pull down to refresh

@gregtonoski
1,958 sats stacked
stacking since: #149794
bio
50 items
by
for
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregtonoski 10 May \ on: Knotzis vs Coremunists culture
Bitcoin wins, degens cry.
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregtonoski 13 Mar \ parent \ on: Is this your wife Darth? lol
Anybody can hodl sats and spouses don't have to know about each other's stack.
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregtonoski 28 Feb \ parent \ on: Major Improvement of Initial Block Download (IBD) bitcoin
Indeed, peak clown marketing. Let's call that bullshit out. The y axis is duration so degradation instead of improvement of performance.
12 sats \ 1 reply \ @gregtonoski 27 Feb \ on: Continued analysis on SP500 Share vs minimum wage ratio (1940-Present) econ
May I ask you to show rates of changes of the two in a single chart (and a single scale), please?
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregtonoski 20 Feb \ on: Linux maintainer takes stance IN FAVOR of Rust drivers in Linux devs
Why drama? Can't Rust enjoyers simply fork off their own branch as a separate project?
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregtonoski 8 Feb \ on: R/Bitcoin: I am terrified to move my BTC bitcoin_beginners
The fear is normal. Get used to it. Tools are little intuitive and mistakes are commonplace. Don't rush, test, backup and share your experience to build knowledge and better tools.
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregtonoski 4 Feb \ on: Bitcoin is the perfect protection against divorce bullshit bitcoin
That's the reason Satoshi decided to stay anonymous - he feared parting his BTCs in divorce legal proceedings, did he?
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 3 Feb \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
Bitcoiners, your transactions with lower fee-rates are already relayed by mempool.guide.
Fee-rates as low as 0.001 sat/vbyte!
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @gregtonoski OP 3 Feb \ parent \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
  1. Correct.
  2. Disagree.
  3. Disagree. Would you apply the same logic/concern to other p2p networks, e.g. Torrent, perhaps?
  4. Not accepted.
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 3 Feb \ parent \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
I haven't claimed that miners were considering transactions paying less than minTxRelayFeerate (although they might have).
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 3 Feb \ parent \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
I think that the example proved that a "transaction paying less than minRelayTxFeerate" may be confirmed. I don't see what else may need to be proved.
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 3 Feb \ parent \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
Let's not exaggerate. This setting reconfiguration doesn't cause endless amounts of data to be forwarded.
What makes you considering a transaction with fee at 1 sat/vbyte as okay while the same transaction with smaller fee, e.g. at 0.1 sat/vbyte as not okay ("useless data")?
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 2 Feb \ parent \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
That's ok. In the end there is one transaction in mempools. A transaction is replaced with another one of the same size. What do you think justifies charging additional fee in such a case?
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan \ parent \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
The assumption that a transaction would have never got confirmed is incorrect.
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @gregtonoski OP 31 Jan \ parent \ on: Call for nodes reconfiguration: minrelaytxfee=0.00000001 bitcoin_Mining
That's not true. It means that the sender paid for the extra bytes at the same fee-rate.