I am very curious on what satoshi would think about this situation.
Bitcoin is much bigger than any one individual's wishes. It's what we do as a whole that matters. Appeals to authority are also considered a logical fallacy.
crap ideals
LOL. You're basically a Stalinist. I guarantee you are not in a position to lecture about "crap ideals". YOU love the authority known as core yes appealing to core to change their roadmap is a fallacy because they will remove/ignore anyone that does not like their plan. due to their moderation policy core are the stalins/monarchy/authority and you support them even when they introduce flaws and features that harm the masses oh and you love that they can introduce things without the masses consent |
|
|
|
a lightning router is a payment facilitator/money service thus has to abide by money service business rules and payment facilitator rules According to who? You? Just because lightning nodes facilitates payments, it doesn't mean those intermediaries are responsible for the payment. Lightning nodes know absolutely nothing about the payment, other than the amount they're moving. They don't know neither the receiver nor the sender. This is exactly like telling me that the Bitcoin nodes are responsible for all Bitcoin users' transaction, because they propagate every single transaction. Or that miners have legal responsibility for every transaction they mine. try to read some laws.. heck your girlfriends just last year were trying to claim that BITCOIN devs, nodes and miners were payment facilitators .. but here is the thing: a. bitcoin devs dont take a commission for personally being involved in accepting a payment on one side giving it to another using their own value for a commissionb. bitcoin miners dont take a commission for personally being involved in accepting a payment on one side giving it to another using their own value for a commissionc. bitcoin nodes dont take a commission for personally being involved in accepting a payment on one side giving it to another using their own value for a commissionyet a lightning router does try to learn a few things that differentiate bitcoin from lightning. stop assuming that lightning is bitcoin oh and the funny thing by being a payment facilitator but without knowing whom your processing a payment for becomes another red flag and makes your routers a increased target for regulators to slap you around even more the very fact that you admit you love and use Lightning makes you a target for them if you cared about your own risk awareness of things that can affect you personally. you should drop the group mantra and salespitches and start to want to independently do your own research for your own risk awareness.. |
|
|
|
No one is talking about censoring transactions, the talk is about making non-transactions (aka. spam) more difficult/expensive. The protocol doesn't agree with your definition of transaction. the protocol has been softened. the protocol has been weakened to allow crap data. blackhatcoiner you sound more like doomad every day if you enjoy that the protocol now allows crap data then you are not interested in the security of bitcoin and instead you are more interested in breaking bitcoin the protocol 2009-2021 never allowed 1 tx to take upto 4mb of crap data bloat if you like this new protocol change that is less than one year old. then you are very shameful and need to think about what matters most. you sucking up to personalities that want to break bitcoin. or .. start for once to care about bitcoin because right now you dont seem to care about bitcoin |
|
|
|
it was called "anyonecanspend" but even that had a byte limit You mean a standardness limit? Protocol rules only got stricter since then. You don't have any advantage other than standardness-related. But the problem = it opens an attack vector for self-sustaining network congestion. What attack vector? The only problem Ordinals create (or bring, it is years created) is higher fees for Bitcoin users. It pretty much works the other way for the miners, who're the ones who sustain the network. 1, protocols got relaxed since then as new formats can be slid in more easily with less checks LEARN "backward compatability" softening of consensus LEARN OPCODES LEARN w0 op codes w1 opcodes 2. ordinal deadweight bloat added dead weight bloat which is a spam attack vector i know you prune so dont care about blockchain data and your not a full node so you personally dont see it. but bitcoin is not a meme library and never was.. so this spam attack vector is making bitcoin become: a meme library filling blocks with extra data that has nothing to do with making lean payments of btc value causing everyones average fee to increase its instead turning into a meme library to scam people of btc value by charging them more then the btc value being moved for something they dont get to own 3. seriously blackhatcoiner you seem to be throwing yourself back into supporting the same crap ideals as your forum-wife again. saying things she says without actually thinking for yourself. what happened did she pay you off to stay together I wasn't debating the fact that it will be expensive, or some users will be priced out. I was merely saying that censorship-resistance and decentralization come with a price. Are you willing to pay for it? Or do you want PayPal?
bitcoin has never been censorship resistant we would have seen litecoin, monero, doge,(100,000 altcoin) transactions being broadcast and pushed into blocks if there was no rules of acceptance you need to learn that bitcoin always has been a consent network. by mass agreement of certain fortmats. where lots of crap data does get rejected yep blocks get rejected if they dont fit rules you thinking the rules ned to be taken away is breaking bitcoin rules. some are already broken which has allowed this crap data to be let into blocks stop following your forum-daddy and forum mommys scripts of stupid buzzwords and rhetoric |
|
|
|
you would think the devs would understand that point of view and do something about it. why did the witness need to be so big anyway?
Historically the bitcoin consensus rules about things that aren't checked have been loose (they still are) for example your output script can be literary anything like an invalid script or any arbitrary data of any size like a picture that is not even a script. This is a good thing because it allows future expansion through soft forks but also it could lead to abuse of the system and spam attacks. historically pre 2017 there was only ONE opcode that allowed things unchecked it was called "anyonecanspend" but even that had a byte limit it was the 2017 events that opened that up |
|
|
|
another rule bitcoin consensus can have to mitigate the spam/empty blocking
have blocks rejected if they only contain under 1000tx
that would suddenly inspire pools to fill blocks with more transactions
The problem I see with that is that not only would you get rid of spam, you would also invalidate the mining of empty blocks whose hash is discovered a few milliseconds after the previous one. and the answer in the form of a rhetorical question. should blocks get solved in milliseconds or in an average 2016block/fortnight(~10min) whereby less blocks in milliseconds stops affecting the difficulty negatively(raising diff to make it harder(shooting self in foot)) yep empty blocking means mempool size increases by delaying transaction inclusion into blocks and causes a difficulty rise by making blocks too fast |
|
|
|
3,938,383 Bytes - fee: ZERO
it costed them cpu cycles to do the proof of work to get that block into the blockchain though. so it wasn't free. yes i guess they got the block reward but they didn't include peoples transactions so they missed out on whatever those transaction fees would have been... what it costs a POOL stratum owner. vs a asic owner are 2 separate things asics do the PoW and they never see the transaction data. it doesnt matter if the block is 0.0001mb or 4mb an asic processes the same data length a pool stratum owner. only needs to manage 1 sig operation and no validation checks on the dead weight this a big difference to handling 2000 transactions with thousands of sig operations and validation checks |
|
|
|
Excuse me for my lack of knowledge, but why and since when is it illegal to accept payments from Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba if you live in the US? turn on the news. or google "sanctions" firstly bitcoin has not needed to ban ip's of any country. however when it comes to lightning routing. a lightning router is a payment facilitator/money service thus has to abide by money service business rules and payment facilitator rules if you dont know things. learn them |
|
|
|
Ok just to break the ice, I try and tested it out again,
Mempool says that I overpaid, Lol, but in previous days, just like 2-3 days ago, mempool is congested that I have to pay double that price to 6-7 sat/vB. So I guess everyone needs to check the mempool and not to used wallet suggestion as it might be too much, just saying.
another rule bitcoin consensus can have to mitigate the spam/empty blocking have blocks rejected if they only contain under 1000tx that would suddenly inspire pools to fill blocks with more transactions |
|
|
|
|
read the stats
pools accept dead weight memes for less than genuine tx sat/byte.. all way way to 0 fee
=shows pools dont care about demanding spam bloat "pays more"
secondly look at the stats of dates pre-spam bloat
empty block: 779013, 778,663, 775,654 (just some of many randomly seen)
i can show you lot more of "thin blocks" where there is a low threshold of transactions
i could also tell you about how mining pools do things
for instance most pools now start their block template empty of transactions.
and as asics run through their rounds of nonce/extra nonce.
pools then send out the next round with extra tx added. where by blocks solved in a couple minutes from previous are usually alot more empty then a block that took ~5 ~10 minutes
take some time to find every empty block. and you will see its previous block is under 2 minutes prior
|
|
|
|
if you think the network should for 131 years stay at just 2000 tx a block average paying large fee's and also steal coins to compensate pools.. then that is a very very very bad proposal/future plan
The use of the word "steal" remains improper. The coins subjected to this process of recycling would be the ones of "dead" wallets, i.e those wallets that have been inactive (no transaction) for a period equal to the full mining cycle (131 years). This same thing happens in nature. The universe doesn't steal energy from dead bodies, it recycles that energy channeling it back into the system. Bitcoin has a curious habit of mimicking nature when it comes to energy, except for recycling. Energy is never permanently lost in nature, it just transforms from one form to another. It seems that bitcoin neglects the recycle of lost money/energy back into the system. why oh why are these silly ideas even part of the bitcoin discussion oh wait phase one make it hostile and inhabitable to live in the bitcoin network. get people to lock up/abandon coins on the bitcoin network and displace people into other networks long term phase two claim the coins left behind wait this sounds familiar nazi germany: hmm these polish have abandoned their antiquities, i guess they can be taken now or banks tell people to lock up gold for centuries and play with bank notes.. later take the gold no one reclaimed because their descendants are to busy playing with bank notes.. reality. even decades later many countries are trying to get their assets back from nazi thefts, but its harder to get property back after its stolen and moved on.. understand yet taking coins has nothing to do with energy. its called taking coins for a reason. it involves taking coins without the signatory's consent |
|
|
|
|
funny part is
you sound too much like him now
i make posts about many topics. but you and doomad share the same silly small narrow mind about certain topics and say the same things about it. and then cry when i break your sales pitches and call you out on your lack of knowledge of it outside the dreamscape you put yourself into, in those small topics
due to sounding too much like the doomad mantra i guess doomad got soo desperate that he bought a alt-account to echo his narrative
(aww doomad did you run out of recruits so now have to make them up..
aww poor guy)
by the way. you have revealed yourself too much
pretending to not know someone you are/are copying, yet your rhetoric is too similar to just be coincidental
your final debate always results in "i dont understand you" which says more about you than me
bored now
bye bye social drama queen(s) who use insults as the excuses to not even try to learn.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin code was not written in a way that it could mint new coins, so even if your idea is good, it is absolutely not implementable, the current bitcoin code cant be uttered or changed from what and how Satoshi have designed it to operate, any one that tried to utter the code will trigger a hardfork which would lead to the creation of a new coin, which would be utterly different from bitcoin.
There would be no need to mine new coins, as the total limit would remain constant as originally intended. Instead, mining would focus on the lost coins, which after 131 years of inactivity by the hosting wallet, would be either burned or placed in an intermediate area similar to a mempool, but for coins. These lost coins would be waiting to be reintroduced to the network through remining. This process would be called "recycling". Mining is indeed a cycle. Whenever there would be lost coins recycling, it would result in a circulating supply of 21 million minus the burnt or mempool supply. bitcoin is not a system that should take coins away from a utxo without a signature. either now or in a century there is no need to steal coins to keep mining active. instead there would be more transactions per block by then where lots of users paying lots of small fee's = a nice total for pools if you think the network should for 131 years stay at just 2000 tx a block average paying large fee's and also steal coins to compensate pools.. then that is a very very very bad proposal/future plan |
|
|
|
|
@code bear
i wanted you to think about scenarios. but thought YOU need to start small with something simple which YOU could easily think about.. and then challenge two was to test your by expanding the scenario out
but just like doomad instead of even thinking. you just want to avoid thinking and reply with insults
very boring insults
oh.. and i pre-date the BSV shit. heck i even pre-date doomad
and codebear YOU admit you have not used lightning.. so maybe try to learn about what you are advertising
and think about the things people want to know. like the risk awarenesses.. rather then the fluffy cloud stuff you read somewhere
|
|
|
|
Again, I think that you're over-simplifying the things. Let's say the pool doesn't care and mines empty blocks. But if the pool constantly mines empty blocks and the miners don't get the income they're expecting, they'll leave. And then the pool will care. (Of course, again, the pool will make sure this doesn't happen, hence will try to find a good balance.)
miners prefer getting more block wins per day. compared to the fees lets run the numbers in a scenario: a pool of 20% hashrate gets ~29blocks = 181.25btc a day roughly the fee's of that day is usually 0.013 a block = 0.377 a day now imagine over a whole day would you prefer the pool manager manually selects transactions, does all the checks and sigops on thousands of tx a block template collation causing a delay in blockhashing start times. meaning that instead of 181.25btc average daily coin... it may get 1 less block= 175btc due to messing around with tx burden/selection just for 0.377. meaning 175.377 which would you care more for 181.25 or 175.377 as you can see. saving time by doing less block collating means better chance of earning an extra block per day which reaps better income then doing the transaction management/selection |
|
|
|
paying more does not cause mining pools to want your transaction more then a spam meme
there are already many spam memes that pay NO FEE AT ALL but allowed to bloat a whole block
Come on, Franky, the fact that some can now and then make a deal with the mining pool to mine their tx with small or no (on-chain) fee (who knows if other payment was made and how much that was?) is an exception. The rule is that in 99.999% of the cases a mining pools will prefer the transactions with the higher fees ( per vByte ). On the other hand, I do agree that paying more may, on long term only make all the fees gradually increase with no benefit for anybody else than the miners. Plus the users think that the next fee after 1 sat/vByte is 2 sat/vByte, not 1.1 or so, making the rise more abrupt. I'd like to see this NFT spam gone, but I don't think it'll happen too soon. And I fear we are heading to ... what we had in December 2017 (as fees). you do know that while you want everyone else to pay more fee's where you are trying to justify that paying over 10sat/byte is a happy number the ordinal junk pays 0.5sat/byte as their norm and less. where there are examples of paying nothing at all pools dont care. to them only having to collate 1 transactions with 1 sigop is quick computation for collating data. thus they can push out blocktemplate hashs faster. thus win rewards sooner then competition you crying about "but pools need their 0.013btc extra"... whilst actual pools happily would sacrifice that extra for a few seconds start on their next block to get more chances of 6.25 yep even a 2/600 chance increase is worth more then "normal fees" oh and as for mining pools the pools dont do the hard work. they are just data collators(pool stratum owners dont do the hashing). they dont care what the actual asics get in the end. whether its a cut of 6.2 (pool takes 0.05) or a cut of 6.213 (tx fee 0.013, pool takes 0.05) the pool itself does not care. pools even do empty blocks at times too. they dont care. its the asic miners who are remote users to the pool server.. whom have the main split after pool takes it cut and asic miners have no say in what junk their hash represents a pool would love to give miners less coin. becasue that then pushes the cost per coin up meaning it affects the market rate |
|
|
|
|
ive done both.. you seem to do neither you just chant the best case scenario and once every 4 years pretend you suddenly are not chanting the best case scenario
your just angry that your sales pitches do not result in more recruitment
lightning is not 'the solution for mass adoption to not require bitcoin scaling..'
so stop selling it as the solution of such
|
|
|
|
I've proposed additional solutions in the replies. Should I edit the original post to make it easier to discuss? By the way, I confused the number. It is 131.
and just as fast as you introduce a rule to move value without signature.. you suddenly want to move the years.. whats next only 30, then only 10? um no thanks |
|
|
|
Don't be a cheapass. Just pay a higher fee.
If you think these fees are too high to transact on the world's most secure computational network, you're a newb, that's the only explanation.
Be happy people are using Bitcoin for things and not other blockchains.
paying more does not cause mining pools to want your transaction more then a spam meme there are already many spam memes that pay NO FEE AT ALL but allowed to bloat a whole block https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae 3,938,383 Bytes - fee: ZERO telling everyone to pay more solves nothing also $1 seems cheap to you but you forget one thing in your diatribe WORLD currency. where by $1 tx or $22 tx are more then a few hours of labour, you do know paying from first world countries costs XX using services like western union.. but third world countries pay far less domestically.. and what your not realising is saying "bitcoin is cheap" is not cheap but you need to look outside of your own prospective to see what the real world offers a $1 tx for america is 50% of a US starbuck coffee but its way more for a african, indian so you saying pay more is actually pricing out a 3rd of the world from seeing bitcoin as useful |
|
|
|
these ordinal junk are not fit for purpose as "nft" they dont have any representation of ownership in their recipients transaction. its just dead data that stays in the creators transaction with nothing to represent it in the blockchain data when "spent" ordinal meme spam has no place in bitcoin as it serves no blockchain function but to bloat it up into a meme library .. as for those saying the rest of the network just has to "pay more" that does not work as many examples show that these meme spam transactions pay less than the average and in some cases no fee at all. so no matter what other pay doesnt change the pools selection decisions. becasue they are not selecting to add these meme spam tx due to any rational fee proposition yep many meme spam tx pay less than 1sat/byte and yes there are a few that pay ZERO https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/0301e0480b374b32851a9462db29dc19fe830a7f7d7a88b81612b9d42099c0ae 3,938,383 Bytes - fee: ZERO |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
