1. Apakah ada kemungkinan nih fee lebih rendah dari 1 sat/byte, misalkan menjadi 0.1 sat?
Mungkin, ada 2 skenario untuk merealisasikan tersebut, 1. Minta tolong kepada pool mining untuk menyertakan transaksi dengan fee < 1 sat/byte. 2. Nilai default pada parameter minrelayfee diubah menjadi lebih rendah dari 1000 sat/kB, sehingga transaksi bisa dibroadcast / relay oleh mayoritas Bitcoin node. |
|
|
|
SEO (ffs), etc. The forum has hundreds of bitcoins, why not use a tiny bit of that to create some search engine optimized content to get the forum to rank a bit better for certain keywords/keyphrases? The services board has dozens of content writers, some of them certainly know how to write SEO content, and if not, someone could be found for such a task. Honestly, i don't like writing article solely for SEO. The article usually have mediocre quality and not really helpful. We better learn few thing from Stack Overflow/Stack Exchange ( https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/14056). They have good SEO, while maintain content quality and doesn't create article solely for 1st result on search engine. |
|
|
|
What do you think will be the biggest technical obstacles faced in the next decade?
Obviously it's scaling bitcoin for mass/global adaption. Based on network, there are 3, which are on-chain (Bitcoin), side-chain (such as Liquid and RSK) and off-chain/2nd-layer (such as LN). For on-chain scaling, it's mainly about reducing transaction size, transaction batching and faster verification. 1. Taproot already locked-in and it's just matter of time before it's activated. However, Taproot only has noticeable impact with complex script and multiple keys/signature. 2. Using more efficient transaction serialization to reduce transaction size. See Did you know bitcoin uses 6 different ways to represent integers. 3. Mimble Wimble which perform transaction batching and improve privacy. But AFAIK it's difficult to implement Mimble Wimble without sacrifice it's privacy property. One is to increase the block size, but without an improved scripting system that can parse these kinds of complex conditions, you'll just end up making the blockchain too big for most people to download fairly quickly.
And increase block size also involve social (and even politic) problem. |
|
|
|
I'll make this Thread in order to help everybody in the forum to know how to Encrypt and Decrypt a message or text using their Android Phones
You mean using browser (while connected to internet), which isn't good practice from security/privacy perspective. There's no problem is someone only want to try using PGP keys. But for actual usage, it's better to use actual mobile application such as https://github.com/open-keychain/open-keychain. |
|
|
|
Also, if not mined, the transaction will return to you in a few weeks and no fee is charged (so it's not "lost in the blockchain"!), so you can try again when the time is right.
For reference, it's over simplification. What actually happen is the transaction is never confirmed and almost all node dropped your transaction (about ~2 weeks after you create and broadcast the transaction). At this point you could either, 1. Rebroadcast the transaction and wait the transaction is mined. 2. Create new transaction. |
|
|
|
If by "fake bitcoin" you mean double spending and the possibility to spend the same coin twice, then the answer is no. Bitcoin is designed to prevent double spending.
I reckon it's possible, if you sent two transactions but one with a higher fee so it speeds up. Supposedly a newbie sees the confirmation and thinks that it's registered but little did he/ she know it could be replaced by another TX that would never be addressed to him/ her. It's only possible if the receiver accept 0-conf transaction without checking possibility of double spend (e.g. low fees, RBF enabled). Fortunately, some wallet will mention that the transaction/bitcoin isn't confirmed. so such scenario isn't likely. |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Maximalists act almost like the white blood cells of the bitcoin ecosystem. (BTCM, 2021) They attack bad actors attempting to make bitcoin what it was not meant to be. They stick to bitcoins original values. Without them, bitcoin could very well be looking at 10MB block sizes and a planned POS transition. (I gagged typing that). Even that issue with Marathon producing "clean" blocks. Who fixed that? Maximalists. Look at the threads on here from when that was going on.
With example you mentioned, "Bitcoin conservatist" is more accurate term. Some Bitcoiner support block size increase (within reasonable number). |
|
|
|
I don't see the point of Privacy Glass Protector, IMO you shouldn't use hardware wallet when there's people nearby. Your privacy isn't protected if people nearby know about the hardware wallet or see your smartphone/monitor which used to manage your hardware wallet. Also that price is kind of ridiculous... considering that similar screens for 6" cellphone screens sell for considerably less. I'm guessing it is an "economies of scale" situation  Electronic device's accessory never cheap. |
|
|
|
Is Lightning Network centralized? Is it more centralized than Bitcoin? Does it make Bitcoin more centralized?This topic has been brought up many times. The Lightning Network is a second layer scaling solution which has no impact on the Bitcoin network. It works independently and no one is forced to use it. the wording here is a little bit off imo. i guess you are not talking about the lightning technology used on another network than bitcoin. You guessed right, ser. Those altcoin “Lightning Networks” are their developers implementing it for themselves, probably truly as a computer science experiment/test, but to some of them, probably just for riding the bandwagon. Don't forget there are actual usage such as atomic swap (cryptocurrency exchange). When you posted “impact”, I thought you believed that Lightning would truly have a strong influence on the consensus layer.
Although it's not strong, few Bitcoin soft fork (such as SegWit which fix transaction malleability and CSV which used on LN's HTLC) benefit LN development. |
|
|
|
The table is finally completed. I think you should be able to find all valuable Lightning Network discussions from January 2018 until June 2021.
As time goes on I will keep updating the table to link to new discussions about the LN.
Do you have plan to add LN threads before January 2018? LN discussion already exist since 2015 (When LN draft paper is released) where there should be few interesting thread on 2015-2017. |
|
|
|
If your definition of "decentralized" on cryptocurrnecy is the price can't be manipulated, then only stable coin is "decentralized" |
|
|
|
You should try doing sudo rm output.txt or chown YOUR_USERNAME:YOUR_USERNAME output.txt and then run the test script.
Doesnt work:( here are all command lines mint@amint:/usr/local/bin$ ./test_bitcoin -p -r detailed > output.txt
bash: output.txt: Permission denied
mint@amint:/usr/local/bin$ sudo rm output.txt
[sudo] password for mint:
mint@amint:/usr/local/bin$ ./test_bitcoin -p -r detailed > output.txt
bash: output.txt: Permission denied
mint@amint:/usr/local/bin$ chown mint:mint output.txt
chown: cannot access 'output.txt': No such file or directory
mint@amint:/usr/local/bin$ ./test_bitcoin -p -r detailed > output.txt
bash: output.txt: Permission denied
mint@amint:/usr/local/bin$ sudo ./test_bitcoin -p -r detailed > output.txt
bash: output.txt: Permission denied
The problem is you're trying to create a file on /usr/local/bin, it's directory to store executable where only root/sudoers can modify it. Try to save the output on directory owned by you, an example, mint@amint:/usr/local/bin$ ./test_bitcoin -p -r detailed > ~/output.txt
|
|
|
|
Add the line (QT_AUTO_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTOR=0) to ~/.bashrc file
If you stick it in a file as is it's not going to work because the environment variable is not forwarded to programs, you have to write it as export QT_AUTO_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTOR=0 in the .bashrc file. Thanks for the correction. Should've check my .bashrc file instead relying on memory. Did you share wrong file? It's log of running the test as root, not as normal user. P.S. I suggest to use pastebin if you want to share plain-text. It's lighter and easier to watch. |
|
|
|
You're missing the point, what i ask is the reason people can't download Bitcoin Core using UK IP address. AFAIK the court order doesn't mention Bitcoin Core at all.
Which would bring us to the point where we’re asking Cřbra why he’s done that on the website? If the court haven’t ordered that then why has he done it or approved somebody else to do it? 66,000,000 people in the UK & without a VPN or Tor none of them can now download & run Bitcoin Core. Maybe this is the reason.  All this is sounding indigestible to me overall. I get the point, but i find it's ridiculous. Faketoshi might as well as sue all block explorer, wallet provider and full node client for providing Bitcoin whitepaper. And since BSV blockchain also contain Bitcoin whitepaper, he should sue his own community. |
|
|
|
You don't need blockchain to have transparency, simple public reporting and maybe a bit of cryptography is enough. Corruption happens when the government is unwilling to fight it, in that case transparency doesn't help, because even when everyone knows exactly who and how much is stealing, no one gets punished.
While I'm still going to stand for my previous statement in this thread, I think you actually need blockchain(unless there's a different solution I'm not aware of) to have true transparency. Yes, public reporting could happen, but how to we know if they're faking it to some extent? Whereas with blockchain, we can make the verifications ourselves. In this case, blockchain only useful to keep history about adding, modify or remove the data. However, blockchain has "The Oracle Problem" where there's no way to verify external event within blockchain. For example, blockchain can't verify group of people who receive help actually exist. |
|
|
|
People can see the updates on Lighting Network without having a separate board. What's the use of Development & Technical Discussion if we need to develop a sub board for any major update on bitcoin. I disagree, 1. While LN mainly developed to solve Bitcoin scalability, it can be used by other cryptocurrency (such as LTC and DOGE). 2. Unlike other changes (such as SegWit), miner/node don't need to upgrade their software because LN isn't part of Bitcoin, but only only utilize Bitcoin. 3. Possible topic regarding LN is far bigger compared with other change. There are far more thread about LN compared with P2SH or Taproot. This would also mean that we should have a separate sub board in altcoin for Eth 2.0 update  Irrelevant, this is Bitcoin forum. ETH 2.0 update still belong to altcoin board. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
