pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 12h \ parent \ on: Murch and Chris have a conversation - What is Going on Here??? bitcoin
That's exactly what it would accomplish.... bloat the UTXO set faster (the set is always growing, typically). That makes it harder to run a node over time, and could be an attack vector. At least that's what I would do
You know if she lost like 25 pounds (ok maybe 35 pounds) shaved better, redid her hair, got a better outfit...
She would look better. Right?
I know. Lightning is amazing.
I keep asking the cab/uber driver if they "take Lightning" and I haven't found even one who knows what the hell I'm talking about.
I hope we'll get there eventually one day.
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 19h \ parent \ on: Meme Monday - Best Bitcoin Meme Gets 5,000 CCs memes
I don't whether to laugh... or to cry
If Bitcoin is to become a "medium of exchange" we have to use it, right?
What good is the HODL forever, never touch your bitcoin, put it in a shoebox forever never do anything with it mentality?
I don't know any Bitcoiners in person... and the concept of "spending Bitcoin" is a totally alien concept to 99% of the people I've dealt with.
There's no shortage of BS-people and suitcoiners and degens and "crypto-traders" but there are very few real Bitcoiners using their Bitcoin.
Counterparties...
Lol.
I have to travel LONG distances to find anywhere to spend Bitcoin and the merchants I talk to? Maybe 1-2 times a month they have someone who wants to "pay in Bitcoin."
And that's in Bitcoin-centric cities within countries.
In the States the vast majority of the merchants I've spoken with "don't take it anymore" because noone showed up.
I'd like to ask this... and get a no-BS honest answer.
Where did the cypherpunk people go? Are they just "here" as in on Stacker News?
Did they go to another cryptocurrency? (XMR or something?) Or were there just not that many of them to begin with? Or some left the movement completely?
Nostr doesn't feel cypherpunk to me it feels like marketing. Maybe parts of are punk but it's such an incredibly small community it's a razor-thin area within a subculture.
This doesn't feel like 'adoption' it feels like cope... the dissonance between 'bitcoin is money' and 1 sat/vbyte in my opinion isn't healthy. Thanks
Imagine if EVERY Bitcoiner in the USA did a 21-day Bitcoin ONLY challenge. It would change everything. It would have a huge impact on the economy for those 21 days, and merchants would adapt quick. Politicians would have to change their approach to things like capital-gains taxes on Bitcoin or they'd be voted out in no time.
I agree 100%. Talk is cheap. Where are the people spending???
I understand that this process won't be overnight... but frankly all the "monetary-maxi" people talk about is.... talk.
They don't act. Monetary maxi people on social media talk a great game about "bitcoin the money" etc but are they spending? My experience suggests very few of them.
I understand the arguments you're making.
I hate spam.
I just don't think that Bitcoiners have a leg to stand on... when the demand/fee for blockspace is so low. If users don't care more about Blockspace... why should the spammers? We lose credibility with half-empty blocks.
Since full blocks are full blocks (put that aside from the UTXO set increase)...
If full blocks are full of 'data' with fewer and higher-fee transactions...
Or with less data ut more smaller transactions that add up to a similar total block reward...
They're both the same from a node's perspective right?
Full blocks of monetary usage take storage. Full blocks of 'data' also take storage. So... what's the difference from the node's perspective?
It's all data storage. I say let the "most valuable" blockspace economics win...
why do you keep saying alternate implementation? the same implementation can have different policies. A bad actor does not need to deploy an alternate implementation to do this. They could run their Bitcoin Core nodes in blocksonly mode with -whitelistrelay, which would allow them to "filter" by only transactions that come from nodes they like.
100%. I think of blockspace as an information battlefield... based on fees and energy. If you want in the blocks you have to 'outbid' your adversary. How else could a similar "fair" system function???
I think the capital gains taxes rules are having their intended effect - they are keeping people from accepting Bitcoin especially on the business side. The tax compliance is too difficult.
Beyond that I think some of the runes/ordinals didn't "start out" as a government attack... but it represents more or less how I would attack the network.
The best government attack is one where the government pays miners to mine junk that keeps the hashrate high, blocks full, but bloats the UTXO set...
Or where the government directly bloats the UTXO set with OR without the arbitrary data component - the growth in UTXO set is actually what harms nodes from what I understand.
Eventually it makes nodes harder to run and with fewer nodes and more expensive hardware eventually the network will be starved of fee pressure, miner revenue, privacy, and a manageable UTXO set.
Then it just kind of... collapses or at best/worst is nerfed relative to central banks and the money printer which is the whole point anyway.
That's the approach I would take if I were government.
My understanding is that Bitcoin cannot sit forever at 1 sat/vbyte, at least not without considerable increases in exchange rate, without starving miners of revenue and ultimately hashrate.
Bitcoin doesn't have a "tail emission". It eventually FWIU needs fees to provide revenue to miners. There are LOTS of sources of fees if people use Bitcoin to transact and embrace it as transactional capital/currency/medium of exchange...
But it was not designed to "just sit." EVENTUALLY I believe it will be a MoE because it is a store of value in a world awash in fiat and debt and people will want it.
However we are not there today and IMO we do ourselves a disservice by 'becoming comfortable' with half-empty blocks it is not OK long term.
If "run Knots" would meaningfully impact the ability of certain transactions to get confirmed...
What's to keep a government from spooling up their OWN nodes, and lots of them in a cloud with their own relay policies that start to censor certain kinds of transactions?
If "run knots" will effectively filter...
What about "run government"???
That's not the way government will look at it.
Government will say "oh it's in the blocks" therefore "all nodes" (Listening nodes) are relaying this stuff.
Which they can't do because its illegal. It doesn't matter what relay policy says... if it gets in one block it's everywhere and if I were government that's the way I would attack it.
Which is exactly why I think that the "number of nodes" with various software versions running...
Doesn't really mean anything.
If the node isn't used for anything, if it never broadcasts a transaction, or verifies a user's balance of received sats...
Its impact on the network is very small/negligible. This is because in the event of a consensus change/fork/disagreement a node that isn't associated with 'hard-purchased-value' AKA Bitcoin and energy isn't really worth anything.
All the more reason why a government-sponsored series of nodes, that run a certain version of software or certain filters cannot really have an censorship-like impact on the network.
How do we know that all the Core nodes... or even all the Knots nodes aren't running on Amazon AWS? Any number of nodes can be spun up in the cloud and make it 'look' like they are "more of the network". Otherwise a government could spin up their own nodes with their OWN filters and somehow that would censor the Bitcoin network? Really??? That doesn't make sense.
I find it nonsensical that this "percentage of nodes" metric keeps getting repeated... many of the Knots nodes (or Core nodes) could just be AWS and verify... nothing.
What matters is fees and demand for blockspace.