For a better understanding of this topic, it is important to know two things:
1. Currently, BYD is the world leader in the electric car market in terms of the number of cars produced, with a 1.5-fold advantage over Tesla.
2. Warren Buffett's investment fund Berkshire Hathaway is one of BYD's largest shareholders.

Although the current frenzy around funny green frog pictures seems a little artificially stimulated, this is another great stress test to test the Bitcoin network for anti-fragility and a clear demonstration in real time that the network can remain stable even in the distant future, when the reward for the block will tend to zero and the commission will be the only incentive for miners to continue working without relying only on sheer enthusiasm.

Glad she didn't have to wait too long. I hope that the quality of her messages will grow, with the support of financial incentives, and soon she will become the most progressive and richest bride in her geographical location.

You have a very limited view of the current situation. Why don't you, for example, be happy for the miners who earn a nice premium on top of their usual reward for their efforts to keep the bitcoin network running? Or do you think miners are not an important enough part of the bitcoin community? What makes you think that you have the exclusive right to determine exactly how the public blockchain should be used? Don't you see in the picture clear signs of success for the wider adoption of bitcoin, albeit not in the way you planned to see it?

How do you imagine it in terms of implementation? It should be some kind of open letter from the developers in the style of "dear miners, these records for the number of transactions are not at all the adoption that we all dreamed of, please vote for our changes so that you can earn less, and we can send transactions again with low commission"?

You are wrong to attribute to my messages a moral coloring in the style of "good" and "bad", I condemn only the misuse of tools. My extensive experience and diverse background in the field of information and physical security allows me to argue that partial and unsystematic efforts to preserve confidentiality are a waste of resources, and it would often be better if they did not exist at all, because the harm is greater than the benefit. It's like building a house with three walls and leaving a huge gaping hole instead of a fourth. You will be protected from idle prying eyes from three sides, but do not be fooled by the illusion that you are safe in such a house.

Well, well, what do we have here - a roll call of the surviving cypherpunks? I don't like these flat and stereotyped labels, but the true spirit of anarchy is close to me and I'm here.

Если вкратце, в период низких ставок банки привлекали бабло до 1% и выдавали бабло под 3-4% - и на эти два процента вполне себе безбедно жили. А когда ставка поднялась до пяти процентов - образовался досадно-неприятный кассовый разрыв в те же два процента, но в минус. Просто потому что оленей, желающих влезть в ипотечную кабалу под 7% внезапно оказалось не так уж много.

Не усложняй, я где-то читал расследование по поводу Силикон Валлей Банка, чёт не могу найти ссылку. Короче они финансово обслуживали успешные стартапы, которым венчурные фонды с периодом два пи выписывали жирные чеки в каждый новый очередной раунд финансирования. Венчурные фонды рисковали, стартапы тоже рисковали, а обслуживающему их банку то нахуя рисковать? Они как раз и придерживались супер-консервативной стратегии, чтобы не проебать чужую жирную кубышку, покупали трежерис и в ус не дули. А когда стартапы прибежали за баблом банку пришлось эти трежерис продавать до срока истечения, соответственно себе в убыток - потому что раньше они их покупали с доходностью один процент, а свежие трежерис продаются с доходностью 3-4%, соответственно старые трежерис без дисконта нахуй никому не нужны.

Вся эта банковская система оказалась типичным классическим гигантом на глиняных ногах. Два процента туда, два процента сюда - и вот ты уже не успешный банкир с портфелем из кожи крокодила, а выход в окно вон там. Вот и вся история.

Phosphorus weapons are not used in Bakhmut, you confused them with 9M22S or 9M28S magnesium shells launched from Grads. Magnesium shells have a number of advantages over obsolete and long-decommissioned phosphorus shells - they have a much higher combustion temperature, they are easier to store without the risk of self-ignition, they cannot be extinguished by cutting off the supply of oxygen, and they are not prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

Shit, it seems now the Russians will have to spend two whole Khinzals on one aircraft carrier.

If you only want to see financial banking transactions on the blockchain, why not use your favorite bank? There is censorship, a stable commission size and no anarchy - everything you like.

I think you don't usually make a payment for the sole purpose of "make a payment". For this payment, you want to receive something in return - a specific product or service. The weak point of your privacy strategy is that the full cycle of interaction "money-goods" or "money-services" is only partially performed in a decentralized peer-to-peer network, and the other part is performed in real life or on the Internet, where, generally speaking, it is much more difficult to protect yourself from deanonymization, especially if you voluntarily and knowingly display a "red flag" when making a payment using a mixer. The context can be almost anything - an unclosed adjacent browser tab, a smartphone’s geolocation not turned off, a voluntarily filled in postal address for a delivery service, a gait identification system through an outdoor surveillance camera at a pharmacy in a neighboring house, and you never know what else.
These are different things. In the case of Monero, not only the content of your payment is hidden from prying eyes, but the very fact of the payment is also hidden. Without a key to read a particular transaction, you won't even be able to know that it actually happened.
Yep. We're really talking here about a public ledger that you're trying to misuse by mixing - and in doing so, claim that "it's okay, it's definitely not for dirty illegal business like money laundering."

You do not live in a vacuum, but in real life. If necessary, you will be deanonymized not by the peer-to-peer payment passed through the mixer, but by the context of the payment. And using a mixer, you only attract additional attention to yourself, advertising that you are hiding something. You can deceive yourself as much as you like, but anonymity and privacy are a myth in the modern world.

If you want to make an anonymous payment, it's much more reasonable to use a monero-type blockchain that was initially closed than to try to obfuscate the trail in a public ledger like bitcoin. Mixing in a mixer gives the illusion of privacy, which, like any self-deception, is sometimes much more dangerous than its complete absence.

It would be great if there was a censorship mechanism in the bitcoin network that sorted all transactions in the mempool into those that Franky would like and those that Franky would not like, and would allow miners to confirm only the first ones. But no, wait, it's some kind of crap.

For a user who sends a dick pics or fart sound hoping to make a profit, this is also a financial transaction. And he paid the current actual price for its inclusion in the blockchain. This use case of the bitcoin network seems unusual to you, but this does not make it wrong. Don't worry, bitcoin has already proven itself anti-fragile enough not to break at the sound of a fart.

Let's stop this dialogue if the above arguments are not enough for you. I'm willing to admit that bitcoin coins are fungible enough these days to not worry too much about it. The risks of losing the fungibility of coins in the open blockchain in the future may differ from different points of view, depending on future development scenarios and on individual risk tolerance.

I guess I really don't understand the meaning of mixing. Why would I want to advertise the fact of mixing my coins? What do I benefit from this to offset the potential problems associated with the common use case for mixers to launder "dirty" money?

I don't understand what the problem is here either. If the transaction is confirmed and included in the blockchain, then it is correct, and if it was rejected, then it is not correct, that's all. Attempts to impose any other criteria for the correct use of bitcoin are laughable.

If you don't like the example of centralized exchanges, I can cite a number of others to support the generally self-evident point that bitcoins are not the same.
1. One bitcoin in an address with multiple inputs is not equal to one bitcoin in an address with one input. You can consolidate many inputs into one by making a transaction to your own address, but this will require additional effort, time, and miner fee overhead from you.
2. One bitcoin on a legacy address is not equal to one bitcoin on a segwit address or one bitcoin on a taproot address. You can transform address types by transacting to your own address, but this will also require you to add extra effort, time, and miner fee overhead.
3. There is a number of evidence that investors of a certain class prefer to buy bitcoins not on the exchange, but directly from mining companies, and even pay an additional premium to the market price for owning bitcoins with zero history.
4. Bitcoins from the earliest period of history (about a year after the genesis block) are under close scrutiny by blockchain analyzers, and their transition from a quiescent to an active state can lead to significant consequences. One bitcoin from this period of early history is not equal to one bitcoin from a more modern period of history.


I respect your right to confidentiality, anonymity and privacy, but it seems to me a rather stupid idea to use for this purpose a completely open and transparent bitcoin blockchain, which does not have the native fungibility of coins. I am not against the use of bitcoin mixers, but you should be aware of the possible negative consequences of their use in the present and in the future, which I mentioned above. The spread of bitcoin adoption could lead to the segmentation of the single bitcoin space into partially isolated fragments, some of which may be significantly affected by the efforts of regulators. If you live in an anarchist commune and use bitcoin as your only payment instrument, never touch fiat money, then you have nothing to worry about. If you live in a normal society and continue to use fiat gateways, then you should be aware that the use of bitcoin mixers increases your privacy and at the same time increases the risk of your deanonymization. Because you can mix well, but you can't hide the fact of mixing.

А какие тебе нужны например доказательства? Массовость падежа сойдёт за веское доказательство, что это не лудомания и долбоебизм отдельно взятого человеческого фактора, а глубокий системный фатал еррор? Последствия человеческой ошибки как правило всегда можно исправить, купировать, откатить всё взад из резервного бэкапа, наказать виновного и продолжить жить дальше. Есть подозрение, переходящее в уверенность, что нынешняя проблема с банками регионального калибра имеет характер фундаментального системного кризиса и мы на пороге грандиозного шухера. Посмотрим, чё гадать-то - это тот случай, когда шила в мешке не утаишь и географией США думаю дело тоже не ограничится.

My money lesson, which I learned this year, can be formulated as follows: there is a more successful year in the economic aspect, and there is a less successful one. But do not get too hung up on this, there are more important things in life.

You contradict yourself. First say that the history of a particular bitcoin does not matter, and then admit that this is only true until you use centralized exchanges, otherwise you will have problems freezing funds. And problems with freezing funds will also arise for someone who buys bitcoins from you that have passed through a mixer on a decentralized exchange, and then wants to bring them to a centralized exchange. For you it doesn't matter, but for someone it can be a serious limitation in the freedom to manage their funds. So don't tell me that the history of a particular bitcoin is unimportant, because it isn't. Conditional freedom is a kind of non-freedom.