pull down to refresh
@0xbitcoiner
2,177,603 sats stacked
stacking since: #280679longest cowboy streak: 48npub16mwf2...8gxq4w2myx
18 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 58m \ on: Our new FBI director? Politics_And_Law
I'm always surprised by the Americans' appetite for uncertainty. He say radical things, let's see if he's going to do what he's been preaching or if he's like others who, once in power, change the way they are.
no paywall: https://archive.is/cfp2k
Apparently it's not just Eric Berger from ARS!
Honestly, it's difficult to know what is going on here. In the website's terms of use, there is a comment that references the site as "protected parody, represents performance art, and is for entertainment purposes only." Also, this isn't actually Enron's original domain. It still exists here. So maybe it's all a lark?
What you're saying might work if Sn had thousands or millions of users, but that's not the case. And when the user base is small, manipulation is very easy to do. And that's what happens on SN, don't doubt it.
This isn't bitcoin, this is a discussion forum with bitcoin rewards. If those rewards are manipulated, then there's no point because there's no fairness in the rewards. I don't make a living from it but it seems to me that there are people here who do and that's a great incentive to manipulate the rewards. Someone has to be in charge!
@Signal312's post is a few days newer than my sn account and I had never read it. It has good analogies and I enjoyed reading it, thanks for sharing. I also liked @Lux's comment.
It's not about privacy, it's about knowing how to exercise your rights. The order applies only to persons, not to living men. You either govern yourself or someone else will.
I don't like that part of DC's personality either, but he's right about a lot of things, especially when it comes to assmilking and the rewards gamming using multi-accounts. I never really worried about it because I always thought that k00b was in charge. I don't know if this is the case anymore. Just so it's clear that I'm not defending anyone, fortunately I have the ability to ignore what doesn't interest me. I distinctly remember replying to him (fuck you) in my 22nd item!
I'm not finding it but I saw someone on nostr who posted a purchase over 100k, isn't that enough? What's your criteria for the contest?
That's exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you!
If you prefer diagrams: https://i.sstatic.net/VWwJq.png (there are more addresses in the address space than there are zeptometres, 1/1 000 000 000 000 000 000 of a metre, in the universe's width).If you prefer maths: http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin-birthday.pdf (by Andrew Poelstra) says (slightly edited):Using [birthday attack maths], we calculated [above] that for a 0.1% probability of collision, we would need 5.4 Ă— 10^22 addresses in existence. For a 99.9999% chance, we would need 6.35 Ă— 10^24 addresses.So, even if there were 10^22 bitcoin addresses generated, a collision simply will not happen. But if there were 10^25 addresses generated, a collision absolutely would happen.Should we worry about this? No, for these independent reasons:The chance of getting a specific collision, say, a collision with one of your addresses, is still 1 in 2^160 or 1 in 10^48 . So even if you've got a million million million addresses, nobody has a chance of colliding with you.At the time of this writing, there are less than 10^7 addresses in use in the network. So anyone with 10^25 addresses would only be colliding their own addresses.Each address takes around 100 bytes to store. (Actually about half that, but we only care about orders of magnitude.) So for the network to support 10^25 addresses, it would take 10 million million terabytes of storage just to record them. (And this is not even touching the problem of searching such a huge data store.According to sipa, if the current mining network (which is at 25 THash, and the most powerful computing network in the history of the world) were switched over to address generation, the network could generate 2.5 Ă— 10^12 addresses per second (one address generation corresponding to roughly 10 hashes). At that rate, it would take 127,000 years to get so many addresses. It is debatable whether homo sapiens has walked the earth for that long.With 21 million bitcoins ever existing, and 8 decimal places of divisibility, at most 2.1 Ă— 10^14 can possibly have money on them at once. But in a space of 10^24 addresses, this means that only one in 10^12 addresses could possibly have money on them. So an attacker, after doing the physically impossible 3 trillion times over, has only a one in a trillion chance of getting even one satoshi out of it.
- #336862 on Stacker Saloon
- 491 sats \ 8 replies \ @orthwyrm \
December 3, 2023Day 232 of snailposting everyday 'til BTC hits $100k. [...]
@ek, did anyone win the 100k contest?