From what little I know about them, and what I've read in this thread so far...I think ordinals were/are a complete waste of time and money. For me, in order for bitcoin to highly succeed and have longevity, I need lower tx fees and transaction speeds. How does the Dev team justify wasting time on stuff like this when they could be working on much more important things. Just my two slightly educated opinion.
Whether it's actually a waste of time and money or not, but Ordinal developers like Casey created Ordinals with the aim of making Bitcoin increasingly functional that allows Bitcoin to include unique data, images, videos, text, sounds etc. casey did not make ordinals which allows bitcoin to include unique data casey used an existing exploit created by core (that made it possible to add junk data to the blockchain by far more(mb's) than the small byte(40b) amount previous to cores inception), where by casey created software to make it super easy for idiots to add such junk data unchecked data, miscounted bytes are not a feature of bitcoin. adding junk is not a function of bitcoin.. its an exploit thats been abused why do idiots: a. pretend core had nothing to do with this junk crap b. pretend this junk crap appended to the end of transactions was possible since 2009 c. promote it as a feature that should remain oh right, to make bitcoin more of an expensive headache to then promote people should abandon bitcoin to use other networks (in regards to (a) if it was not due to the changes CORE made in 2017, the unchecked post-tx-data(after signature) metadata junk would not be possible) |
|
|
|
|
the word debt management and the charts are not about avoiding/clearing debt. its about juggling debt proactively
but being in debt should be thought of as something you should get out of and not have.. not something to juggle and stay in..
the charts in OP say consolidate debt.. this is the same as borrow more to pay off debt. because the consolidation company pays the old debt but then hands you a new total you then owe them, these companies pay off your debt at discount but then charge you for them becoming your new loan company
the charts dont say anything about avoiding debt entirely, they use words like "consolidate" and "monitor credit score"
the only avoidance is when they say avoid excessive debt.. **
if you simply do everything you can to clear debt then you dont need to juggle it ongoing nor have/need a credit score
** the biggest need of credit scores and juggling debt is to get a mortgage.. a mortgage is usually the biggest debt people will ever have. so if they believe people should continue having managed debt to juggle around to get a good credit score to then get a mortgage then its just subliminal messaging about staying in debt to then get a mortgage (get into excessive debt)
thus not a solution to debt
|
|
|
|
You need to remember if you do this then the block chain size will increase and so will the required bandwidth. So what will happen is that it will take more resources to secure the network by node operators. Eventually the resources will be too much so node operators would stop providing the service.
The block size and reward would be reduced by 2x (or multiplied by 0.5), and halving time amount of blocks (to halving still happen every 4 years, despise faster blocks), this to not increase the speed the blockchain increases and not change the reward dinamics. you do know that average 10 minutes vs average 5 minutes makes no difference in the real world people have already done loads of surveys, run scenarios, tested the economics, etc (your idea is not original and has been discussed any times over the years) firstly, the results are that whether a block is produced per 5 or 10 minutes, it doesnt then open up any new utility.. for instance physical retail checkouts will still see people waiting too long for a confirm before they can leave a store with their groceries that they still wont use bitcoin at a grocery supermarket checkout even with an average 5 minute confirm model people are not even happy waiting 1 minute for fund clearance(confirmation) when using cash/cards. so a 5 minute wait for payment clearances wont add any extra utility of real world use.. this lead discussions down a rabbit hole of how about 2min30sec averages, how about 1min15sec averages, how about 37sec averages secondly, without addressing the spam/bloat issues. it will still be the spam/bloaters getting first priority so genuine bitcoiners end up waiting for the next block anyway thirdly, although it does not harm the nodes in regards to block data propagation(tests/commonsense/reality prove we have 2024 technology not 1998 slow technology(some idiots pretend people use old tech as excuse not to scale more data per 10min average)). by having blocks being hashed by mining asics of mining pools. those miners have half the time to hash, meaning it causes the hashrate to be halved. (hashes per 300sec instead of hashes per 600sec) which is weaker security per block, compared to a 10 minute block average. fourthly, for pools to work making block templates after a solved block appears, there will be more instances of "empty block" due to how mining pools send out templates to miners in the initial few seconds of previous block solve and then slowly fill blocks per update request over the next few minutes. due to the fact if all pools are then required to average 5minutes, it would cause more 'lucky' blocks found in less time. meaning more "empty block" chances, for them lucky blocks that find a solution in less than 5 min also due to the lower hashrate and difficulty due to hashes per 300sec instead of hashes per 600sec.. people end up instead of waiting 6 confirms for large amounts will wait 12 confirms for same large value amounts. and 2 confirms instead of 1 confirm for same smaller amounts.. due to security metrics of economics thus your idea has no advantages |
|
|
|
so the sentencing is in.. and it seems he is getting 25 years. good(shoulda got longer)
obviously he will try and appeal it. but atleast he isnt going to get to play CEO again any time soon (he was hoping to be allowed to be free to get back to business to 'make everyone whole' unpunished)
I was expecting longer, he is lucky it is just 25years. he actually got 108.5years in total for 7 charges. but had most of that time put beside each other rather than one after the other thus in the end got a 78% discount compared to serving all the time one after the other his parents want to have him file an appeal against this lenient sentence to try to get it cut down even more.. i think the best he can hope for is for the 24.25 years to also absorb 'time served' of the pre sentencing jail time and maybe have the 3 year parole(supervised release) be absorbed. to get it down to 20 years in prison+3year parole out of prison (23 years start to end from today). it would be funny if things are said in any appeal that actually made it worse for SBF whereby a judge undoes the 'concurrent' leniency's and instead evaluates that some of those concurrent sentences should be turned into consecutive sentences, to mean he has to serve longer time |
|
|
|
It's also not correct to blame developers, because other blockchains that do not follow the same code as Bitcoin are also plagued with silly pictures. This stuff would exist regardless of what developers have or haven't done. The only thing that would be different is the quantity of silly pictures. There's room for more of them in Bitcoin versus coins like DOGE, where they can't affordably spam as many of them.
bitcoin is not self created AI... bitcoin is code.. and that means developers wrote it.. so yes you look at who wrote it, why and what their reason and agenda was/is then when you see which group created the initial flaw, which then got exploited. you find out who to blame as for pointing fingers to other networks. those other networks just forked CORE code(+added minimal script kiddy tweaks). so again the other networks that allow junk allow it due to the flaw CORE created initially. stop treating core devs as untouchable gods.. stop thinking " No one gets to unilaterally dictate how other people choose to use the protocol, unless they are core" you care too much about core dominance, but care little about user utility, or bitcoin(unless it affects core dominance) when core devs retire or get bored your religion will fall apart.. and you may(i doubt it) then realise you should have defended bitcoins code integrity by not wanting bitcoins code integrity softened to allow your dev gods omnipotent power.. but i still foresee you preferring users TRUST being governed by centralist group so you will continue with your cultish god admiration of core devs |
|
|
|
It was proven that he was not Satoshi Nakamoto in reality. And whatever the verdict is on him, he deserves it because he cheated people in the crypto or bitcoin community. What will he gain? right? fame? It seems like there is no reason in my opinion.
Also, we already know that, so let's not waste any more time on that, in fact, because no one has ever seen Satoshi Nakamoto and we don't even know if the Bitcoin creator is a real person or a fake- just made.
this topic is not about the verdict.. this is now about his financial ability to pay for the courts waste of time and paying copas cost for the waste of time (and hopefully would lead to criminal proceedings or other lawsuits to drain CSW of all reputation/funds he has scammed) |
|
|
|
Craig Wright was told to provide Wright with a clear explanation of all his assets as early as possible. The return date is Friday 12 April 2024, with the provision of information due by 4 pm on Friday 5 April, and the Affidavit due by 4 pm on Wednesday 10 April. Here is the full detailed pdf file.by losing the case, he has to pay the lawyers costs of COPA, so they want to know his financial position (possibility of being paid £6.7m($8.5m)) 12. Understandably, that gave rise to serious concerns on COPA’s part that Dr Wright was
implementing measures to seek to evade the costs consequences of his loss at trial.
if he says zero to avoid paying anything it destroys his rep of being rich and able to pay his promises to his sponsors and the courts if he says he has millions.. bye bye millions (he will have to hand it over as compensation) .. speculation: (my thoughts on future maybe's) seems they want to know how much he says he has, so maybe they can also sue him/charge him criminally for past issues (EG when CSW funds are locked due to this case, they can quickly sue him and use the lock to ensure he pays future case) but my dream scenario is they use the information to then take him to criminal court and set a bail amount for millions so that he cant just walk away from a criminal case |
|
|
|
Sure this is possible but these type of proposals were presented about maybe 10 years back. You need to remember if you do this then the block chain size will increase and so will the required bandwidth. So what will happen is that it will take more resources to secure the network by node operators. Eventually the resources will be too much so node operators would stop providing the service.
dont be silly the argument of blocksize cost is moot when the trolls that want people to abandon bitcoin that say "dont increase blocksize", but instead say "just pay more $$ per tx".. they are the ones saying cost is not an issue if people at basic use DCA transact say once a month.. thats $600 a year in just congested fee's they dont have a problem with this and infcat promote its continuation.. .. yet they then try to say lies that a $50 hard drive is too much for 20 years of decentralising the blockchain of everyones transactions think about it if they think paying $50 for one congested tx is ok.. how is that better than paying $50 for a harddrive to store decades of everyones transactions if they are ok with $50 then there is no "cost problem" of blockchains .. that said doing it by halving a blocktime is the silly convoluted way of doing it and not going to achieve anything long term.. its better and easier to allow more transactions per block of the current blocktime methodology/policy .. and (pre-empting the usual replies of silly responses) dont be silly to then say increasing transactions per block in current blocktime policy 'need to achieve leaping to millions of transactions a second ASAP' that too is again another silly narrative not based on rational thought, but done by silly people to say extreme dumb things as another way to make people fear any change at all bitcoin does not need to leap to extremes of millions of transactions a second (but i expect you were probably itching to press reply to insinuate that is the next step people should fear, to avoid any change) |
|
|
|
There was a discussion at the Bitcoin Dev team to ban these nuisances. But not sure how far it has reached.
its been a known flaw even before the flaw was added. and core devs did nothing to re-formulate the opcodes to limit the risk.. then for years have just been trying to ban, moderate and delete posts of anyone discussing proposals to stop/raise awareness of the issue even before ordinals abused the flaw secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.
thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.
fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain.
..
we will definitely see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.
You can also try LN for the time being.
the solution is not to abandon bitcoin and use another network and just stay on another network for years being patient waiting for core to change.. as their game plan is to lock users into other networks, so why would they change if you fell into their trap they have already had 8 years of knowledge of the flaw and have only shown ignorance and avoidance of wanting to fix it. as fixing it goes against their roadmap |
|
|
|
I also realize that there is always a learning opportunity so if you feel I have misstated something, please feel free to correct me.
aww we-btc wants to be recruited into the doomad cult of stupidity.. seems we will have another echo chamber of nonsense repeating silly crap soon |
|
|
|
Only 25 years? The King of Shitcoins got off easy considering Bernie Madoff received a sentence of 150 years.
If I were the judge I would have given him a minimum of 75 years to make sure he will never be released to do it again.
he did get 108.5 years. but the judge decided to do most of the sentence side by side(concurrently) instead of one after the other (consecutively) |
|
|
|
I've read the comments and I am a bit surprised: my views are a bit more lenient and tolerant. I believe that financial crimes should cause FINANCIAL consequences/punishment. FFS, take all his money, ban him from doing business for life etc but I think 25 years in jail is an overkill. Just my subjective opinion.
my views are also that rapists and murders should get life that means life.. and those crimes should be hardened and made harsher first.. and then financial crimes dealt with less harshness below that.. but.. but when financial crimes then cause physical harm(people commit suicide due to losses caused by others) then added charges of manslaughter should be added to a financial crime and sentenced accordingly.. . but even without single suicide/death.. many people would have individually filed for damages of mental injury(stress, depression) which cumulatively would have added up to decades/centuries.. which would also then be fair.. and so when you read sentencing guidelines that have different timescale categories about numbers of victims, amount of value victimised.. you start to appreciate that they TRY to find a fair balance.. what i dislike is the whole concurrent policy vs consecutive or where "life" no longer means life if he had 7 charges totalling 108 years.. that should be the end sentance |
|
|
|
|
dont use wording of transaction speeds
use words of transactions accepted per interval
like a train at a train station
the train passengers do not get to a destination faster due to a faster train. but instead where the train(at normal confirmed speeds) has more available seats to fit more passengers per same speed journey.. without obese people taking up most of the seats, whereby letting in obese people taking up the seats leaves other passengers at the station waiting for the next train, hoping there is a spare seat to sit in on the next train
|
|
|
|
before the junk data of appended data after signature there was op_return but this too was not used as a data exploit in 2009-2014 https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#rebranding-to-bitcoin-coreback then core pretended to be against wanting bitcoin to be used as a junk data exploit, yet, stupidly opened the exploit to allow 40byte(later 80) and then others opcodes were added(pushdata) that allowed 520, then others allowing uto 4mb using a different opcode. and other(opsuccess) aded more recently to make it now have hundreds of opcodes that can be abused it has never "always been possible" it has only been possible since core jumped in and changed things |
|
|
|
|
to achieve it
210k blocks would occur in 2 years instead of 4 years
meaning you would have halvings happen sooner and the supply cap mature sooner than 2142
so you would need to adjust the halvings to be at 420k instead of 210k
also the formulae for hashrate difficulty adjustments would also need to change from 2016 blocks per fortnight to 4032 blocks a fortnight
also you would need 2 sets of rules for initial block download/syncing checks..
rules for pre milestoned date/blockheight of old rules(blockrewards per 210k blocks). then second set for rules after milestone
theres other things too.. (i wont bore you with all the details, but what i said should be enough to show its not as simple as changing 2 variables)
..
doomad has no clue about bitcoin, and no clue about block propagation, latency.. its buzzwords he throws around without understanding of them
here is one example
nodes do not validate transactions after a confirmed block hash..
nodes relay most transactions pre-confirm at the relay stage. meaning when transactions are in mempool 99% are already validated... thus when then getting a blockheader+the hash(solved block) and its merkle root and leafs of TXID.. its actually less data a node actually needs to process when a solved block is propagated. and requesting missing tx not in mempool but has a TXID in the merkleroot leaf of a block header is a milisecond action not a 1-10 minute delay act
so his FUD fear of issues are stupid due to his lack of knowledge of bitcoin... he simply recites stupidity he read from others without doing further research beyond some social rhetoric he reads
...
but with that said
changing blocktimes is not a simple act and will impact many other mechanisms of bitcoin which can then cause other issues so its not a simple change nor one that will be as simple as just letting more transactions into a block at the current blocktime methodology
|
|
|
|
We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.
What is the justification for them?
Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?
Either you have an unusual manner of phrasing things, or you don't quite understand the situation. Embedding non-transactional data has always been possible. it has NOT it has no always been possible to add 4mb of junk data.. to the end of the tx.. the exploit that allows junk metadata appended to the end of a transactions (after signatures) only occurred after a 2017 exploit was added, where data using a certain new range of opcodes were added and activated after july 2017, which allowed upto 4mb of junk the opcodes that allowed all this junk did no exist in 2009 even in 2009-2017 you could not even add 1mb of junk to a tx bitcoin had hardened rules pre august 2017 |
|
|
|
Lightning network is peer-to-peer, not as in Bitcoin, but still. Third party liquidity providers do not gain custody of the peers' cash, so it meets my conditions to be called p2p. It is just less permissionless, the less the number of your channels.
all crypto is PERMISSIONED they all require a signature from someone.. you are confused between self custody(your own permission(you sign tx) is needed if someone else wants to be paid(they cant take money from you)) vs cusodians where you need a middle mans permission to make payments on your behalf of balance they hold they suggest was yours only the CSW scammer wants bitcoin to be permissionless so that he can take the satoshi stash without needing a signature
as for the core group. they have other games at play the foolishness of dev politics buzzword misinformation.. is that they want to pretend we are no longer owners of our own value, that funds dont need out permission, but that value belongs to the bitcoin brand, and we are just signing witness statements of observing funds moving..(much like trustee's dont own the value in a trust but are signed witnesses of following the trusts rules) those dev politicians (core government) want to try to change how we treat bitcoin via their word play. pretending we are no longer authorised to own our assets, but just witnesses(trustees) of the bitcoin brands trustfund (contracted rules, they can change, without notice/requirement of peoples mass consent), suggestion of who gets to witness(sign witness scripts) of funds and benefit from being holders/trustees/beneficiaries(not owners) |
|
|
|
for details https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631291/united-states-v-bankman-fried/?order_by=desc The defendant is sentenced to 240 months on each of counts 1 through 4 and 7. The terms on each of counts 1, 2 and 7 shall be served concurrently with each other. The term on each of counts 3 and 4 shall be served concurrently with each other. The first 189 months of the terms on each of counts 3 and 4 shall be served concurrently with the terms on Counts 1, 2 and 7 and the balance of 51 months on the terms on each of counts 3 and 4 shall be served consecutively to the terms on counts 1, 2 and 7. IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED that he be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a term of imprisonment of 51 months on each of counts 5 and 6. The terms counts 5 and 6 shall be served concurrently with each other, consecutively to those on Counts 1, 2 and 7, and concurrently with the 51 month portions of the terms on Counts 3 and 4 that are to be served consecutively to the terms on counts 1, 2 and 7. The foregoing results in an aggregate term of imprisonment of 291 months. He shall thereafter shall serve a term of 3 years on supervised release
count 1: 240 months (20 years)
count 2: 240 months (20 years)
count 3: 189months+51month (240 months (20 years)) count 4: 189months+51month (240 months (20 years)) count 5: 51month (4.25 years)
count 6: 51month (4.25 years)count 7: 240 months (20 years)so 1,2,7 served side by side at same time(concurrent) along with 189months of count 3&4
meaning majority of 5 counts of many years(91.5 years) served as one lump of 20 years51 months of 3&4 and counts 5&6 served as another single lump after(consecutive) the 240 months single lump so its actually more like 24 years and 3 months in total(24.25 years(291 months)) (personal opinion it should have all been consecutive) 20+ 20+ 20+ 20+ 20+ 4.25+ 4.25=108.5 years |
|
|
|
They don't make the network less efficient. They just increase the fees. That's expected to happen either way sooner or later to sustain the miners' income.
incorrect deflationary market spot price moves up by more then 2x per halving cycle.. so the spot market takes care of reward changes, not fee's high fee's, penalising everyone for the acts of a few spam/bloaters is not good for bitcoiners also bitcoin should allow more fully validated transactions that actually count every byte AND where 'every byte counts'(has purpose), so individuals pay less but the total combined tx's give a nice BONUS to mining pools Ordinals are not an addition to Bitcoin Core. People just take advantage of Bitcoin allowing arbitrary data being embedded in transactions.
..
What kind of justification would be sufficient to you? They are valid transactions, and therefore are allowed by the protocol.
with the exploits core added and were warned about when they added it, which allow junk UNCHECKED to be included. the junk is not a valid transaction. the junk does not even go through any validity checks they just get treated as 'assumevalid' which bypasses validity checks of the bytes of data. which is different than actual validity checked transaction data.. its a softening of the rules to let things in unchecked. thus an exploit not a feature |
|
|
|
|
so the sentencing is in.. and it seems he is getting 25 years. good(shoulda got longer)
obviously he will try and appeal it. but atleast he isnt going to get to play CEO again any time soon (he was hoping to be allowed to be free to get back to business to 'make everyone whole' unpunished)
this might make a few other scammers realise trading in crypto does not alleviate them of the law, a scam is still a scam no matter what the asset/value/currency is
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
