4031 stacked

I want to see an email server where the spam filter is replaced with the requirement to pay 1 sat to each of the receiving addresses.

I hope this could make email decentralized again.

The first command returns the hash for block #0 (genesis bock):

1$ bitcoin-cli getblockhash 0

The second command should end with the number 2 for max verbosity (not 22) and returns the the block corresponding to that hash:

1$ bitcoin-cli getblock 000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f 2
1{ 2 "hash": "000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f", 3 "confirmations": 704426, 4 "height": 0, 5 [...] 6 "tx": [ 7 { 8 "txid": "4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b", 9 "hash": "4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b", 10 [...] 11 "vin": [ 12 { 13 "coinbase": "04ffff001d0104455468652054696d65732030332f4a616e2f32303039204368616e63656c6c6f72206f6e206272696e6b206f66207365636f6e64206261696c6f757420666f722062616e6b73", 14 "sequence": 4294967295 15 } 16 ], 17 "vout": [ 18 { 19 "value": 50.00000000, 20 "n": 0, 21 [...] 22 } 23 ], 24 [...] 25 } 26 ] 27}

The third command converts the coinbase for that block from hex to ascii

1$ echo 04ffff001d0104455468652054696d65732030332f4a616e2f32303039204368616e63656c6c6f72206f6e206272696e6b206f66207365636f6e64206261696c6f757420666f722062616e6b73 | xxd -r -p
1EThe Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Provided you have jq installed you can do it all at once, for any block for example:

1$ bitcoin-cli getblock "$(bitcoin-cli getblockhash 704429)" 2 | jq -r '.tx[].vin[].coinbase' | xxd -r -p

That is really, really cool.

For security and decentralization reasons, only functionary operators can upgrade nodes. By design, no single entity has remote upgrade capability, and there is no auto-upgrade functionality. The functionary software requires a manual upgrade, meaning a technician must be physically present in front of the hardware.

More centralized systems are easier to coordinate bug fixes and upgrades for, but blockchain security derives from operational decentralization and a defensive shield of many full node verifiers.

Thanks. FYI you can fit the small wires of an old led through the analog socket. Not that I recommend it but it works: led

node The node is on the right running on a standard Raspberry Pi 4 with 8GB. The case is an Argon One M2. It has excellent passive cooling and a fan if you really need to push it. There is a slot for the 2 TB SSD. It also has GPIO access so I attached an old speaker to beep on each new block with a little python. Oh and the little model cars change color depending on the temperature so that hopefully I would notice if the thing turned off ;)

Oh! Well in that case, I'm all for it.. Didn't realize I was answering a completely different question... sorry!

I would love if you or someone like you compiled a list of the most interesting or fun questions/observations they come up with over time.

I like the idea of a tipping fee. It could be 'difficulty' adjusted based on the traffic in a way that it scales with server costs rather than userbase. Unless of course, your plan is to generate exponential profit ;)

I don't like the idea because it decouples value from content and instead assigns value to identity/reputation. People change, but comments stay.

Say a valuable contributor suddenly turns shitcoiner for whatever reason. His earlier posts should still hold the same value. But the shitcoin content wouldn't get promoted much if at all.

But if people were to use donations received in the past as a way to measure someone's current quality of posts, then I fear there would be a perverse side effect of potentially promoting bad content based on unrelated, unknown or forgotten contributions. (Think of newcoiners trying to get a sense of who to reach out to or follow for truthful help or information)

We always have the possibility of adding a donation address or invoice to our bio. And how much someone received in donations as a person shouldn't necessarily be made public unless they chose to. I understand content is never totally separate from who authored it, but we should aim for that distinction because some people will change, some coats will turn, yet that shouldn't invalidate any past or future statement on its own.

I like that you aren't allowed to edit a post after some minutes because I wouldn't want to tip something which then gets edited to say the opposite. I would even argue that editing one's post should reset the associated sats count to zero (and possibly send those back to their original owners).

I found Breez really nice. It handles on-chain and Lightning and does some channel magic so you have enough liquidity straight away.

You can embed images directly like so:



Personally I think I would prefer something like B,BBB.ss_sss_sss Examples:

  • 1,234.56_789_012 BTC
  • 0.00_012_345 BTC
  • 12,345 sats
  • 0.00_010 BTC
  • 10,000 sats

I have never used radio but always found it interesting. I'm aware of several examples of successfully broadcasting bitcoin transactions via radio but this seems to be more to extend the network for special circumstances like emergencies etc.. because presumably, the user could broadcast a transaction but not keep the blockchain in sync. At least this is my current understanding.

I'm not sure if a mesh radio network would scale in terms of bandwidth. And as the only support for communication of Bitcoin data my concern is that it would be a centralizing factor in how blocks are propagated. But as a redundant source of confirmation (you would only need to download the blocks hashes) or as some sort of central proxy that anonymizes the sender of the transaction I could see it being a good solution to have around.

If the internet was mostly shut down by a government in a specific country, one could still potentially use that SMS service as long as the server was hosted outside of said country.

The 'Bitcoin Network' is Internet dependent, is it not? Nothing in Bitcoin's consensus rules says nodes must communicate via the Internet. It's just how most (if not all) clients are implemented.

You can tell a lot of work has gone into it. And despite a mainstream feel, sometimes gimmicky visuals and the occasional mention of "cryptocurrencies", I thought it seemed like a good high level overview of Bitcoin and its implications for the layman, and personally I'm happy these things exist. Thanks for sharing!

I love what you're doing and how you're approaching it. For what it's worth I was wondering how difficult it would be to have say a browser plugin that would notify you when viewing a page already posted here, so you could tip/boost that post with one click. I'm guessing the constant querying (checking if a page is posted here) would be a problem but one might download a set of hashes initially, which for 100,000 posts would be about 2 mb in size. You could also make querying some API cost some sats or millisats. You may also want to constrain the urls posted to their simplest form to avoid duplicates. Just some lazy thoughts from my armchair at this point. Very much enjoying the site :)

I like the idea of letting the market logic of the ranking system decide what stories might be interesting to me whatever the subject. I'm also interested to see how it would play out in terms of incentives, whether it effectively renders spam cost-prohibitive and other ways it prevents the spreading of information from being gamed by actors with a lot of resources.

A lot of these are truths about money not Bitcoin specifically and while they might be hard to stomach, I think Bitcoin contributes to a lot of people more and more having to confront these truths about money.

I like stressing that Bitcoin is neutral money, and that if you understand how biased economic systems based on fiat currency are, it's obvious that while money isn't everything, the form of money adopted by societies largely determines the state of human civilization and enlightenment. Bitcoin fixes "everything" is not to be taken literally, but it's not far off either.

  • If Satoshi would set the initial block reward constant to 64 instead of 50, we would have 26.8 million coins instead. If the point is that these numbers are arbitrary and we shouldn't treat them as special, I totally agree. If the block reward was double and the limit was 42 million, "1 bitcoin" would simply be worth half the price it is today. It wouldn't change the market cap in terms of US dollars, and it wouldn't affect the purchasing power of any specific percentage of the total supply. In fact the only thing that would change is the ability to spend to the equivalent of .5 satoshi granularity in today's terms, all other things being equal.