cool


as usual, this:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:436859e8dddf4d8bd22d9ecc826139b6749a9a4a

will download over Bittorrent using the DHT only. Less censorable (and more private) because it's decentralized

---

@achow101 do we have a magnet link for 0.19.0.1?

there's a space character here                          ^

and here ^

and here                                                   ^

not to mention                                                                                                                   here ^  

try removing those spaces, see whether the errors can be exorcised.

or try putting single quotes '  ' around all of the JSON data.

---

my true advice would be: stop doing it like this

the actual direct use of the CLI combined with the JSON data is not a user-friendly way to use the bitcoin-cli tool. If you prepare some files containing the JSON data, the CLI (probably bash in this case) will not directly interpret the space characters, and you can happily leave them in where they're needed. You can also make the JSON slightly more readable, as the \ escape isn't necessary for the " character.

so you'd do bitcoin-cli createrawtransaction $(cat json.data) for your command.

and json.data would look like

I think this depends though on whether talking about direct or indirect monetization. Obviously an integrated smart contract that is self executing/deterministic cannot be monetized by some service provider, as the whole point of such constructions is to do away with the need for relying on 3rd parties to adjudicate the outcome of contracts between 1st/2nd parties. But it does increase the value of the actual Bitcoin network when a type of smart contract can be made conventional and standardized.

Still, directly monetizable smart contracts (and because they depend on some non-deterministic external factor) are possible. Someone wrote about this on the bitcoin-dev mailing list not so long ago: good behavior bonds. The bitcoin network cannot decide if behavior of those who sign the contract is good or bad, only the operator of the bond service can do that. Seems odd that no-one has even tried this yet, I would have expected at least an inept attempt to put it into practice.

Lightning itself is an example of directly monetizable smart contracts also. It's just that there's almost certainly never going to be much (even any) profit in it; it seems to me that watch tower fees will always push the market towards self-run nodes, which in turn pushes the relay fee market to (or even below) the bottom line.

there's no evidence for that, you have presented none



exactly, it's all about you and your offspring, nothing to do with anyone or anything else. The plantlife (rainforests inclusive) on this planet will be rather happy if CO₂ continues to be produced



in some cases that's true. It's got no relationship to CO₂ in the atmosphere though



again, no relationship with CO₂ in the atmosphere, CO₂ is not smog nor the cause of smog


smog is caused by industrial output (factories with smokestacks), waste incinerators, dirty fuels like diesel, and to some extent less dirty fuels like gasoline.


I'm totally into the idea of replacing the above with cleaner/clean technologies that mean we don't all have to breathe toxic air.
But there's no need to make up stories about the end of the world to convince me

yep, the idea that big institutions are not in the BTC market already is a joke. Supressing that information as much as possible is important to such institutions who what to build up a decent inventory. The never-ending "ETF soon" story could be a part of that effort, as lazy and risk averse investors are probably interpreting the situation as: no ETF = it's too soon to get into this madness



I don't know what the requirements are for data-reporting, but anything could be happening in reality with these figures. We're talking about Wall Street firms here

well, I agree that Epstein is "Schroedinger's Pedo": no-one in the general public is going to know if he's dead or alive until truly credible evidence appears. That means the box hasn't been opened, so lay off the speculation until you actually know anything that your most recent bottle of Jim Bean didn't tell you


and as well; I fully do not care if he's dead or alive, it would be the least important (or interesting) fact about this story if it was confirmed one way or the other



Edit you also didn't even read my first post

The pathologist making this claim (Epstein didn't kill himself) has form for being involved in many high profile autopsies and coroners reports, and making questionable/controverial public judgements on them (i.e. Eric Garner recently, as well as Congressional hearings regarding the JFK autopsy). That's me disbelieving the regular reporting, if that needs any more spelling out.

what does it mean? we can only guess. it might be a bluff, this pathologist's involvement is bound to raise eyebrows everywhere, so he might be telling the truth out of strategy. We're taking it all on trust, we can't get access to the body (even if possible, I'd be more concerned if anyone really cared that much to try it, let them play games, there're more important issues to spend time on from my perspective)

well, maybe

the perfect timing to accept a BTC ETF is probably some kind of trade-off between peak bull-market bitcoin euphoria and peak major bear-market gloom in basically any established market (some kind of magical thinking linking that market to the Bitcoin market would be no doubt easy to popularize ) Plenty of dumb money around to shake out in that scenario

it seems just as likely, however, that the SEC never accept any crypto ETF, or rather that a crypto-based trading platform usurps the whole financial system before they get a chance to stay relevant (the whole financial market landscape is increasingly looking like a complete joke, not a very funny one either).

But hey, that's still 50:50 odds on for an ETF!!

I'm just defending against the double speak redefining of the word "conspiracy", which is perfectly legitimate seeing as it's being used to stigmatize people who have good argument about possible (and definite) corruption in governments



yeeeeah, you're confusing me with someone else, or you're crazy, or god knows what

link to me promoting flat earth, or stfu

"believe" being the operative word, the fact is you don't really know, you've simply been listening to only one side of the argument. And like everyone else, you've been bombarded with biased reports in newspapers and/or the TV about anthropogenic or catastrophic climate change

it's not true though, sorry to burst the bubble. But this is good news; the world isn't going to end, not today, in 2026, 1999, the mid-1980's, 2016, 2040 or indeed on any of the other expired deadlines that have been proposed for the end of the world.

shit, did you really just use the word 'conspiracy' correctly, and in the correct context? I'd give you a merit, but it'd be like giving merits for shitting into the bowl and not all over the toilet seat



we will likely never find out if something like that is true, so why bother speculating?

this line of thinking is what gives a bad name to discussing criminality in government. If the official government story sounds like bullshit, speculating about fantasy scenarios as if they are true only helps the real people who really did something provably wrong. it's too easy to say "oh, and I suppose Elvis is alive and living in Belize, right?" if you start talking about things that Have. No. Evidence To. Back. It.

i've definitely been here too long

no, that's not really what I'm thinking of. I mean the whole sequence of events the other way round


1. big miner/pool thinks of a forking change to consensus
2. miner/pool implements it as a softfork
3. miner/pool releases new Bitcoin client with softfork included
4. miner/pool accepts the supa-dupa new tx's over their website (or maybe bake that into the client)
5. miner/pool begins including transactions in it's blocks, because no other miners are
6. miner/pool can inflate success of the fork, by stuffing blocks with tx's that they made themselves
7. miner/pool hopes everyone will follow the fork, bouyed by the (faked) success

I guess a reason against the strategy would be the same as was discussed upthread: if another miner/pool wanted to take the opportunity to add to the uncertainty of this situation, they could look for a way to force a hard fork right at a critical point of the soft fork's acceptance (i.e. ~50%). Although that would also be a risk in of itself, as there is no direct way to know whether those signalling support are actually running the putsch-client (does this actually imply a positive incentive for miners not to run an upgraded client while signalling readiness, until the readiness signalling level is very high?)

which vulnerability was that? I don't recall anything that needed a soft fork (or where the miners were proposing changes instead of the devs)

alot of recipes use egg whites without the yolk. This is just a lazy way of dealing with that case, like pancake mix in a bottle (or as a powder, ugh).

---

totally cool with this: capitalism and free market in action.


It's perhaps not safe, and that's cool. Think of it as the latest round of the Darwin Olympics, because if there's any health and safety issues with this, then the crazy desperate weirdos who bought this sort of stuff will be getting exactly what they should have expected. Hopefully someone does get sick, then this idiot Youtuber will also stop selling this stuff. Market always wins.

you see JC! look what we've done, we already look/sound like a bunch of old men with monocles and medals on our jackets!

so here's an attack (with a significant social engineering angle) I thought up that large miners/pools could attempt. Could it work?


Right now, anyone-can-pay can be used as a wrapper around a transaction that subscribes to any fantasy soft-fork. Regular people with no hashpower cannot try to popularize a fork they like by getting such transactions confirmed, as the network will ignore the fantasy rules, and simply allow whoever picks the money up of the ground to do so. Someone using that strategy is no more than a cough in a stadium full of voices.

But big miners/pools could start a public campaign for their preferred soft-fork, and launch a Bitcoin client that can perform the transactions that observe the new rules. Then they can mine these transactions themselves out of band, to ensure users that other miners/pools won't allow picking the money up off the sidewalk. And of course miners/pools can artificially inflate the numbers of people using their minority soft fork's rules, simply by stuffing blocks with their own transactions using the same rules.

Maybe it's a high risk strategy, but the bigger the miner/pool, the more likely they could pressurize the overall marketplace to fully endorse their softfork, thus taking (some) control of protocol development. How much control they could attain depends alot on the nature of the fork.... not sure, what do we all think about this? willing to take this to a new thread also

sure, 100% disordered might not be possible. But the degree of entropy (i.e. disorder) can be measured by assessing and comparing states of ordered-ness, although presumably the technique for doing so is subject to the most refined definition we currently have determing unordered groups of numbers. I suspect, i.e. don't know, that this field of study in mathematics is still alive and well, if so there's certainly room for improvement on how we conceptualize randomness.

not that I disagree, but to neurotic navel-gazers, starting threads about what color socks to wear seem like a serious topic, to them. In this context (i.e. the stigma of "ivory towers"), it might be a good counter balance to have topics that are distinctly not-serious, just so that the whole sub doesn't seem like a bunch of self-important assholes talking about opera music.

not really how it works

the more Lightning software improves, the easier it will be to keep channels open permanently (Lightning devs have been improving the standards for 2 years now). And then once there's enough money in Lightning channels to maintain demand for transactions, the need for closing or opening channels is pretty minimal.

and besides we're nowhere near that situation yet. Lightning use can't be that high, it's running on 850 BTC at the moment. And blocks aren't full. And fees aren't high.

here's a ceeeeraaazzzy theory

let's not be surprised if some internet watchdog brands the whole of bitcointalk.org as a "extremist recruiter's website" because of the people behaving like dickheads in this Politics & Society sub-forum