no

your question is based on a false premise anyway, no government does what you say in practice. They always borrow and spend more, irrespective of economic cycles.

That's the reason for Bitcoin's existence. Welcome to the year 2009.

to an extent

if a child that can barely talk has the same level of tech skills as you, then it's not that the tech is too complicated, it's that you're lazy


the alternative is to permanently have Jeff Bezo's military-intelligence dick in your ear

that's what Eltoo is, except everyone still gets their own channel too

simply put: one channel that contains multiple channels

forget about it, it's already been debated and long forgotten


why is it you (windyFURY) always pop up with some "drama"? It's becoming quite a habit for you

if we're working with assumptions, then let's assume that Eltoo lightning gets a soft fork:

• slightly fewer than 9000 channels per block, but far more than 2 participants per channel
• the overhead for adding extra channel participants is negilgible
• Eltoo therefore radically improves the number of people opening channels in a block beyond the 18,000 possible with taproot channels

If "radical" even halves your 17 years figure, and I think it will do far more, then Eltoo will do the job. Considering how fast taproot was activated, we can expect something similar for eltoo (which is now a pretty mature spec with years of technical discussion behind it)

I would point out here that the witness is discounted only for fees, not for actual storage (storing 3/4 of a signature is not very useful ). So taproot transactions will ease blockchain growth and provide a little more user privacy, but are directly a fraction of a percent more expensive to spend (but only for basic 1 in 1/2 out on-chain transactions).

As I said before, taproot/schnorr brings changes in the economics of multisig and other bitcoin contracts, so we can expect the market's use of such transactions to increase in accordance with that. Whether that means transactions will actually become cheaper in absolute terms is another question altogether; we can expect continuing growth of Bitcoins userbase, particularly payment channels (i.e. lightning), so predictions are not easy.

Some might say that taproot inputs will drive fee growth, because people will probably choose the largest anonymity set in the end (i.e. do all transactions using taproot regardless of fees). To me, that's just validating the idea of pricing and weighting the witness data (specifically sigops) differently. A blockchain using more taproot transactions makes the possible maximum size of blocks smaller, and the difference will be much more pronounced if cross-input aggregation is implemented (this would mean all signatures for separate transactions in a single block would be summed to a single 64 byte signature, fantastic)

right, but taproot/schnorr/musig savings may change everyone's behavior anyway (plus all the other factors)



good points. What's accounting for the difference in virtual size between segwit and taproot txs? the witness discount being less effective, I would suggest. if it was exactly 2 vbytes difference, then that would make sense

I expect they both have the data and are using it.

The question is: will they give it up to the IRS etc? Possible plot twist; IRS ask, Google/Apple say no. Stranger things have happened, and it's more or less official now we are living in the crazy '20s

that's a generalisation at best

Multisig vastly improves. BIP34 multisig (which was a space-performance improvement on the older multisig scheme) required every possible combination of keys to be published for every spend, despite only one combination being used (I think the limit is 14 out of 15 keys). The worst case there was 15 ^ 2 * 73 bytes (16KB), which is pretty big (but unlikely that all 15 sigs would be 73 bytes, or that a 2 of 15 scheme would be at all common). Schnorr with musig uses one 64 byte signature in all cases, and taproot collapses all the possible branches down to just one. I think the limit on the number of signers has been changed/removed for musig, but can't actually remember accurately.

Lightning open/mutual closes are cut over 50%; schnorr more than halves it, and taproot also more than halves it. Unilateral closes are a slightly bigger script than open/mutual close, but still benefits from schnorr, and from only recording one script branch on-chain.

But regular transactions will save just 8 bytes using 64 byte schnorr sigs, which is less than 5%. Sadly, no possible gains to be had from sig additivity or excised script branches when there's just one signature and one script

But not everyone can use it anyway; it's taken over 4 years for people to move 10% of the Bitcoin supply to native segwit addresses (although usage just hit 70% in blocks). I expect alot of coins will still be resting in the 2010-era P2PKH addresses in another 4 years

all I'm saying is that I doubt any such thing will be more effective than the code.

the code restricts the writing of any gangster ordinances, so the code is at a higher level of enforcement

check the source code

yeah, forget all that

if you're paying with a phone, this may end up being the "big reveal", whereby Apple/Google are asked to inform on everyone using their software. Maybe even ARM can do it too (i.e. rooting and replacing the OS won't work in that case)


linux-only phones (e.g. pine & purism) can probably be used to get around that sort of thing, as I think they're not using these "secure" ARM chips which likely operate like a rootkit (i.e. ignoring the OS and the user)

in future, open source chip designs (so far we have RISC-V) will make that sort of thing irrelevant

easy

1. don't join their system, they will never process your transactions
2. accept "clean" BTC from the people who use their system, then use it in transactions together with normal BTC, normal miners will still process the transaction

et voila, fascist-coin gets converted back into normal BTC

one rumor suggests chinese miners are being welcomed to Iran.

which would probably balance out in the end; iranians want to trade with the world, not just chinese companies, and the chinese don't really want their currency in foreigners hands anyway (hence the onshore/offshore version of the yuan)

still, there'll be plenty of drama till it settles down though

technical improvements will probably not get much attention from most people. if you believe the hype, a significant number of people sold off when the FBI "hacked bitcoin", implying that there is at least an expectation that some people don't even understand the technical details from 2009 era Bitcoin v.0.1, never mind taproot/schnorr (it could all easily have been coordinated with insider manipulation at the exchanges, i.e. few traders really sold, hence the price recovering quickly, the story sounds like bs to me). 

***yaaaawn***

tokens are inherently abstractions of something real, that's what "token" means. welcome to monetary theory 101

[/thread]

see, this is what I mean really

would it surprise anyone if, given the above, a bunch of people who know Nayib Bukele personally say he's a bit of a manipulative prick? Oh here comes Jesus on a motorbike, that's what we need to run this town!

when you look at the trends in the media over the past 20 years, one trend stands out:


if the trends were not natural, but deliberate, it's a perfect recipe for worldwide chaos

yes, they can topple all of them (and already did throughout the 20^th century)


they can topple the people too, but that's much more expensive (and obvious) than toppling their rival gangsters


so that's why I focus on completely ignoring what the government gangsters are saying. normal people can do it without them, and more effectively

it actually wouldn't surprise me if one of these ghouls claimed "bitcoin has made god angry"