I have few questions,
Don't
There's no point arguing with spammers.
Those are rhetoric questions.
User:
DonaldCryptoTalk1Additional information (optional):
* This user received at least 2 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65778439#msg65778439 and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg65581422#msg65581422.
* This user already received 3 feedback due to spamming with AI/chatbot.
* I reported some of his post, but he continue to spam.
List of post:
--snip--
Excellent ELI5 explanation. The “three doors” analogy is especially effective at explaining why lifting the OP_RETURN standardness limit doesn’t magically create a new attack vector, but instead nudges existing behavior toward the least harmful path.
One point that’s often missed in these debates and that you explain well is that Bitcoin has never been able to prevent arbitrary data entirely. Attempts to “ban spam” usually just push it toward methods that are worse for node operators, particularly permanent UTXO bloat. From that perspective, OP_RETURN is not a concession, but a containment strategy.
I also appreciate the distinction between technical incentives and market driven hype. Any short term spike after v30 will almost certainly be social (novelty, protest, marketing), not structural. Long term usage will still be governed by fees and demand, and those economics remain unchanged.
While a gradual increase might have reduced backlash, the core argument stands: changing defaults doesn’t change what Bitcoin allows, only which trade offs are encouraged. And in this case, the trade off clearly favors node sustainability and decentralization.
1. He quoted entire d5000 thread which have about 9 thousand character.
2. Most of his post simply summarize and rephrase d5000 thread.
User:
hmbdofficialAdditional information (optional):
* I suspect this user use AI/chatbot.
List of post:
Can someone explain the upgrade better but in a simplified context.
before segwit upgrade was introduced bitcoin transaction operate the legacy transaction where the unlocking code for a transaction which is the signature are put together with the transaction data in the input as such the signature data is part of every transaction data then the TXID will be created from entire transaction data including the signature data as well, which consumes more storage.
but with the introduction of the segwit the signature data was separated from the transaction data thereby creating the TXID from only the transaction data not including the signature data which gives more storage space for the transaction data.
this should be the simplest way to explain the segwit upgrade you can see link below for better understanding.
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/beginners/guide/segwit/1. As stated by other user on
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5569700.msg66287462#msg66287462, this explanation isn't easy/clear to understand.
2. Claim of legacy TX consume more storage is wrong, since
raw bytes of P2PKH (legacy address) and P2WPKH (native segwit address) isn't that different. Here's example calculation from
https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-transaction-size-calculator/Number of inputs 1
Input script type P2PKH
Signatures per input 1
Transaction size in raw bytes: 158
Transaction size in virtual bytes: 158
Transaction size in weight units: 632
Number of inputs 1
Input script type P2WPKH
Signatures per input 1
Transaction size in raw bytes: 161.5
Transaction size in virtual bytes: 79
Transaction size in weight units: 316
I have trouble about this seed phase, many crypto wallet I have opened before got lost because of seed phase, can't this seed phase be removed from wallet and allow pass key or some codes? Why is it that necessary? What's your opinion "seed phase or passed key?
Did you realise you’re saying you want to have a group of 128- 256 random numbers instead of the 12 -24 phrase thats what you’re asking for indirectly because there is no way you have a wallet without seed phrase, except if it’s a custodian wallet where you can assess fund through 2FA
If you cannot manage 12 -24 word I don’t how you can manage the 128-256 bit numbers because those numbers are like the entropy of that seed.
1. Actually there are some wallet software that let you create wallet seedphrase, such as Electrum and Bitcoin Core.
2. While it's possible to get raw pass key and manage it manually, usually it's managed by OS or certain application you use.
Passkeys are broadly integrated at an operating system level.
If you want all your passkeys on all your devices, operating system be damned, you need a password manager. Most of the best password managers support passkeys, allowing you to store and sync them on nearly any device.
User:
TinubuAdditional information (optional):
* I suspect this user use AI/chatbot.
* This user received at least 2 accusation of spamming with AI/chatbot. See
https://bitlist.co/post/66195448 and
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg66204255#msg66204255.
List of post:
All suggestion on this post already mentioned by other member.
1. While it's not user-friendly approach, other user already mention it's actually possible to prune by date. See
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5568319.msg66170419#msg66170419.
2. Suggesting to use block explorer isn't helpful, since the one who asked question already mentioned his goal is to learn about pruning system.
There are some methods to trivially check if the node is synced to some degree, but none can verify whether it's completely synced.
Obvious indicators:
- If you cannot connect to the LND node address, then its channel graph has definitely not been built.
- Similarly, if the list of peers is zero or perhaps one (I could ask for this information for instance), the node is obviously not reachable so and therefore not likely to be synced, as LND nodes need to be online 24/7.
You can also check the block number...is node at the latest block..??
And it should also match the network size ( how many channels does it know..??)
I also learnt that LND has built-in a status check that you can look at..but you really can't be sure that the node is completely synced..(but that is enough for it to work properly)...so you can check multiple things at a time..like (peers + blocks + channels + uptime)..this can tell you if it's "good enough to use" but not "perfect"..
Another user explain what's wrong with this post.
You can also check the block number...is node at the latest block..??
And it should also match the network size ( how many channels does it know..??)
I also learnt that LND has built-in a status check that you can look at..but you really can't be sure that the node is completely synced..(but that is enough for it to work properly)...so you can check multiple things at a time..like (peers + blocks + channels + uptime)..this can tell you if it's "good enough to use" but not "perfect"..
The poster can wait for someone to post and then shortly post after them. Alternatively they can get this information from someone else. It does not prevent cheating in any meaningful way. The topic here is not about how one can check if a node is truly synced, but about how fraud can be avoided in the challenge. I've already answered it, it can not be avoided. Stop responding with AI nonsense. @NotATether it is better to avoid topics like this, we just encourage spammers.
