Great discovery, although i recall it's not first time it happens where that other clone do worse (by imitate Bitcointalk UI). Based on my research. sembt.com is owned by ggcoins.net They're greedy since they only want to grow their own sites without giving any credit to other forum (Bitcointalk), that's why they create their own forum. Whoever own ggcoins and sembt, f*ck you! On top of that, 1. Article created ggcoins.net seems to be generated by AI and there are many article with similar topic (almost all article on it's homepage talks about hardware wallet in general). So i agree with @Poker Player that some thread/reply on sembt.com could be AI generated. 2. Some article i checked always links to sembt.com. |
|
|
|
If you ever tried using Electrum Appimage, you wouldn't say that. Download and run Appimage (Linux) is nearly as easy as download and run portable version (Windows). Here's a very simple GUI guide, https://itsfoss.com/use-appimage-linux/. Yes, I have personally tried to run the Appimage of Electrum on Lubuntu Linux and I faced issues during launching of that Appimage, I sorted the issue because I have been using Linux for many years but those who just transition to Linux may not be able to fix such issues easily. Having problem putting a checkmark in the right place? Conversation between a deaf and a blind man.  I wouldn't go that far, in very rare instance AppImage might fail to run on certain linux distro. Here's an example, https://docs.appimage.org/user-guide/troubleshooting/fuse.html. |
|
|
|
It's February 26, 2024, and Bitcoin fees are high again. Didn't satoshi say we should always allow a certain number of free transactions?
Mining isn't charity activity, so don't expect miner or pool would do that. Besides, it's just suggestion and was never enforced by Bitcoin protocol. What good is a cryptocurrency for the un-banked that costs more than a bank to use?
IMO if those people are unbanked not due to lack of money, Bitcoin still offer some advantage. Why is the present status quo acceptable?
Personally i don't accept it, but Bitcoin community is on conservative side. |
|
|
|
Another obvious nonsense on technical board. 1) Network congestion: With 5G now the network congestion has reduced because of its high speed processing power which would therefore aid the rate at which, Bitcoin miners and the entire Blockchain network carryout it’s activities with less stress. Which in turn saves time while increasing efficiency.
No correlation. Congestion happen mainly due to block time, block size limit and how many transaction created by Bitcoiner. 2)It would also ensure safety of data been stored in the network since it connects various devices at a time.
You mistook data safety with data availability. Besides, there are already many Bitcoin full node out there. 3)It would also save cost, like some people interested in running Bitcoin core nodes can now access it without those secluded devices, with bigger storage or need some Blockchain free data servers which is expensive thereby making some person uninterested but now with 5G we don't really rely on the servers again, with 5G and it's improvement more man-power will be added making the Bitcoin network boost and improve.
Amplifying the Bitcoin network with this technological advance is a great win for us.
While 5G generally offer better speed, the actual cost depends on your provider. If they charge high cost for 4G connection, i don't expect 5G will make it far cheaper. AFAIK. The bitcoin network does not use a centralized server or is hosted somewhere but instead uses a PoW (Proof of work) system carried out by bitcoin miners. The speed of the bitcoin network is due to the hashrate, transaction density, and the difficulty of the bitcoin algorithm. So there is no correlation with the 5G network and Bitcoin network speed. Influencing miners to have an impact on the bitcoin network hashrate is possible but 5G will not have a direct impact on the main bitcoin network
If you refer to "confirmation time" when you say "speed", block size limit and block time have far bigger role compared with hashrate and difficulty. |
|
|
|
It is not the same as Bitcoin having a node won't make money unless someone hires you to have a full node or rents it and uses your node as their private node.
I don't even think anyone can hire you as their 'private node' and connect their wallet to your full node. The goal of running a full node is privacy, so it would be stupid for someone to pay to connect to a third party node, losing their privacy in the process; when they can simply connect their spv wallet to any third party node without paying any fee. I agree. Buy if you also run watchtower, theoretically you could make SPV/light LN wallet user pay to use your watchtower. Although it seems people generally running it altruistically and i don't remember which LN wallet which can make payment to watchtower service. |
|
|
|
But without Bitcoin legal status as currency/payment method, merchant can't just accept Bitcoin which also hinder adaption.
How do explain the thousands of merchants all over the world, including the USA, who accept Bitcoin then? Are they all breaking the law? On some country (such as US), Bitcoin has legal status as money. Here's an example, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmorgan-cyber-bitcoin-idUSKCN11P2DE/. On country without clear regulation, i would guess the merchant assume it's not forbidden or dare to take some risk. |
|
|
|
I tried installing the Electrum wallet, but it never earned a profit.
Electrum isn't Bitcoin or LN node software. Lightning Network is different, it is a second layer built on top of Bitcoin and since there is no mining there, we have a teeny tiny fee paid to LN nodes that relay the transactions. It is not big enough to be called "profit" in my opinion.
It doesn't even cover electricity cost and LN wallet usually would choose route with lowest total relay fee. |
|
|
|
These are the reasons there is not mainstream adoption of Bitcoin for everyday payments, not some conspiracy by "the government".
But without Bitcoin legal status as currency/payment method, merchant can't just accept Bitcoin which also hinder adaption. When you can go on the Internet and buy Bitcoin in five minutes with your credit card and the US government will not arrest or otherwise penalize you for doing so, this is what I call "perfectly legal". Maybe your definition of that is different, but that's how I use the term.
compared to how things were pre 2013. things have changed compared to how things were pre 2015. things have changed compared to how things were pre 2017. things have changed compared to how things were pre 2020. things have changed one note, just to poke many exchanges now dont accept credit card, they prefer wire transfer (avoids chargeback scamming) many exchanges now require KYC which takes upto 24 hours to validate before you can exchange so ill ask you When can you go on the Internet and buy Bitcoin in five minutes with your credit card ? None. At best, you can find P2P marketplace or instant exchange with optional KYC (they can ask for KYC under certain condition). And such place usually have bad exchange rate or high fees. |
|
|
|
Hi all, this is my first experience with anything Bitcoin.
Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) are two different cryptocurrency. I downloaded the wallet from Electrum.org.
Electrum from electrum.org is a wallet only for Bitcoin (BTC). You probably need to download ElectrumSV and import private key/seed from Electrum to ElectrumSV. |
|
|
|
I bought and sold some at Altquick to increase my faucet supply. I still give away Testnet coins for free. Developers do not need a lot. SatoshiVM Project airdrop chasers want it for profit. What's wrong with charging them for the large amounts of Testnet coins they use? More tBTC used for financial purpose which makes less place/people have ability or liquidity to continue offer tBTC for free. If more project ask for tBTC, i expect it'll also affect raise difficulty/hashrate on tBTC network. |
|
|
|
Saya harap ke depan juga wasabi ini bisa agak ramah bagi pengguna baru, seperti perbaikan gui untuk fitur send dimana harus kita ketik dulu di search box baru bisa untuk mengirim. Kalau dipermudah kayak wallet lain, mungkin wasabi ini akan semakin massive banyak dipakai orang.
Sebagai catatan tambahan, beberapa fitur (seperti "Send") akan ditamplikan oleh Wasabi Wallet setelah menerima BTC. |
|
|
|
While it's true smartphone hardware become more powerful, it's not the only limitation. Theoretically, Wasabi Wallet need to run in background while connected to the CoinJoin coordinator and doing some stuff (choose input, sign transaction, etc.). And since Wasabi Wallet use Tor by default, Tor also need to run in background. I expect it could drain battery quickly and the OS show warning about it. CMIIW.
What if, when you first launch the application, you can prompt the user to select by default what type of connection will be used to connect (for example, only Wifi). I know that this can be done in the phone settings, but few people worry about it. And the mobile Internet will be used “only when using the application.” My point is that if the mobile Internet is not used to work in the background, then this will not affect the battery drain in any way. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure how to implement this.  It's decent idea, phone usually use more battery when there's no strong mobile signal. I don't know how it can be implemented either, but i believe Wasabi team have sufficient technical skill to do that. Although i wonder how much battery can be saved when you use Wifi rather than mobile internet. |
|
|
|
Good to know that someone can really share your posts that way even if you give accurate information. LoyceV, I suggested him to go for an air-gapped system after setting the wallet. I guess ABCbits has shared something valuable about cold wallet which I'll note from now on. But it also contain has inaccurate information. And while we're it, could you edit your post to remove or cross-out the inaccurate information? On the other side, I am a Linux lover and very careful when handling it, but even as an amateur, not a professional, installing an electrum wallet from Appimage seems to me to be one of the simplest things.
It's good to know that you're a Linux lover, but I don't agree that installing electrum wallet on Linux is that simple. I know if someone has technical expertise then for that person it isn't a hard task but for an armature with no technical knowledge won't be able to do that easily. On the other hand installing or running portable version of Electrum on Windows OS can be done easily by someone with no technical skills. If you ever tried using Electrum Appimage, you wouldn't say that. Download and run Appimage (Linux) is nearly as easy as download and run portable version (Windows). Here's a very simple GUI guide, https://itsfoss.com/use-appimage-linux/. |
|
|
|
Electrum also can be used as cold wallet, the developer even wrote a guide about it on https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/coldstorage.html, but otherwise you're right. Suggesting to store recovery words on device without mention encryption is really bad suggestion, especially due to risk the device might be stolen. And it reminds me of his past nonsense, Wine is a safe and open-source virtualization solution that allows to run Windows based applications on Linux and the applications on Wine run in a virtualized environment which won't affect the applications that run on the real Linux host system. I believe windows based malware won't impact the host of the Linux system as Windows malware are built in a way that they can affect Windows based users only.
The files and the whole Kernel module of Windows operating system is changed from Linux and that's another proof that Windows viruses and malware won't be able to penetrate Linux operating system. However, it's always recommended to avoid installing any application on the systems where someone saves his/her Bitcoin. Just don't be paranoid by such thoughts the Linux is a safe operating system and Windows malware can't harm it at all.
|
|
|
|
I visited BitMex website to re-check old technical article and found out they also cover the trial while sharing few interesting detail. https://blog.bitmex.com/copa-vs-csw-day-2-thoughts/https://blog.bitmex.com/copa-vs-csw-day-11-stefan-matthews/The “Johnny” comment
The first moment relates to documents which supposedly show Craig Wright purchasing the Bitcoin.org domain in the 2009 period with his credit card. The COPA barrister started the session by putting forward various statements from Craig Wright in 2019, where Craig claimed he could prove to a court he was Satoshi, by showing financial statements from the 2009 period when he purchased the web domain. COPA then showed an email Craig Wright sent to Jimmy Win in 2019, showing exactly that, credit card proof, showing the purchase of the Bitcoin.org domain name.
COPA’s independent expert witness, Mr Madden, reviewed this email and determined that the credit card evidence was faked for various reasons. Rather than refute this, Craig now accepts that these documents were indeed fakes, only not by him, but by some Reddit user. Craig claimed that he emailed them to Jimmy Win, to highlight the fake documents to Jimmy, even though the email made no mention of this.
Most people would also send receipt or purchase proof given by domain seller.
On their twitter, they also mention CSW provide ridiculous amount of "proof". Someone probably should check whether those are gibberish or AI generated text. COPA vs CSW Trial
We are hearing that before the trial even started, the full trial bundle was 164,000 pages
What a huge waste of resources this nonsense is
|
|
|
|
Because possibility of intentionally exclude transaction due to other reason than tx fee rate. For example, Antpool used to exclude SegWit TX while some politician have idea to force pool exclude certain transaction. Antpool can right as well choose to censor legacy transactions, but that does not prevent the Bitcoin user from sending and receiving to segwit or legacy. Doesn't prevent, but delay certain transaction from getting confirmation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every attempt to censor a particular group of transactions by a pool has proved to be a failure, and wasted money. And that's because whatever is dumped by one pool is selected by another. Therefore, I think it is wrong to refer to the network as permission-requiring, since censorship resistance isn't merely a principle, but a side effect of the game theory.
As long as honest miners overthrow malicious, hereby do not intentionally reorg the chain to reverse transactions, the system is censorship resistant.
You're right, although whether it's wasting money or not depends on how many address or TX they want to block. Here's an analysis which detect some pools may exclude or block certain address, https://b10c.me/observations/08-missing-sanctioned-transactions/. |
|
|
|
It's not perfect when miner have full right to decide which transaction to be included on their mined block. Why not? They have right over which transactions they include on their block, not on other miners' blocks. Because possibility of intentionally exclude transaction due to other reason than tx fee rate. For example, Antpool used to exclude SegWit TX while some politician have idea to force pool exclude certain transaction. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin, the pioneer of blockchain technology, showcases a strong foundation in certain aspects of decentralization:
Validator Count: It has the second-highest validator count, earning an 8/10.
If he refer to total Bitcoin nodes, Client Ecosystem: Dominated by Bitcoin Core, leading to a 1/10 score.
It's true most nodes use Bitcoin Core. But it totally ignore existence of other Bitcoin full node software. Permissionless Nature: Scores a perfect 10/10, with no permissioned elements.
It's not perfect when miner have full right to decide which transaction to be included on their mined block. Governance: Lacks on-chain governance, resulting in a 0/10.
Giving 0/10 is ridiculous, on-chain government doesn't always offer better decentralization mainly due to who can vote and weight of their vote. Consensus Mechanism: Proof of Work (PoW) without native delegation, scoring 5/10.
Without detailed reasoning, i feel 5/10 is rather low score. Community Diversity: A growing “wizard faction” contributes to a 5/10 score.
I don't know what he mean by "wizard faction". But i agree Bitcoin community could be more diverse. I've always suspected that big players like Bitmain could build a lot of hashrate to increasingly centralize Bitcoin. For the experts in the house, how true is it that Ethereum is more decentralized than Bitcoin?
I'm not expert, but personally i say not true when the measurement has some flaws and lack of explanation. |
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing. I only skimmed it since it's very long, but it looks like they mostly talked about technical and promotional (e.g. creating website along with it's content) stuff. And since the trial shows CSW lack of technical knowledge, while these email shows Satoshi have fair amount of technical knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
