Even though there are tons of great resources, I still have a really hard time wrapping my head around how Bitcoin Script works.
pull down to refresh
184 sats \ 32 replies \ @k00b 6h
I also haven't studied bitcoin script in great detail. I understand it enough to read it, but I wouldn't trust myself to write it.
I also haven't studied cryptography at a theoretical level very closely. I only understand it enough to apply it well.
The thing I still don't understand that I'm frustrated by the most is the origin of bitcoin's value. @elvismercury has raised a lot interesting questions about it. Every other other money that's existed started as something that had inherent value and only then developed a monetary premium. Bitcoin leap frogged that initial stage and most folks wave it away as unnecessary. I suspect, like elvis, that there's something to understand about that that I do not.
reply
349 sats \ 5 replies \ @fourrules 5h
Nick Szabo spelled it out clearly in 2002, and the fact that he spelled it out before bitcoin had been conceived to me gives it a more scientific basis. It was predicted, and then it manifested itself.
Money starts as a collectible. The fact that physical commodities can be collectibles is incidental. Not all commodities become collectibles. For example, during covid oil had negative value. Collectibles don't ever have negative value, they might go close to zero but by definition there is always someone willing to pay more than zero to own and hold them. Houses are collectibles, rare wine if a collectible, gold bullion is a collectible, antique furniture is collectible. It is the fact that it's collectible that gives it value, not that it is a collectible because it's valuable. Air is valuable, but not collectible, because to be a collectible it must be difficult to collect, because the function of a collectible is to discriminate between the people who have it, and the people who don't, because the people who have it must have sacrificed or worked or been clever enough to get it cheap (foresight), in other words to be a collectible a thing must be capable of measuring the capacity and capabilities, the means, the status, the quality, the worth of the owner.
Then from there they can either be SoV or MoE, depending upon the response of the incumbent governance system. In our case bitcoin is a store of value first because of financial suppression and a propaganda campaign, because governments who don't hold bitcoin cannot pay their historical liabilities, and they cannot buy it without pumping the price. If there were no government backlash bitcoin would become a medium of exchange, even marginally so, and then due to its properties it would quickly become the dominant medium of exchange.
And the final stage, once it's the dominant medium of exchange and store of value, is unit of account, the thing by which everyone and everything is measured.
Fiat is no longer a collectible, so it's dying as money.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 5h
I like this but I'm not sure it's true. Oil had negative value like a beanie baby collector might pay someone to take their collection away.
reply
50 sats \ 2 replies \ @fourrules 4h
This is a fair point. I guess I was sorting shooting from the hip with that one. I think one can say that if oil had more collectible value it would not have gone into negative prices.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 1h
Oil has negative carry, meaning it costs money to store it and transport it... so does gold when it's vaulted but its really not comparable given density and optionality
Land has taxes/defense, maintenance if its to be productive...
Lack of negative carry is one of Bitcoin's most unique properties.
reply
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 1h
I'd argue that Bitcoin has a slight negative carry, due to a need to maintain security, but definitely much less per value unit than any of what you mentioned.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 5h
this is pretty good. there's a lot to think about here, but I like how you put it.
reply
31 sats \ 19 replies \ @justin_shocknet 6h
Arguably gold never had inherent value until electricity was invented to give it utility as a conductor
reply
0 sats \ 18 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 6h
reply
37 sats \ 17 replies \ @k00b 6h
All were otherwise valued as ornament. Gold was used for data storage too.
reply
100 sats \ 7 replies \ @justin_shocknet 6h
Cloud services / software, Bitcoin is a hosted database
Accreditation / membership, Bitcoin is a network
Value is subjective, so ornaments have no "inherent" value as you put it, only utility is inherent value, and history is rife with non-utility
reply
17 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 5h
Perhaps inherent value is the wrong term. With your clarification, I'd just say value.
reply
100 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5h
That makes it easier then to compare I think...
Stones/shells didn't start out as money, but people collected them for ornamental purposes, then money emerged from that bootstrapping by mineral spergs
Bitcoin started out as a toy collectible much in the same way, even though it was designed as money, value still had to emerge from an otherwise valueless ornament for spergs
reply
17 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 5h
The toy collectible thing is my favorite answer to this question. All the other moneys that started that way didn't do too well in the long run though, but perhaps this initial value thing is independent of a money's trajectory.
view all 3 replies
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 5h
Your other answers (db/membership) are the kinds of answers I usually encounter which might explain this problem well enough - although it's kind of unsatisfying. In that spirit we could also say that blockspace was collectible, a ledger entry was a collectible.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby 5h
A thing that absolutely nobody wants is going to be difficult to get many people to agree to use as money. Whereas, something that is already perceived as being valuable can easily slip into being used as a money.
So maybe the issue is with the term "inherent" which usually implies that a thing has value no matter who you ask (or what their circumstances are).
reply
102 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 5h
I think my use of inherent is wrong - a noob's mistake.
How did bitcoin achieve moneyness while being worthless initially? Is it speculation all the way down?
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 5h
well, but you are hitting on something that's different about Bitcoin.
I think it's connected to the chicken-egg problem of no people spending bitcoin because no merchants accepting bitcoin because no people are spending bitcoin...
This problem should have happened to Bitcoin's value in the beginning. Nobody sees it as valuable because the only possible value is if other people see it as valuable and nobody saw it as valuable yet...
I suspect the early blackmarket uses are what jump started it: satoshi dice, silk road, early markets where you could bet or buy "shares" in companies.
Now we've reached the bitcoin is widely seen to be valuable point, but we still haven't crossed over into people widely accepting it. I like to think SN plays a role in being one of the vanguard forces pushing for monetary use of Bitcoin. It's the second most exciting thing about SN.
reply
109 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 5h
Yes, this is another answer that I like to this question: the origin of bitcoin's value (beyond speculation that it will be valuable) does not provably exist yet.
reply on another page
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 6h
The strictly limited issuance of Bitcoin, is a thing of beauty also, perhaps, to those so long enslaved by the fiat debt slavery bankers cartel?
reply
107 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 6h
You didn't have strictly limited issuance initially - ie it was not decentralized for a few years and the limit could not be assured.
To be clear: I'm not saying bitcoin needs this initial inherent value property to be great money, but there's something to know about why bitcoin doesn't need this property.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 5h
Total issuance was set from day one at 21 million.
As was the programed decline in rate of issuance toward zero.
Thus strictly limited total issuance was set from day one.
Certainly it was easier to mine when just one or two people were mining but even Satoshi had to make some effort/expenditure of computing power even if small, to accumulate his sats.
As more people expended more effort to acquire value rose.
The self fulfilling cycle of FOMO.
From the start the inherent value was in holding the transfer/access keys to a token with a strictly limited total issuance...something that had never existed in the known universe before.
reply
7 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 5h
There were so few people mining then that consensus about 21 million was not stable enough to be the source of value.
view all 1 replies
1112 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 5h
Here is an excellent article from 2014 by Jeffrey Tucker:
https://fee.org/articles/what-gave-bitcoin-its-value/
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Jer 44m
Thanks for this!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nkmg1c_ventures 3h
I recall reading that it was rare digital gold early on. The graph of it approaching 21 million but not reaching it. It was billed as digital gold so maybe that’s a part of it, it piggy backed on people’s mental model of gold
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 6h
In the context of emerging post GFC, and 'Greenspans put' Bitcoin has the inherent value of being the first ever fungible commodity with a strictly limited total volume of issuance.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 6h
What's the commodity exactly? It's kind of self-referential, isn't it?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 5h
In the case of Bitcoin, I guess the commodity is the exclusive encrypted ability to transfer the tokens held at a specific address on the blockchain?
Like all money Bitcoin is an entirely human construct...in the case of Bitcoin, only existing within/upon the human construct of the blockchain.
So the inherent value is sourced in the right to transfer the right to transfer on the blockchain.
Yes rather circular!
reply
121 sats \ 4 replies \ @Scoresby 5h
I still don't understand how Bitcoin Core stores blockchain data. I mean I look at my computer and I've got these different folders, but I don't understand how Bitcoin Core builds the database of blocks and transactions. My understanding stops somewhere around there is a UTXO set and that's different than the blockchain dataset.
reply
602 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 5h
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Core_0.11_(ch_2):_Data_Storage - a bit old but the general idea stays the same
reply
202 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheCharlatan 4h
It's actually still very accurate.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 4h
The main changes vs 0.11 off the top of my head are txindex move to async indexer and the utxo change to per-output granularity?
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 5h
thanks! this is excellent!
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @Fenix 34m
I try, I read a lot of documentation and watched videos about it, but I can’t understand lighting network channels, liquidity and all stuff. I’m trying, but this is really hard to me.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 9m
Channels feel counterintuitive, but they do make sense eventually. Using an easy lightning node wallet like Phoenix or Zeus can sometimes make it simple.
Here's what made it click for me.
When you use something like Phoenix where the node is on your phone, you often only have one channel and that channel is with the node run by Phoenix.
Think of them as your gateway to the rest of the lightning network. Every payment you send will go through your channel with them. Same for every payment you receive.
Mostly, you can think of a lightning channel as just a 2 of 2 multisig where you and your channel partner each have one key.
When you open a channel with Phoenix you deposit some bitcoin into this multisig. Phoenix doesn't have to deposit any. So let's assume they don't.
If you kept track of who owns how much of the bitcoin in the multisig, you would say you own it all and Phoenix doesn't own any.
Now, when you send a payment you agree that some of the bitcoin in the multisig belongs to Phoenix...if (and only if) Phoenix sends the same amount to the destination you specify.
If they prove they have done so, you agree that some of the bitcoin in the multisig now belongs to Phoenix. But as long as the channel is still open (meaning as long as there is still a utxo controlled by this 2 of 2 where you and Phoenix each have a key), no bitcoin has actually left the multisig. All that happened is that you and Phoenix both agreed that some of it belongs to Phoenix now.
You could keep sensing lightning payments and asking Phoenix to send bitcoin on your behalf up to the point where all the bitcoin in the multisig is now owned by Phoenix. At that point Phoenix isn't going to send any bitcoin on your behalf because they have no guarantee that you will reimburse them.
If you receive a payment from someone else through your channel with Phoenix, Phoenix would agree that that amount of bitcoin in the multisig belongs to you. And you could keep receiving like that until you both agreed that all the bitcoin in the multisig belonged to you. At this point you couldn't receive any more because even of whoever wanted to pay you gave their bitcoin to Phoenix, you have no guarantee that Phoenix will give it to you.
The bitcoin in the multisig is what people call liquidity. When Phoenix makes a payment on your behalf, the bitcoin is actually moving through a series of relationships where people have these multisigs and agree to adjust how much each party owns.
This was pretty long winded, but I've never really liked any of the analogies people use, so I thought I'd just try to describe what is actually happening.
reply
102 sats \ 3 replies \ @79c9095526 5h
I still struggle with singlesig + passphrase vs. multisig.
I like multisig and use it today (rolled my own through sparrow), but I am considering moving back to singlesig + passphrase. I like the feeling that I can get up and with just my coldcard in my pocket (and passphrase in my head) get up and move my wealth.
My only concern is when I previously ran a singlesig + passphrase, I gave a trusted family member (my heir) the backup of the seed and also had them memorize the passphrase. I trust them completely so have no concern about them stealing my funds but worry about if someone is able to get to them and either coerce or trick them into handing over the seed and passphrase, especially with all the of AI call scams going on today.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 4h
to me, it's not really about trust. If something happens and the wallet is compromised, you don't know which copy of the key led to the compromise. I'm sure that you have a great relationship with your family members, but I imagine that uncertainty would put a lot of stress on the relationship (you thinking maybe they slipped up somewhere, but in reality it could have been you...)
If you did a 1 of 2 multisig and gave your trusted family member one of the keys, you would always be able to tell which key spends the funds .
I think the benefit of multisig is worth the loss in "get-up-and-vanish" ability.
It's a little more hassle, but some of the miniscript wallets with timelocks might be worth looking in to for your use case. They are usually set up as a 1 of 2 multisig where one of the keys can only spend after a certain threshold of time (so you could give it to a family member as a backup, but you don't have to be quite so worried if they get compromised). But they can have lots of configurations.
The downside to such wallets is that they usually require refreshing your coins every year or so (this means you send every utxo in your wallet to yourself -- it resets the timelock).
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @79c9095526 3h
I appreciate that feedback!
I really need to look into the miniscript wallets with timelocks. The 1 of 2 you describe sounds exactly like what I want. Do you have any you recommend?
Otherwise I may just stick with my 2/3 setup. While I don't love that it requires me to travel to access my bitcoin, I guess that is both a pro and a con!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 3h
Liana is very good, only qualification is that they don't have a mobile client. So you must use a desktop or laptop.
In addition, all the miniscript wallets only work with hardware devices that support miniscript (which are currently cold card, jade, bitbox, ledger, specter diy, and krux).
Bitcoin keeper is also good if you want a mobile first format.
reply
325 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5h
I don't understand why it was designed with "whole coins" being different than the base unit to where decimals are colloquial but not real in the sense of being floating point
I've seen theories about the emission schedule but they make even less sense
Not questioning it because it worked, but it's hard to explain to noobs... The bip to rename the base unit is cringe attention marketing but highlights the inconsistency
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @wackster OP 4h
It's like satoshi was optimistic enough to make 21 quadrillion coins, but not brave enough to release it that way, and chickened out, giving us 1 bitcoin = 100 million bitcoins
reply
7 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 4h
Yea I assume they had leveraged psych research into unit bias and momentum/velocity... would anyone care, even at current market cap, if the headlines were shit like "Bitcoin hits $.0001 per coin!"
$1 per coin very early on makes everything that comes after it possible
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SwapMarket 4h
Because floating point operations create rounding problems in computers. You must set certain precision (8 decimals) and then work with integer units of that precision (people decided to call them sats).
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 4h
Yea the question isn't why its not floating point, but why the macro unit differs from the base unit.
Psyops the only explanation: #1243715
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 5h
I still do not understand why people do not want to make the important step to learn about Bitcoin but still continue into fiat slavery. Also are many bitcoiners that still swim into fiat complacency.
Bitcoin is not just the technical aspect. Is much more than that.


reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @79c9095526 3h
Unrelated to what you said, but do you have thoughts on singlesig vs. multisig, particularly when considering having heirs who don't understand bitcoin?
I checked out your site but didn't see that topic addressed, but I may have missed it.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Jon_Hodl 36m
OP_RETURN
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bitcoiner1 3h
Was Satoshi the first person to upload Spam to the Blockchain?
reply