But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?
I have no exact information about the intentions of the developers. However, it is highly likely that the desire to make money on the wave of hype with meme-tokens plays an important role. I don't really follow this shit, but I think there was a big story recently about a guy who bought Pepe's green frog tokens for $250 and soon made $8 million from it. Or something like that. In such conditions, development speed is much more important than quality, because it is important to catch the right moment. This is the case when it is better to make a mistake at the right time than to do the right thing at the wrong time. |
|
|
|
Geoff Kendrick, the head of forex research at Standard Chartered, believes that if the US defaults on its debt obligations, the price of BTC would rise 70% to more than $40,000. He called a possible default an unlikely event that could still caouse serious consequences. Therefore, investors who consider BTC a safe haven will pour their funds into the major coin if the market falls.
If a default is declared, the surge in BTC price won’t start immediately. The surge would be preceded by a fall of around $5000, after which the coin would rise by $25,000. While BTC will follow a bullish trend, prices of other cryptos may decline.
I pretty much agree with this. A default would cause mass chaos for the US economy and the Dollar, and therefore likely cause mass economic chaos globally. Probably all assets would drop, including Bitcoin and Gold, initially as fear spreads. But I think very quickly people would realize they need to get out of the dollar as well and the only place to go would be Gold and Bitcoin. Gold would probably go up like 20%, while yeah I could see Bitcoin doubling very quickly in that sort of situation. Though if the US did default, I think the obstructionist politicians that caused the default would come to the table and end the default rather quickly to fix the problem. But even if it only lasted a few days it would damage the US's and the Dollar's strength in the world and so it would still greatly help Bitcoin. I think you'd have a lot more people saving money in Bitcoin rather than Dollars as a result of a debt default. And yeah it's likely that altcoins would drop as Bitcoin gained, because when things are crashing you don't throw money into highly risky valueless speculative things like altcoins. Don't be dramatic. The US debt limit is $31.4 trillion, and the current level of the US national debt is $31.7 trillion. The debt ceiling was reached on January 19, 2023, in other words, the technical default has already occurred. |
|
|
|
How come Russian still defend the invasion of Ukraine while they are the only one being damaged more than anyone else,brainwashing is probably something the Kremlin regime do very well.I can't wait when you will ask for help so you cannot eat just bread and butter anymore,nevertheless I am a good person and will send you some danish cheese and some other delights  . Why are you quoting me, what do you want to hear from me? I think you are deeply rooted in your delusions and are heavily influenced by Western propaganda to believe any of my words. Let me quote a recent speech by US presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. Ukrainian youth have to pay for this war. The US and Ukrainian authorities are doing their best to hide the number of victims - it is catastrophic. This is the most violent conflict since World War II on the planet. The losses are huge. More than 300,000 Ukrainians died. The Russians are killing Ukrainians depending on who you believe, in a ratio of 5/1 to 8/1, or 7/1 as stated in the recently leaked Pentagon documents. And the Russians cannot lose this war. We are told that they are losing. They cannot afford to lose this war. It's existential for them. They are building up their forces, they have an artillery advantage over the United States. And this is artillery warfare. And we don't have artillery to replace what we lost in Ukraine. This is probably Putin's agent speaking to the Americans in prime time, not otherwise. |
|
|
|
This is a very delicate topic. And for Russia, it can be no less terrible than the approaching military defeat.
Social defeat! The population of Russia is already far from the fictitious 140 million. Now millions of citizens, of the most productive age and the most intelligent, have already left Russia. About a million more were killed and maimed in the fields of Ukraine. 40% to 60% of the population lives in poverty. Degradation, alcoholism, first place in tuberculosis, AIDS, life expectancy is decreasing every year, and mortality is growing. This is social degradation, which may no longer be reversible. And soon 90% + of the population of Russia will consist of a lumpenized population of younger / middle age + pensioners. Neither one nor the second will give the state anything other than social spending and problems!
Who wants to live, conditionally, among pensioners, alcoholics and tuberculosis patients? No one, and therefore more will leave, and many ...
How much will you fantasize? Well, at least one link show? Even if 500-700 thousand left Russia, the majority returned back, because even in Turkey it is difficult to live without money, and the salary is only enough for food and a hostel. "million more were killed and maimed" there is no such data even in open publications of foreign intelligence services. Dr.Beer has a four-point manual: 1. USA strong. 2. China is deceiving everyone. 3. Russia is falling apart. 4. Repeat in a circle until you get bored. So finish your hedgehog stew, drink your moonshine on cigarette butts, and go walk your bear. Don't forget the balalaika. |
|
|
|
If not NFTs then there will be something else. The issue of scalability should be raised again and again even if the situation is not catastrophic at the moment. We need that developers to work on solving this problem, because to be a competitive alternative bitcoin should be able to pass billions of transactions a day, and it is as for now. There should be a possibility of even increasing that number in the future. Otherwise we will face with the same problem again and again. What if, for instance, some huge retail corporation like Walmart will start accepting bitcoin... dozens of millions customers a day... it is not what bitcoin can deal with at the moment, and we need it to be prepared to anything like that.
The issue of scaling is important, but not paramount. There is the CAP theorem (consistency, availability, partition tolerance), which, with Buterin’s light hand, is better known in the crypto community as the blockchain trilemma. Among decentralization, security and scalability, you can choose any two of the three at best. Until this theorem is proven wrong, any well-designed and implemented centralized solution will be significantly faster than bitcoin. Of course, if we do not want to sacrifice security and / or decentralization for the sake of high speed. It seems that our plan to seize world domination assumes that the entire burden of solving the issue of scaling falls on the shoulders of second-level networks, and let's not demand from the developers of bitcoin core the obviously impossible. Of course we understand that if there was a solution already invented then devs just implemented it immediately. Not so long ago the idea of a decentralized financial system like bitcoin was not less insane and now we see that there is a solution. I'm sure there could be a solution for a scalability problem which can be implemented without significant lowering of a decentralization and of a security. If I don't know which it doesn't mean it can't be invented. And to invent it the one who can do it shouldn't think that it is impossible. You do not seem to understand, this is not a hypothesis, but a theorem - it has already been proven that this is the case, so there are few who want to spend time to prove that the proof is wrong. A very difficult moment is to decide how much we are willing to sacrifice security and decentralization for the sake of increasing speed. When updating taproot, the consensus conditions were somewhat weakened, this is largely a reserve for the future and we still do not see the fruits of this decision, but an unexpected side effect has surfaced in the form of misuse of the blockchain, which we are now actually discussing. In the case of a centralized application, the developers would quickly release a security patch and be done with it. And now opinions are widely divided, because the lack of a single point of failure in the case of a decentralized application has to be paid by the lack of a single decision-making center and the need to reach consensus to make any decision at all. This is neither good nor bad - just an architectural feature. |
|
|
|
An on Bismarck oh well, his solution to "the problem" was a quite direct one. There is an ancient German saying (Sei mein Bruder, sonst schlage ich dir den Kopf ein) - be my brother or I will bash your head". I can see no intention from the current RF government to be Germany's brother so....
Are you hinting that it was Russia who quarreled with Germany, and not vice versa, and these ten packages of sanctions generously sprinkled with Russophobic rhetoric are an unfortunate misunderstanding? Cute. We will take half of the Western money invested in Russia as a penalty for this misunderstanding, and then we will come to collect our money that you stole. And you have to apologize. This is how it works when you're trying to scam Russia. Try not to miss the opportunity to accept this generous offer. |
|
|
|
If not NFTs then there will be something else. The issue of scalability should be raised again and again even if the situation is not catastrophic at the moment. We need that developers to work on solving this problem, because to be a competitive alternative bitcoin should be able to pass billions of transactions a day, and it is as for now. There should be a possibility of even increasing that number in the future. Otherwise we will face with the same problem again and again. What if, for instance, some huge retail corporation like Walmart will start accepting bitcoin... dozens of millions customers a day... it is not what bitcoin can deal with at the moment, and we need it to be prepared to anything like that.
The issue of scaling is important, but not paramount. There is the CAP theorem (consistency, availability, partition tolerance), which, with Buterin’s light hand, is better known in the crypto community as the blockchain trilemma. Among decentralization, security and scalability, you can choose any two of the three at best. Until this theorem is proven wrong, any well-designed and implemented centralized solution will be significantly faster than bitcoin. Of course, if we do not want to sacrifice security and / or decentralization for the sake of high speed. It seems that our plan to seize world domination assumes that the entire burden of solving the issue of scaling falls on the shoulders of second-level networks, and let's not demand from the developers of bitcoin core the obviously impossible. |
|
|
|
BUT, here's the problem for me, and it's more of trying to get in the developers' point of view when building apps for Ordinals. Why force themselves to develop something that doesn't make it more efficient and cheap to move or trade dick pics and fart sounds? Plus their BRC-20 solution is worse than Ethereum's ERC-20, why develop something that's worse? It doesn't make using it any cheaper.
Perhaps here I agree with you. How beautiful and elegant is the very idea of ordinals, which does not produce unnecessary entities, so as not to cause the anger of Occam with a razor, but only makes the implicit explicit. And just as shitty are these BRC-20 tokens, which are almost a direct insult and spit in the face. It's like when a teenager is first allowed to draw anything on a blank wall and he draws just the first thing that comes to his mind - boobs and a big dick. Did you expect to find Claude Monet's lilies there? If we're going to stick with our censorship resistance strategy, we're going to have to open our mouths wide and eat this elephant whole, with a hundredweight of shit inside it. Because everyone has different tastes (and even coprophages also exist) and if we start trying to separate the more delicious from the less tasty, we will never come to a consensus that suits everyone. The wave of hype will subside and time itself will separate the assimilated and the rejected. |
|
|
|
Sufficient to say that many people even in the UK call London "Londongrad" or "Moscow Upon Thames" for the immense fortunes that the RF kleptocrats have deposited in the form of empty flats and Victorian houses in Chelsea. Who would want to destroy such a expensive beauty?
Dunno...maybe those people who got their "expensive beauty" frozen/stolen? Otto von Bismarck once said: Do not expect that once you take advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come - do not rely on the Jesuit agreements you signed, supposedly justifying you. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Therefore, it is worth either playing fair with the Russians, or not playing at all. |
|
|
|
Bit of a simplification don't you think? What about the miners who secure the network who no doubt in favour of increased revenue (overall)? What about Bitcoin maxis like Michael Saylor who recently came out in favour of data inscription on Bitcoin (generally speaking), that includes ordindals. In his examples, this included things like will & testaments that could be inscribed for a VERY cheap $20/30 right now.
saylor is not a bitcoin maxi. he is a msat maxi he loves another network called lightning which is where middle men get fee's Pretty sure MSTR hold their BTC holdings on the mainnet, in cold storage, without any intent on selling it, while having 0% shitcoin holdings. So if that's not being a maxi, I don't know what is. Are you suggesting that his support of lightning means he's no longer a maxi? That sounds ridiculous, especially to all the maxis out there that support and use lightning. It seems more likely there are maxis that support L2s and those that don't. Simply claiming that the "purest" way to support Bitcoin and Bitcoin only is to support it's mainnet and nothing else just sounds ridiculous to me, as well as many other maxis. Especially when now the mainnet is being used for inscriptions and now apparently you can't even be a maxi unless you support censoring these valid transactions. Maxis can't keep moving the goal posts like this. when you realise that he does not promote bitcoin but stores it. but does promote scams and schemes and another network that is not bitcoins blockchain nor something that will be the salvation.. he is not a maxi. he is a bitcoin hoarder but not a maxi ... you do need to realise that those transactions you assume valid are not containing bitcoin rules.. they use a opcode that assumes validity by a "isvalid" bypass thatavoids standard bitcoin checks. which bypasses normal bitcoin format rules yep thats how the junk gets let in, by bypassing normal standard bitcoin rules yep the inscriptions are non-standard .. funny part is maxi means maxi. but its you that wants to dilute(move the goalpost) its meaning to be middi. where you think someone that supports another network is still maxi. even if they dont want to fix bitcoin but want people to move to another network please learn maxi is short for maximum. meaning top, highest level. meaning yes its the purists.. not the average or altnet supporters that just happen to hoard bitcoin If any idea, even initially sound, is elevated to an absolute, it becomes absurd. How far are you willing to go in bitcoin maximalism? Hey, this is a ordinals transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam. Hey, this is a lightning network transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam. Hey, this is a mixed transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam. Hey, this is a segwit transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam. Only old school addresses starting with one correspond to the true vision of Satoshi. Sieg heil! |
|
|
|
Говорят Залужного ракетным ударом ёбнули, прямо в штабе ВСУ вместе со свитой - вот и откладывается опять контрнаступ. Врут поди.
Однозначно - врут. Ждём подтверждения или опровержения, уже наверно с месяц его на публике не видно, даже по видеосвязи. Сырского впрочем тоже. |
|
|
|
Тут вопрос в том, можно ли на этих биткоиновых NFT, заработать или шанс уже ушел?
И если шанс ушел, то что нужно сделать, чтобы не упустить шанс в следующий раз?
Просвещайся. Если вкратце, шанс есть всегда, найдёшь у себя в кошельке рарную сатошу - враз разбогатеешь. |
|
|
|
Я искренне радуюсь, что никакого контрнаступа запукров так и не случилось, не смотря на все твои давнишние свидононутые "прогнозы".
Радуюсь, что не случилось очередной бессмысленной бойни.
Говорят Залужного ракетным ударом ёбнули, прямо в штабе ВСУ вместе со свитой - вот и откладывается опять контрнаступ. Врут поди. |
|
|
|
I repeat, nothing is happening, nothing planned. Drink well, go parade. Speaking of which.... nice T-34, but my favourite part of the parade was the air show - featuring 300 state of the art and fully invisible planes that I am sure were there. Unless there were not, in which case... it speaks a lot about the loyalty of the air force and how sure is Putin of having something flying over him.
As far as I know, in Moscow and the region, the "closed sky" mode was activated to prevent possible provocations. It seems that more than 20 drones were landed by means of electronic warfare and several drones were shot down by drone strikers. The parade went smoothly, with the exception of complaints from Muscovites about the difficulty of calling a taxi, due to jamming of the GPS satellite navigation signal. Didn't you like Yars mobile strategic complexes at the parade? More serious than tanks. |
|
|
|
i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from, drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama.
but here is the thing
segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable
yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through
I don't think I'm going to hit a finger in the sky if I assume you're from the old guard of futuristic retrogrades who are against any development of bitcoin at all - hands off self-sufficient ideal perfection and let us croak peacefully in our cozy little swamp. You are mistaken, this problem existed before the 2017 update, but before that there was no attempt to use it on a mass scale. you are reading the wrong scripts. whomever is spoon feeding you needs to so their research and hen YOU need to do your own research away from them (i can tell you are script reading because you use the same narrative and buzzwords that is spreading around, to coincidentally) so here is my response before segwit there was no 3mb witness area to exploit nor was there hundreds of opsuccess unassigned opcodes that had no rules. thus these ordinals and crap happening in 2023 was not able to happen in 2016 GO learn oh and back in the day when small random data was added to opreturn. the emphasis was on SMALL and it was useless for anything thus no ONE BOTHERED using it for junk to any mass scale, thus wasnt a problem worthy of fixing these NEW opcodes and unassigned space that is being exploited DUE TO RECENT UPGRADES is causing a concern its like the difference between an itch throat once a day. vs not breathing due to covid. there is a big difference between the types of junk invading a system another thing. even if you now want to follow the lame script of "soft activations happened decades ago too" the rebuttal of that is simple back when things like multisig opcodes came about those opcodes HAD format requirements, had rules.. rules attached of what content was expected to be found when using such opcodes.. thus they were not lame unassigned opcodes that allow any random junk. opcodes should have rules if they are to be used. the unassigned ones should be deactivated until PROPOSALS are made to assign rules to opcodes. and then when pools say they are ready to validate such becasue they have upgraded their nodes to validate such then they can make blocks containing such. thus keep integrity aligned.. unlike the situation in the recent years yep recently DEVS said to pre-activate opcodes unassigned. and later add rules to them.. well guess what unassigned opcodes are being used so its time devs get off their asses and put the rules inplace they said they would do, or deactivate them until they do and if you are still delusionally sticking to the script i dare you to add a ordinal jpeg meme to a legacy transaction.. oh you cant... well ask yourself why then go do your research Dude, you are too fixated on specific implementation details and it prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees. It is possible to ban a particular implementation at the cost of several years of progress towards scaling, a split in the community, and perhaps even at the cost of the success of the bitcoin project as a whole. But it is impossible to forbid the very fundamental possibility of adding arbitrary data to the bitcoin blockchain, because it has existed since the start of the network. You forbid one implementation - sooner or later there will be another. But then you will not be able to say in a conversation with friends over a glass of whiskey that this network is resistant to censorship and anti-fragile. Think about it at your leisure. |
|
|
|
i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from, drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama.
but here is the thing
segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable
yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through
I don't think I'm going to hit a finger in the sky if I assume you're from the old guard of futuristic retrogrades who are against any development of bitcoin at all - hands off self-sufficient ideal perfection and let us croak peacefully in our cozy little swamp. You are mistaken, this problem existed before the 2017 update, but before that there was no attempt to use it on a mass scale. |
|
|
|
so how about you stop sucking up to them and realise their lame excuses to evade fixes is them not doing their role as maintainers of bitcoin security
The security of bitcoin is threatened only by a sharp reduction in the hashrate and nothing else. As long as the network hashrate grows or remains stable, then everything is fine with security. But any attempts at censorship can seriously threaten the future of bitcoin as a censorship-resistant system, and the developers are well aware of this, and therefore are inactive. This Pandora's box is not to be touched. If shitty pictures can bring the bitcoin network to its knees, then the place of this network is already in the dustbin of history. the shitty pictures only were allowed due to a BUG core devs were calling a feature, which THEY enabled a feature they promised would enable people to do multisig using only 1 signature space (thus their promise is broken by not doing as intended) - thus not a feature they also WEAKENED consensus which allowed the snowball growth of exploits if you want to let the devs continue tinkering and weakening bitcoin then knees are not the problem. falling on its face into a pile of shit will be letting it continue unfixed is making bitcoin worse. if they make it so its exploitable, but unwilling to fix it.. then that is a bad premiss to make years ago when bugs were made, devs fixed them. so we should get them to fix their latest bug they enabled they already opened pandorers box. so you are too late in the "dont touch" but now you dont want them to close the box reversing an exploit is not breaking anything. its fixing it. before the exploit(pre 2021 inception of lots of new crappy opcodes) no one was crying that it was hindering development. it was the updates of 2021 that really weakened consensus further to the point of letting these shitty things happen now going back to 2021 standards wont hinder development. it would just mean devs will need to think smarter next time before enabling shitty opcodes and to reinforce the rules of consensus a few practical things can be done to other changes too from the past. where rules actually need to have conditions. and validations checks actually do their job of validating content You are mistaken, the problem existed before the 2021 update, but before that there were no attempts to exploit it on a mass scale. The patch may make exploiting this vulnerability more difficult, but it won't help to get rid of it completely - and will give rise to a host of other negative side effects, the full extent of which is currently difficult to determine. Perhaps the most insignificant of them is that it will cross out the bitcoin development roadmap. |
|
|
|
<This post does not quality for sig campaign payments per my request, if that makes your astute mind feel better.>
Your gesture is commendable, but it has little effect on the overall balance of power in this issue of pro and contra. I don't want your sacrifice, make money while you have the opportunity, I just don't want the fear of losing this source of income to interfere with your ability to adequately assess the possible negative side effects of your proposed hasty decisions. |
|
|
|
so how about you stop sucking up to them and realise their lame excuses to evade fixes is them not doing their role as maintainers of bitcoin security
The security of bitcoin is threatened only by a sharp reduction in the hashrate and nothing else. As long as the network hashrate grows or remains stable, then everything is fine with security. But any attempts at censorship can seriously threaten the future of bitcoin as a censorship-resistant system, and the developers are well aware of this, and therefore are inactive. This Pandora's box is not to be touched. If shitty pictures can bring the bitcoin network to its knees, then the place of this network is already in the dustbin of history. |
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, there are rumors, which I can neither confirm nor deny, that as a result of one of the missile strikes, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny was eliminated. At least he hasn't appeared in public for about a month. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the delay of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
