What if some knowledge starts being censored and by uploading it to the blockchain people will still be able to distribute it, the way you can get manuals on how to 3d print weapons, or mix chemicals to get drugs and explosives? I know that the answer to this is "but what if they upload child porn or doxxed data?", but then we're going into "what is freedom?" debate.
The problem of ordinals is so difficult because your freedom ends when it starts to threaten others and make their lives more difficult. If you upload useful data, it's fine, but if you upload something that makes the network sluggish and bloats it so that others have to buy more and more storage, they are not going to applaud you.
bitcoin is not a knowledge library like wiki .. its not wiki. its a financial network for making p2p payments of units called satoshis which come in 100,000,000 sat batches called btc if you want a wiki knowledge library blockchain you can make your own trying to suggest bitcoin should be a knowledge library wiki blockchain and if people want to make payments they should use alternative sub-networks is a stupid and absolute idiot bait and switch game of foolish twits that hate bitcoin and want to promote their adoration of people that want to break bitcoin as for meme crap data well something that has not been done yet (hopefully wont happen if the "upto4mb" taproot tx witness space per tx is swapped out for logically acceptable and promised "upto 80bytes") is that people can instead of putting in meme bloat. can put in (human readable translated for this post) twitidiot12345 (1000dumbpoints) -> twitidiot54321 (1000dumbpoints) where its hashed with a txid and signed with some new keypair(i used twit idiot instead of public keys for posts demo translation) where by the 'witness data' then includes a new currency system for idiots to then have their own twit-idiot tokens thus having a idiot transaction WITHIN a taproot transaction UTXOset database in their idiot nodes referencing twit-idiot utxoset within btc-UTXOset to then transact sub tokens of twit-idiot dumbpoint tokens within the bitcoin network |
|
|
|
This is a fun game that some members have made it into a contest that makes it interesting to do to accurately predict the halving. It’s going to be hard but it’s just an estimate for now since it’s always an approximation with how long the solving of the blocks is. Something like this. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205895.0start a competition in the gambling section of the forum if you want |
|
|
|
News about the Ordinals or Bitcoin NFTs are now widespread. I have read some of them even though I really don't understand the technical part. But what is quite surprising to me is that some are talking about rejecting transactions carrying Ordinals. It seems some consider these NFTs as nuisance and they are not what Bitcoin is for. Somehow it is justified to censor these transactions. So there must be a way to censor. And I have read that either the miners or the node operators could do it.
miners is the first point. as they collate data into blocks in the first place which means that they have to mould themselves to what full nodes should store as valid doing it as a lame user pruning thing just makes two levels of usernodes.. full nodes that keep full data and a subset that prune off data (which can cause many other issues within the network) the idea is if mining pools agree and consent then no harm, user nodes dont have to reject certain blocks or set themselves apart as different levels. because mining pools wont be putting any crap into a block in the first place however merchant nodes(economic nodes) can say they will reject blocks containing such crap data which would make mining nodes comply if they want to have their rewards recognised and seen rather than rejected and unable to be spent with the majority of merchant services(exchanges) yep.. its using the same 2017 tactics which core loved using. to undo a flaw core allowed in.. they cant really justify now saying its a bad idea. seeing as they invented the method to push rule changes in |
|
|
|
|
lets simplify
even if we use the lame "10 minute" conversational average
if blocks from now until block 840,000 averaged just 10m 1 second that can change the ETA by 17 hours
average of 10m 7 seconds can change the ETA by 5 days
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry if I'm being rude because I'm new to the network and I wanted to understand more how it works, can you explain to me how the consensus works within the network is there any voting in the community before making any decisions in the core?
it used to be the case that full nodes (important definition of full nodes) would need to be ready to fully validate, (have new code and a flag that shows readiness before activation) where the nodes would fully remain able to continue to FULLY verify, archive and re-distribute all verified data before a rule can change, to protect the network, and still able to afterwards where a new ruleset would only change/ be a valid new rule IF the network was majority ready for it but that consensus got softened to allow core to throw in new feature without mass node readiness.. which allowed another dev to then slide in crappy memes. which changed bitcoin to now (not main feature /purpose/ethos) becoming a meme library .. funny part is when another dev team and even some core devs now want to use cores backdoor to stop this flaw. though some idiots are pretending that sliding in a rule change without mass readiness is bad(calling their own method of adding the flaw (irony->) bad) and even if mass readiness was ready... doing so, changing the rules in their mind is bad.. again even though they themselves changed things without consensus |
|
|
|
|
binance SAFU is not a formal insurance using an insurance underwriter
nor does it protect all of binance's reserves of 575k btc it holds in custody
its actually binances own corporate funds with just enough set aside to protect one small hotwallet (small amount used on servers to process daily withdrawals)
..
the problem with insurance is they will want proof of ownership and also proof of theft before processing any claims.. goodluck trying to prove a theft and not just a movement to new wallet and then claiming loss
insurers will not want to insure such digital items
its upto individuals to secure their own funds. as thats the point.
if you want some insured middleman to take responsibility of liability of funds.. go back to using regular bank balances and let them secure you at a 2% a year debasement of your value for that service
that said in the future there will be regulated 'insurance services' where you lock your value into them. and should they lose it they repay you. where you then only withdraw what you need when you need it.
but thats how banks started out hundreds of years ago when people wanted to insure their gold but still want to spend its value (by trading bank notes)
|
|
|
|
I mentioned something years ago in some threads in the press subforum, however, no one appears to think that it might happen yet. This is the regulators might begin requiring limits on who can and who cannot buy cryptocoins and tokens based on income. If for example your income is less than $100k a year, then you are not eligible.
nah its more like if your unemployed and you are suddenly investing $25k, you will get reported to the tax fraud office because they suspect your getting income thats not declared. and the authorities then get a court order to freeze your account while a tax evasion investigation transpires.. oh wait many regulated exchanges already do this Another speculation on what might occur is the regulators will allow 1 or 2 stablecoins to exist, they will create a regulatory system where everything that goes in and out of the cryptospace will be through only those stablecoins. This is for the regulators to control how much liquidity should go in and go out of the cryptospace.
banks actually want to hold crypto for instance the BIS stuff is where the central banks were pushing BIS to allow upto 5% bitcoin holdings and it was the BIS that pushed back and put in its draft to only allow 2% (central banks dont offer services to citizens. its more about internal investment between the banks) as for stable coins. well stable coins are backed by dollars.. and guess what. those dollars have to be stored in bank accounts . so ofcourse banks are going to partner up with stable coin operators. to service all withdrawal and deposit requests .. my tin foil hat is now on: however when CBDC come about(gain more utility majority than old fiat). stable coins owner bank accounts will get some changes where people will use CBDC as the "new stable coin" instead of old fiat i see a future where regulated crypto exchanges will have people needing to buy CBDC(swap fiat for cbdc) to then deposit into regulated exchanges to then buy crypto .. tin foil hat is now off the WEF/IMF/BIS/SEC dont want bitcoin deemed as "legal tender" and instead treated as just an investment asset because they dont want retailers/merchants to be default accepting bitcoin as common money they want to keep it as a niche thing and not a thing that makes fiat/CBDC useless they in many countries wont outright ban its use to buy goods/services but they wont want to decree/mandate that all merchants/retailers should accept bitcoin this detail is moot, much the same as america doesnt decree/mandate that US retailers accept euro. but that does not mean euro is banned/non currency.. and retailers can still choose to accept euro if they want. its just not treated as legal tender in the US |
|
|
|
These are some very interesting metrics. Where did you get these numbers?
I wonder if it's even possible to come up with exact numbers, since, as soon as new ASIC hardware hits, the older ones get devalued either comepletely (not profitable anymore with the increase of difficulty and energy expenses) or to some extent.
You never know exactly when and which new hardware will come out, so calculating the exact costs to mine 1.0 BTC seems impossible to me. You can estimate and ofc calculate for past periods of mining.
yes new asics come out.. but not every week. the average lifetime of asics is ~2 years and also it takes time for the big efficient industrial grade mining farms to upgrade all of their asics EG a farm of 100,000 asics buys them in batches over multiple months once the lifecycles are up (its a slow transitionary period from advertised price on asic sales page. to actually being the most efficient asic operating/actively running in majority on the network), which means the cost-base is a slow adjustment also they dont buy electric by the day either they buy electric contracts of MW/GW yields on contracts that last 6 months-2 years and so the progressions of change of the metrics move at a slower pace than the market price that moves within the metrics EG the top metric moved from 75k in 2021 90k in 2022 and is settling in to be $110k for q1 of 2023 and by more by year end in short in 2021 there was literally no chance of a $100k bitcoin no matter how much people dreamed it however a $100k bitcoin is POSSIBLE but we cannot guarantee it. but we know it is a possibility for 2023.. but dont expect a (random number)$300k btc this year(sorry) anyway back to your question the movements of electric, asic price variety, hashrate of said asic and mining rate of entire network. is not something that is calculated as a daily number. its a spread of 6month-2 years average which progressively scales because the extremes are locked into upto 2 year electric contracts and lifecycles of hardware thus they do accounting at that stretch based on total coins earned in that period |
|
|
|
|
bitcoin is not a censorship resistant network. it never has been
its a consensus network
there is a difference
the network has rules which the network participants agree on (or used to agree on before consensus got softened)
it stopped things like allowing already spent outputs from being re-spent
it stopped silly small 'satoshi-dust' transactions
it stopped trying to broadcast altcoin transactions into the bitcoin network
and it did stop random meme stupid images
bitcoin is a network for peer to peer payments. its ethos is not a meme library. and so the rules that protect bitcoin from crap transactions can actually be done to stop crap transactions that were not meant for bitcoin
if you want every lame piece of data imaginable be allowed on bitcoin. then the results will harm bitcoin more then the stupid idea that bitcoin was always letting in stupid data.. because bitcoin never was about letting in every piece of stupid data
yep code=rules and code is what bitcoin is. there are actually rules..
trying to suggest bitcoin has no rules and should not have rules is a bad bad judgement to make
|
|
|
|
My question is this, is it possible for bitcoin to be completely immune to volatility in years to come?
without delving too deep into economics if the cheapest mining(method of acquiring) on the planet was $15k (wholesale/bulk price of hardware, plus cheap electric) and if the most inefficient mining (retail price hardware and most expensive electric) was say $110k to mine bitcoin then no one will want to sell below the minimum and no one would want to mine at the maximum and so inbetween these maxis is where the market moves yep right now in hawaii, japan it costs $110k to mine in someones home. as a hobby miner. so they are extremely happy to buy bitcoin at prices below this top. very very happy right now at $24k current price there are some miners mining at the bottom thus happy to sell for $24k but here is the thing back in 2010-11 the scale of the maxis was 100x ($0.30-$30) in 2016-17 the scale of the maxis was ~45x ($450-$20k) in 2020-21 the scale of the maxis was ~18x ($4k $75k) where by the market moves SOMEWHERE between these thus can be even less volatile then the maxis anyways, due to many economic factors the multiplier will become less over time and the market speculation within those limits will get less volatile too
now putting aside the maxis of possible extremes of both top and bottom the markets. can themselves add code to market price ordering. where by "circuit breaks" stop processing orders if prices go above x% in any short time period.. many regulators will probably want to see coin markets adopt these "circuit break" features that wall street use to control price movement extremes |
|
|
|
|
when the first blocks are made those blocks do not know when they will be spent in the future(yea time travel only goes one way)
this means you need to take in the data and then treat the old transactions are spent and list them remaining ones as unspent whilst it goes through the process. to ensure you can have a viable list of what is unspent value
this list of unspents(utxoset) then saves time later by not having to recheck the whole blockchain data on your system every time and just checks the utxoset once said utxoset it built. then it can easily just check against what has not been spent super quick
also those first blocks (that are later spent) do not know which ones will eventually be funding the value on your keys (again time travel one direction)
and so to validate that you received good coin that was not double spent it needs to go through the whole data to figure out the path from the coin origins your funded keypair
because of the utxoset being used when its uptodate, the software doesnt really need to check the blockchain data each time so some people think they can just delete old blocks
for personal use where you do not care about being part of the network infrastructure of decentralising the blockchain and you just care about personal use wallet function. you can prune it as you have decided you dont want to be part of the peer-2-peer process of sharing the blockchain data.
but atleast accept your choice of not wanting to offer the blockchain data to others and just wanting to use the software for personal use once you have synced and built up your utxo set
|
|
|
|
|
well we know no one has actually stolen his key. his is just hypothesising..
however some people want to know how secure things are, but afraid to ask.
they dont want to sound dumb.
so by answering this. other people that want genuine answers about how many permutations there are will find out
|
|
|
|
Can’t believe what I just read…Growing food in your backyard is a better way to hedge against inflation? Not a hedge/store of value, but if you can grow your own food (not everyone can), then you can mitigate inflation for yourself. i.e. producing your own eggs vs buying them from the market at jacked-up prices. until you see the vet bills for a chicken and the ongoing feed and having to make a hutch and then a fence to keep the neighbours cat away. then there is the heating and other costs there is a reason why people go to supermarkets.. mass production is cheaper than solo production oh. and the only hedge would be if you want blackberries. they grow in hedges(bushes) |
|
|
|
|
ok lets clarify some stuff
a 12 word seed is actually 11 random words where the 12th is PART of a "checksum"
lets not go to much into the details and lets dumb it down to simply using 11 words for easy math sake
so even using 11 random words of a 2048 library and letting the software calculate the remaining to create the 12th word checksum
those 11 words have
2,658,455,991,569,830,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
possibilities
if 8billion people tried 1 unique attempt
thats still 1 in 332,306,998,946,229,000,000,000,000
if they done 1million attempts a second
thats still going to require 332,306,998,946,229,000,000seconds
which is
thats still 5,538,449,982,437,150,000 minutes to try them all
thats still 92,307,499,707,285,800 hours to try them all
thats still 3,846,145,821,136,910 days to try them all
thats still 10,537,385,811,334 years to try them all
thats still 123,969,244,839 lifetime to try them all
yep if all 8 billion people done 1million possibilities/sec for their entire lives.
they will still need to pass the project down to their offspring who pass it down to descendants
for 124 billion lifetimes of ancestry
|
|
|
|
|
it is funny when doomad saying pruning is full.. but then and goes and calls a node with pruning a "pruned node" and not a full node. seems even he cant escape the common sense that using different levels of core features/flaws redefines the node status needing to give it a different status/title
i talk about alot of things. you only get triggered by certain topics because they are the things that are paying your income to support your narrative you are made to sell.
either you are a paid snake oil salesman made to say stupid stuff... or you genuinely do earn the idiot title..
..your choice.
snake oil salesman.. or idiot
because your narratives are stupid, they dont even come close to common sense let alone fact.
the version of events i talk about can be backed up by code, blockdata.
so take some time and try just for once. to learn about bitcoin.
last funny..
doomad loved that someone abused a flaw to add in bloat.. using the soft method
but dare anyone use the same soft method to fix the flaw and doomad comes out screaming telling people what to do and telling them to get off the network, to leave it be
his old mantra was "conservatism" until things went soft and let anything in.
now its "censorship resisting" until someone wants to change something without censorship
seems he only likes it when certain people change certain things without network consent
but it is funny seeing how his motives and narratives change to fit whatever latest scheme he wants to promote.. shameful, but funny
|
|
|
|
|
^ ^
someone definitely needs his first ever full body massage
its funny because things like pruning did not exist when the term full was first used thus pruning alters the node usage case thus pruning is part of fool node status not full node
he is the type of guy that wants to pretend pruning was around from the start and thus all nodes were always pruning thus the top level of utility was always prune mode
its also funny that the guy above has been around for enough years to learn about bitcoin. and learn about the service bits announcement to peers to tell a peer how full their status is. .. its a pitty that he never takes the time to learn about bitcoin
last laugh is when he pretends lowly old me is the one changing the terminology. when actual fact is im reminding people what the terminology always has been before his buddys wanted things changed
final point
when the blockchain is the fuel but you only want to fill your tank with 288blocks of 778000
you are only filling the tank with 0.037% of fuel
you wont get anywhere thinking you have a full tank , when reality is your tank only has 0.037% of fuel
|
|
|
|
|
guys its a halving per 210,000 blocks
but the timing is not "10 minutes" accuracy
its aim is actually 2016 blocks per fortnight. which equates to a hopeful average of a block per 10 minutes.(conversationally.. not categorically)
emphasis: trying to maintain the accuracy is not about any code pushing for "10 minutes"
its actually code adjusting difficulty if there are more or less than 2016 blocks a fortnight.
|
|
|
|
understand the word FULL
You are just giving your personal interpretation of "Full Nodes". get a dictionary then "not lacking or omitting anything; complete." if a node is not storing the full blockchain. its not FULL if a node is not fully verifying all of the data it receives its not FULL if its not offering the full services available its not FULL its common sense. stuff you can learn by actually understanding what FULL means in any scenario/product/service aka real life heck go to a masseuse and ask for a full body massage. if they only rub your toe.. that is not a full body massage |
|
|
|
|
seems the propaganda machine is on full tilt
"censor the network"
sorry idiots but the network is made of rules. it pretend people from throwing in:
already spent UTXO transactions
other network tx formats such as litecoin, ethereum, blah blah blah
random data of no format at all
coin spends more then source utxo had
transactions that try to include 20trillion btc
transactions that.. [insert a billion possibilities]
it DID used to stop putting stupid memes in
sliding in a new format without majority readiness(soft) is a risky thing to play with
then saying "we cant remove, undo, stop it due to politics" is another risk
we actually can stop data thats not deemed as bitcoin payment data. without a re-org, without affecting existing immutable blocks. by just making a certain format conform to its promise of "one signature length" and thus no more future bloat memes
|
|
|
|
oh and you do realise that the whole point of blockchains is about a distributed ledger, a decentralised network. a peer to peer network.. all meaning sharing and giving out data to others
that was the intention is to share and give out for free but you can only do that for so long until they eat up your bandwidth. seems to me that at some point bitcoin is going to need some fee mechanism to compensate people that share that data.  then if you are worried about bandwidth. there are features to change how many peers you connect to (adjust bandwidth usage). and lots of other features too.. but accept that you by changing settings are reducing the services your node offers. meaning that the "full" aspect is reduced.. (pretty common sense really) and the more features you switch off, which affect the availability of peer- 2 peer networking of certain things. the less you are a full node nothing wrong with wanting to use the software just for personal use with certain things switched off. but just accept thats what you chose to do and not be pretending you remain a full node EG if you choose headers only. then you are a lite node nothing wrong with it. but just know that your not then part of the network security structure and simply just a network user there is reasons why nodes announce their 'service bits' |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
