by making legacy 4x more yes it made segwit cheaper than legacy, but not due to discounting segwit. but due to multiplying legacy
learn the difference
It's pretty easy to see that most of the reference to Segwit's calculation are termed as "discounts". The actual method used to calculate can be different, but I believe we are not too concerned about the technicality here. .. "if miners revenue could rise if blocks are larger" is still not a yes/no. unless you are emphasising the "could".
because the fee's per user and the congestion also could decrease meaning the miners could get less total fees
so the answer to "could" is a yes. but to "would" is both yes and no
and there is always many variables to think about. its never straight forward
for instance. even now. blocksize has been same for years. yet individual miners get less sats per hashrate due to halvings and hashrate competition with other miners.
yep someone owning an s19 since 2020 is getting less sats now then they did in 2020
with that said. comparing the MARKET price, those sats are worth more
so its all subjective to variables
Thanks, that is what I thought the topic was about. Halving is still in play because it still constitutes a significant portion of miners' revenue, but that could change in the near future. Revenue per hashrate wouldn't be that accurate of a metric to look at; obsolescence is normal for miners and it would be better for us to evaluate the ROI given a specific lifespan of a device. I think congestion could decrease, but it would depend on how much of an urgency or necessity Bitcoin transactions are. Even if congestion, or the scarcity of block space becomes periodic, if Bitcoin transactions turns out to be a necessity for some, I predict the overall revenue could still be sustained or increased. |
|
|
|
EG
10x more blocksize does NOT mean 10x more transactions at current fee rate
so it may not mean 10x more fee
instead 10x more blocksize may end up that the limited transactions +junkweight pay less sats per byte per tx because te junkweight gets more discount
Precisely, and we would be talking about increasing the vMB instead of the raw size. I think that your fundamental misunderstanding is with how the calculation of transaction fee rates should be done. SW tx have discounts, and rightfully so. You can fit more into a block, as opposed to an entire block with only legacy TXes. The fee rates would be compensated for with SW TXes and legacy TXes, all in all, your total revenue will rise. Again, when replicating the practical scenarios, the question in this topic concerns if miners revenue could rise if blocks were larger and with typical usage patterns. Again, this would concern the economics of the fee market and talking about any other types of scaling Bitcoin would throw this topic on a tangent again. |
|
|
|
but its not a yes/no
Again, the topic IS a yes/no. The following sentence below: [Poll] If Bitcoins blocks were 10x larger, would the miners be earning 10x?
Is indeed a yes or no question. Segwit did increase the total revenue from pre-segwit with the theoretical increase in potential transaction volume, not to mention the subsequent development in layer 2. Yes, it resulted in a higher miner revenue from fees. Again, besides the point. The topic discusses the possibility of a proportional increase given the increment in Bitcoin block size. What is your answer? |
|
|
|
|
I think this topic has gone from a simple yes/no, or if not how much question into something that is politicized and peppered with the arguments that we cannot do it. Now with that aside, I think we should focus on the economics aspect of things.
This will actually depend on how elastic the demand for the block space is. At its current stage, Bitcoin is not mainstream enough and there are plenty of alternatives to transfer funds. I would expect the total revenue to be lesser than expected. It would be a different story if Bitcoin is mainstream and demand can be sustained throughout. If we can't have close to full blocks with the increment, then I expect totally revenue to be disproportionately lesser.
|
|
|
|
Satellites etc. track which country emits how much CO2 and give the result e.g. every week to an assembly where every nation looks at its collected data (can be done fully automatically as well).
Current tracking technology, assuming that you're talking about NASA's only tracks localized emissions and is actually not accurate enough. We are still far from tracking verifiable CO2 emission of an entire country accurately. Every nation has its own anonymous key to a multi-sig wallet (e.g. 150/195 wallet). If the data of a nation from step 2 comes to the conclusion, that another nation emitted more than it has certificates, it can sign a transaction on the multi-sig wallet to move the according pledge from the nation who emitted too much CO2 to the rest of the nations who emitted less than it actually needed. This forms the consensus mechanism. As the votes are anonymous and the CO2 source location are transparent.
Transaction has to be initiated by someone, and signed by others. It would be clear who initiated and signed it. By and large, ratified climate change agreements are without teeth and it is as good as nothing. Whilst there are significant improvement in the shift to cleaner energy and certain countries having made significant progress to reduce carbon emissions, we should also acknowledge that there is still a good portion of the countries that isn't compliant with the agreement and merely treating it as a lipservice. Beyond thinking about whether Bitcoin can even serve as an incentive for countries to do so (remember 500 billion isn't enough to cover a lot of the GDP of the worlds' largest economy), we have to first consider if we can even have the countries agree to put their funds into a locked account all together. |
|
|
|
So base on your valuable point got me thinking you specifying "clipboard malwares" because clipboard hijacking Malwares normally copy data intercept data being copied and pasted and replace it with malicious code. That why they can replace addresses by changing it to the hacker address. So was force to make some research and found out that they different Malwares with different uses to hackers right
There is practically no difference between "clipboard" malwares or any other kinds of malware for that matter. Once your computer gets compromised, the possibility that the attacker can do is limitless. They can access your computers, change whatever is on your clipboards, dump your memory, etc. You probably won't get infected if you're sure that you do not run any unverified or otherwise suspicious files or go to any malicious websites (most of these actually rely on vulnerabilities to escape the browser sandbox). AntiViruses ARE NOT foolproof, they compare the files against the behavior by known malwares or by looking at the signature to classify the malware. Hence, it cannot detect everything. When in doubt, use a hardware wallet. |
|
|
|
As said, there is no reason why you shouldn't use 26.0 over 25.0, or any other version for that matter. These are stable releases which are good for regular users, as opposed to release candidates which are found on GitHub as well. If you're thinking of whether you should update, then you should look at the release notes, for 26.0, it's here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/26.0/. If there isn't anything particularly enticing for you, specifically any new features, then you can consider holding it off. Updates which are mandatory will be made known. |
|
|
|
No, he is right. You can indeed use the word "hello" as an entire seed phrase if you want. Obviously it doesn't follow the BIP39 protocol in terms of length, entropy, checksum, etc., but you can indeed ignore all that, feed "hello" in to the PBKDF2 algorithm, and generate a wallet. In fact, someone has done that already. Using the string "hello" as a BIP39 seed phrase, you can generate the following address at m/44'/0'/0'/0/1: 19ag68hqdbjwC2cLDZs5HRrxRCm4ETr2WbThis address was used back in 2017. Yeah, I was confused about the original post as I was under the impression that it was talking about the entropy being used instead of the actual seed. You can also generate an insecure seed using any passphrase using an entropy and a hash to pad it to the appropriate size. |
|
|
|
Reward halves, block size doubles. I think this would be a good solution! Was this even discussed before?
Nope, that would have a negative impact on the overall economy. By the 10th halving, you would have a block size of 1GB. That might or might not work depending on how technology progresses and if we really want to pursue layer 1 scaling for the long term. Having a long period of time between halving, and essentially a shock by having the block size doubling can't be good for Bitcoin. Congestion would either never appear in that 4 year period or will be prevalent from the on-start. Reward halving has nothing to do with transaction volume. Instead, we have to focus on the factors affecting the transaction volume, which can be in the form of adoption rates, prices, market trends and they're hardly quantifiable. Hence why it is difficult to answer the questions in my post. |
|
|
|
Yes you can actually use just any random words you like to create a seed phrase but most of those wallets that uses BIP39 standard will not be able to recover that wallet, as for the checksum it can easily be solved and then pick the word that matches it. But it is bad idea to actually manually generate your own seed phrase because it doesn’t create the randomness that your wallet or Machine will pick
No, that is not what that post meant. Sufficient entropy is required to generate the mnemonic using BIP39. The acceptable size of the entropy is between 128bits to 256bits, and hence you can actually just use the SHA256 hash function of hello as the input for the entropy, generating a rather insecure mnemonic. To calculate the addresses (as well as the corresponding private key), we use a KDF on the mnemonic to come up with the seed. For example, using SHA256 of "hello" as the entropy yields: stuff media welcome miracle hair crowd confirm cloud exhibit dust pigeon sauce gym copy truth salad dirt scissors sunny about cable wing opinion cheap
|
|
|
|
all mixers are used for money laundering
Every currency in the world is involved in money laundering, heck even banks (HSBC, Morgan Stanley) are complicit with money laundering. A slap on their wrist and life goes as per normal. The trend here appears to be that mixers aren't illegal, until they are found to be involved in any money laundering scheme. A wrong choice of word in my original post, should be "complicit". |
|
|
|
They'll ask the next question: "How did you get the funds?". Plausible deniability isn't the same as a plausible answer.
A P2P real life transaction? It would be perfectly legitimate in most jurisdiction and they wouldn't have a good reason to ask you to provide a concrete proof, even if that is possible. Most real life or OTC marketplace wouldn't have any paper trails. From what we've observed so far, most (or at least all that I've heard of) account closures comes with a direct link to a violation of the TOS. Whilst they can argue for a solid explanation provided with all of the transaction proofs or receipts, the reality is that most of the funds are already tainted and it would be unreasonable for the KYC to be this thorough for all of their clients. Of course, I concede that it isn't a foolproof method but its the reality that exchanges are facing with regards to tainted coins. |
|
|
|
thank you all about your feed back i really appreciate that can someone give me link about good docs that explain very well the concept of derivation path ? i want really deep undertsand about it  this is amazing, math are so beautiful with bitcoin BIP32 is the standard for deriving the addresses from the seeds, and BIP44( https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki) is one of the path that was introduced as a BIP previously. Some of the wallets use this derivation path while there are some wallet that uses the other forms of derivation path. You should be able to find the meanings of the path level in BIP44. |
|
|
|
There should have been a 4-year upgrade in terms of block size incrimination in a similar fashion to how network difficulty rises with time. What I mean is, that Satoshi was able to identify the supply and demand issue earlier through its halving event. However, they did not consider the scaling of block sizes or maybe they never thought that Bitcoin would go to such a high level anytime soon.
Difficulty doesn't rise with time, there is a negative correlation. It was identified and also a pressing issue, but we never reached a conclusion on the following:
So I am not sure if this is technically valid or not, but there should have been an algorithm that automatically increases the size of the block every 4 years or whatever period is feasible to make it happen. Let's say that would be a block-size event in a similar way we have a Halving event. As a result over time, we don't need to fork Bitcoin and create more shit coins as a result.
We couldn't reach a consensus on when we should increase block size, how we should increase the block size and by how much should we increase the block size. Of course, we could have a simple algorithm but the scenario where the demand can't reach the expected level would make it disastrous for the eco-system and it would be difficult to reverse. Furthermore, Moore's law is likely not going to hold forever and storage density would stagnant somewhere for a while in the near future. I know I may not be close to the solution because there could be whole new realm of coding behind this, but at some point we definitely need to think about the solution whether its hardest or simplest, that wont matter.
We have, there are quite a few viable solutions but the overall impact to Bitcoin and the economy differs with each solution. The difficulty is not with coming up with the solution but rather which solution makes the most sense and coming to a consensus with it. |
|
|
|
The thing burns 6.4W max. That shouldn't be too difficult to dissipate with passive cooling. On a fairly compact surface area and my aluminium heat sink was apparently not enough, the earlier versions were at 7-8Ws and were known to overheat. Might be better to get a bigger heatsink and a better thermal pad for it. |
|
|
|
What OS did you run? Mine is downloading the monero blockchain now and the temp is currently 43.8 celcius. I don't remember exactly with Bitcoin but I can tell you for sure that it never went over 58-60 celcius.
But RAM is very important for this. So 8GB work much better than 4GB.
Raspbian. Mine was above 70 for most of the time, but again your cooling method makes a huge difference. Having the entire casing as a heatsink is undoubtedly better with what I've had on hand. RPi4s were notorious for overheating actually, might've been the issue with the earlier versions. RAM is important, but RPis are pretty expensive so I had to skimp on it back then. RAM shouldn't affect temperature anyways. |
|
|
|
Never mind mixer, the average IT lawyer doesn't know about crypto and how it affects legal responsibilities/risk. I say this with all due respect, and from the admittance of an IT lawyer I engage for work over the past couple of years. They're pretty great at tech, fintech, but decentralised tech (I know only Bitcoin really qualifies) is something they're only just coming to grips with.
MiCA provides much-needed clarity but it's national law (even in the EU) that's a challenge for them.
I always say, don't let your understanding be motivated by the fear of getting caught for doing something wrong. Be motivated that your personal freedoms and fundamental rights -- including money-related -- will always be under attack.
Really? I've got a few lawyer friends working for DeFi firms (specifically with regards to IP), NDA so I can't discuss too much about them. Seems like they were quite well-versed with the Crypto scene and had quite a good understanding of how the scenarios that we've mentioned would pan out. Granted that it is quite niche, but a good lawyer with some degree of knowledge in FinTech would have a very good knowledge about your rights in this issue. Again, don't think it would be wise to engage a lawyer who doesn't have any experience with whatever you're doing with. Interestingly, from what I understand, cases involving Bitcoin are often heavily overlapped with the traditional money laundering cases and that historically prosecutor has had a harder time to build a solid case to prove malicious intent when using mixers. Regardless, if you're not doing anything illegal, then there is no case to build for anyways. |
|
|
|
I second what is said above: Don't use Raspberry Pi. My Pi 4 was overheating constantly when running a node and I had to get active cooling on it.
Out of curiousity, what where you running on the Raspberry and how much RAM did it have? I run 2 Raspberry Pi 4b 8GB RAM and I never had overheating issues. I use this case on both of them and the temperature never exceeds 58-60 celcius. It has passive cooling and there is no noise at all. I think I ran it with my RPi 4, 4GB. How were your temps looking during the synchronization? Mine was fairly hot throughout, granted that it was just a heatsink and not a fancy heat dispersing case. Not to mention, it took weeks. |
|
|
|
Thank you again very much for the information!
Right now, I am thinking about running two nodes on two devices:
1. Windows laptop (as of now, easier for me)
Is a setup including a 16GB RAM and Intel Core i5 (12th or 13th generation) sufficient to run a node and do some data analysis (Python, SQL) simultaneously? I know it is not easy to answer such a question, but I would appreciate your opinion.
Can someone please tell me if the following idea makes sense:
I will set up a node that I will only use for actions related to interacting with Bitcoin. Ocassionally, I will download some data from the blockchain and store the data on another external harddrive. Then I will use this harddrive to transfer the data to my current laptop (which has a good performance) and do the data analysis on my current laptop.
Or can I simply disconnect my SDD (where the blockchain data is stored) from my node for a few hours and download the blockchain data directly to my other laptop? Will it cause problems if my node is offline for several hours or does it just need some time to synch once it is online again?
2. Rasperry Pi
I am eager to run one node on the Rasperry Pi for the previously mentioned reasons and to get more familiar with Linux. Accumulating knowledge and skills will take time but I am willing to invest the time.
I second what is said above: Don't use Raspberry Pi. My Pi 4 was overheating constantly when running a node and I had to get active cooling on it. It is okay to remove your data directory, provided that your Core has shutdown properly and is not writing any data on it, or it'll get corrupted and you'll have to do a reindex again. You might just want to run everything on a single computer instead; indexing the transaction data and parsing them to another format can take quite a while and external harddrive are slow, and are prone to corruption. |
|
|
|
I doubt very much your average lawyer will even know what a mixer is.
If you think your lawyer doesn't have any idea of the FinTech laws, then you should probably change your lawyer. If you can't even afford a proper lawyer right now, then you have nothing to worry about. If you aren't doing anything illegal and you are not mixing a significant amount of money, no one would bother you. The man-hours it takes to compile the evidence to prosecute a person is not worth the time, don't worry about it. That is unless you are doing something illegal and you definitely have things to worry about then. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
