite the seemingly small number of just six transactions, the fact that such situations are possible raises concerns. I'm grappling with whether this should be a cause for worry in the future or if it's perhaps an overblown issue. The writer of the report leaves us with this: The Bitcoin network, however, continues to work as normal. A single pool filtering transactions does not affect the censorship resistance of the Bitcoin network as a whole. Further monitoring of the transaction selection of mining pools allows identifying when more pools start to filter transactions based on, for example, OFAC sanctions. It also allows miners pointing their hashrate to these pools to make an informed decision on switching to a different pool if they don’t agree with a pool’s (unannounced) filtering policies. [1] https://x.com/0xB10C/status/1726964430460588201?s=20[2] https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/
|
|
|
|
Many things that people are looking up to such as the Bitcoin ETF might make Bitcoin less decentralized.
Well this can't be right.. A Bitcoin ETF has the potential to actually enhance the decentralization of Bitcoin by providing a more diversified and widely distributed ownership structure. Here are some reasons why: Increased Accessibility: An ETF makes it easier for a broader range of investors, including institutional investors and retail investors, to gain exposure to Bitcoin without directly holding the cryptocurrency. This increased accessibility can lead to a more diverse ownership base. Reduced Concentration of Ownership: Currently, a significant portion of Bitcoin ownership is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of holders. The introduction of a Bitcoin ETF could attract a larger number of investors, distributing ownership more widely and mitigating the concentration risk. Institutional Participation: Institutional investors, which often have large pools of capital, may find it more convenient and compliant to invest in Bitcoin through regulated financial instruments like ETFs. Their participation can contribute to a more balanced and decentralized ownership structure. Regulatory Recognition: The approval of a Bitcoin ETF by regulatory authorities can signal a level of acceptance and legitimacy for Bitcoin as an asset class. This regulatory recognition may encourage a broader range of investors to participate, further decentralizing ownership. Market Liquidity: An ETF can enhance market liquidity, making it easier for investors to buy and sell Bitcoin exposure. Increased liquidity often attracts a more diverse set of participants, contributing to a decentralized market structure. While a Bitcoin ETF can contribute to decentralization, it's important to note that decentralization is a multifaceted concept, and factors such as mining distribution, network nodes, and community governance also play crucial roles in determining the overall decentralization of the Bitcoin network. |
|
|
|
So what was the point of spending lots of bitcoins in developing a new forum software if the transition was going to be a problem?
We live in changing times. Change is inevitable. Which is why when you are renting a place that doesn't seem to suit your demands and lifestyle needs as you grow, you "painfully" transfer to a new place, the whole process may be bothersome, but it's worth it at the end.
From a principled standpoint, I fully concur. Individuals have invested financial resources to support the implementation of the new forum software, and it is only fitting that they receive commensurate rewards. From a pragmatic perspective, could you elaborate on the specific 'demands' that this forum presently fails to address for you? What functionalities or features do you find lacking in the current forum software that you want to see implemented? |
|
|
|
Now we have:
3. Use it like a cloud storage to save stupid low resolution images
4. Use it like a notebook to save useless jsons for useless imaginary tokens
So you're saying that some peoples transactions are not as valuable as other's? There are some serious dangers in that statement. The fundamental principle of Bitcoin lies in the freedom to engage in transactions according to individual discretion. Whether this entails the inclusion of what might be perceived as "stupid low-resolution images" on the blockchain, it is imperative to refrain from passing judgment on the acceptability of others transactions. |
|
|
|
I think that would be a big shot in the foot as the majority of the community love the forum the way it is.
It is essential to consider the potential ramifications of implementing forum software changes at this stage. The majority of our users have developed a high degree of proficiency and comfort with the existing software, making a transition to a new forum with unfamiliar features a potentially vexing endeavor. It is noteworthy that those advocating for the new forum software primarily do so on a principled basis rather than practical necessity. Consequently, the prospect of discontent and disruption among a substantial portion of the user base looms large, underscoring the need for a deliberate and judicious approach to ensure a harmonious transition that respects the established user preferences and expectations. |
|
|
|
|
I used a particular bitcoin atm that takes spare change and can give you the fund in btc.
The real problem was the fees. I had deposited around $120 in change and only got about $95 back in actual bitcoin. Bitcoin ATMs are in no way the way to go for a beginner looking to get some money in bitcoin. The fees would instantly turn them off.
|
|
|
|
|
I think MS has proven that they are making these bitcoin purchases with the intent to hold. MS has not sold any bitcoin since their initial accumulation.
So to put their company name and 'rug pull' in the same post isn't really backed by anything.
|
|
|
|
...
One very important distinction: All freedom software is completely open-source, but not all open-source software is completely free.
...
For me Freedom Software and Open Source Software are the same things, if you can access the code, understand it, and modify it then you can call that 'freedom'. And if you want to learn about more Freedom Software then you should take a look at Linux and I'm sure that if you understand how that works then the word freedom will get a new meaning for you. Depends on the GNU/Linux distro that you have chosen. Many mainstream distros contain proprietary software that the user has limited control over. I, myself, use a free distro of GNU/Linux that only contains free software. If you do a little more digging on the site I provided, you'll see why the open-source movement is ideologically different from the free software movement. The freedom software movement focuses on the freedom of the user. The open-source movement only advocates for better software. These are two different goals that aim to achieve two different things. One is user freedom, while the other is improved software. The former, benefits from both goals. While the latter, benefits from just one. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
