pull down to refresh
You are wrong, there is no usage pattern that mitigates the trusted coordinator's powers: Whenever a user is selected for a coinjoin round, the coordinator can insert 4 Sybil coins as the target's peers, silently deanonymizing them.
I would argue that Whirlpool is worse than a regular onchain payment by every metric: #1532477
I'm glad you are spreading the concept of competing RBF attackers burning the hourglassed coins into fees (I was the one who mentioned it during Hunter Beast's Q&A at OP_NEXT 2025).
I haven't checked how Luxor spends its pool rewards, do you coinjoin them before paying out pool participants? Or open Lightning channels?
putt.day #77 ⛳ 7/9 Eagle · 🔥29
🟡🟡🟡🟡🟡🟡🟢
https://putt.day/s/Jj7hEmpOJEZI
I didn't realize how the fact that nodes create this flooding dynamic is actually such a risk: every node broadcasts a new transaction to all other nodes that don't know about it. So each new transaction quickly floods the network. You might think this was not a great attribute to have in a permissionless peer-to-peer pseudonymous network.
So instagibs came up with some rate-limit rules for such a network:
- should keep your CPU available for validating blocks and transactions, not use it all up for resorting the same set of txs for each peer
- should cope cleanly with large backlogs of transactions
- should smooth out large transaction bursts, focusing on relaying the txs in the top of the mempool (per cluster mempool rules, of course)
- introduces a new bandwidth ratelimit that should prevent excessive numbers of large transactions that never confirm from blowing out your VPS’s monthly limit, even if you have a couple of hundred peers to relay those txs to
Every time I hear about something that people are working on in Bitcoin, it opens a huge door where I discover all kinds of things I didn't know.
🟩
It depends on your goals:
1 - 3 stocks: Yolo/Wealth Creation
10 - 20 stocks: Alpha Hunting
100+ stocks: Wealth Preservation
Interesting historical context here: way back in the day Mike Hearn advocated to use rate limiting to make nSequence based transaction replacement “work”.
What that means is while replace-by-fee allows a transaction to be replaced by a higher fee, nSequence replacement just lets you replace a transaction an essentially unlimited number of times without paying anything extra.
Of course, that was insane, so we got replace-by-fee instead.... but all these years later we're still adding rate limiting to cut down on any issues left over in edge cases.
Belt and suspenders!
Dude there are dozens of reasons to go back with the knowledge you already have, that have nothing to do with bitcoin!!
But there's a hidden risk. Knowing the future may change how I interact. What if I don't end up marrying the same person? Then the kids I have now will never have been born. Living with that knowledge would be insane.
Because of that, I'd probably choose 10 btc now over going back
🟩
It really depends on what kind of investor you are, short, medium, or long term.
Personally, I'm a long-term investor, and I think it's best to keep a small portfolio, maybe around five stocks. Those five companies will naturally benefit from short and medium term hype along the way. If things are going well, there's no real reason to sell.
I'm more into sector ETFs for the medium to long term. I don't have the time or the expertise to properly analyze individual companies.
I was really surprised that we got sub 1 sat/vB fees last summer. I kind of thought that miners would want to defend that as a valuable interval. Prior to last summmer, weren't we all kind of going along with increasing fees in increments of 1 sat/vB and now we can feebump by fractions of a sat/vB. This seems like it would lead to lost revenue for miners. Am I misunderstanding things? How did you feel about the sudden appearance of sub 1 sat/vB transactions?
You've got the mechanics right and the premise wrong. The 1 sat/vB floor was never
a price floor. It was a relay default in Core, minrelaytxfee, and a floor only
earns you money if there's demand you're turning away. Blocks haven't been
reliably full. The space under that floor was going out empty. A 0.1 sat/vB
transaction isn't taking a slot from a 1 sat/vB transaction, it's taking a slot
from nothing.
Second, you couldn't defend it even if it were worth defending. It's a cartel with
no enforcement mechanism. Any single pool that relaxes its floor out earns every
pool holding the line, submission paths around the public mempool exist, and there
are enough of us that somebody defects on day one. Fee floors need unanimity among
competitors who don't much like each other.
Your bidding ladder point is the good part of the question, and it's correct.
Fractional bumping does compress the increments. It only costs miners money during
congestion, though, and during congestion the clearing rate is 20 sat/vB and what
happens down at 1 is irrelevant. Sub 1 sat/vB is a symptom of a slack market, not
a cause of one.
How I felt about it: fine, we reconfigured. It cuts our costs too, since our own
payout transaction is our single largest expense when fees run hot.
The thing worth being annoyed about isn't the floor. It's that we're arguing over
tenths of a sat while fee revenue is a rounding error in the security budget. No
relay policy manufactures demand for block space.
Leftist military dictatorships always act like there's something noble about suffering. There isn't. The US needs to have zero tolerance for internal or external threats to our cheap air conditioning. Eating bitter is bad. Being poor is bad. Being rich and comfortable is good.
The kids you have now would not be born, even if you marry the same person. If you have the same number of kids, they'd essentially be siblings to the kids you have now.
DON'T EVER GO BACK IN TIME (at least prior to when my daughter was born)!!!
I seriously think lethal self defense is justified against anyone plausibly about to go back in time.
Complete and total lack of onchain activity. The reasons are up for debate.
This is an existential problem for Bitcoin and there is no workaround. All the BIPs, future challenges, etc... are meaningless without transaction fees onchain.
putt.day #77 ⛳ 5/9 Albatross · 🔥25
🟡🟡🟡🟡🟢
https://putt.day/s/8J8eoxvHZEKm
You made a typo, you meant to say "Entirely true".