pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @CruncherDefi 4 Oct \ on: What is the longest you would time lock your coins? bitcoin
0 seconds. Time lock strictly decrease security.
If there is security slip-up at any time, with timelock I cannot immediately migrate my UTXOs. So adversaries have some guaranteed time window to figure out and exploit the security slip-up.
The only (afaik) reasonable use-case for timelocking is having additional time-locked spend-condition for inheritance/recovery. But still main spend-condition is not time-locked in that scenario.
what incentive do (major) governments have to adapt Bitcoin as their currency
Related question would be "What incentive do (major) governments have to obey the democratic decisions?".
Assuming that most individuals chose bitcoin, the answer to both is "Because that's what individuals want, and if you go against their choice, you are out."
Why does the Dust limit filter work so well?
Because this filters is aligned with the actual logic the miners use to decide "What to include in the block".
Are you fucking kidding me? The most important commodity that takes part in the all the transactions (money) is centrally planned. How could you possibly call the market 'free' in that scenario?
It could be good for humanity to popularize some kind of sovereign kill-switch software. Something you install on your PC (so you don't need to trust some 3rd party) that would send an email to press/friends/social_media (with secret data you held because of threats) after few days inactivity.
If Kirk knew his at a risk of assassination, he could put all the threats/proofs in the kill-switch-message effectively punishing the assassinators post-mortem.
If every high-profile person did that, every government would think twice before taking down someone.
The question in the title is incorrect. It should have been "Why are so many young people getting diagnosed cancer?"
We don't have access to underlying true data. We only have access to proxy observable data.
From utilitarian perspective priority pass is easily worth it. If you calculate how much does it cost to spend one hour in the park, and then calculate how many hours you spent in lines, it easily pays off to take priority pass.
I agree that fiat-denominated fees have are not as low as btc-denominated fees. See the second chart in the OP.
When it comes to miners who have fiat-denominated expenses, this argument may make sense (...)
(...) affected by the change in exchange rates, and so it seems to me that they are moot.
That's why I explicitly mentioned 'value' and differentiated it from 'price'. Your points seem to focus on 'price'. My whole reasoning focuses on 'value'.
A metaphor could be Mass vs Weight. Mass is inherent property of a body. Weight is a measurement you get using something else. And on different planet you will get different weights, while mass stays the same. Similarly, if you use different denominating assets (like dollar, euro, eggs or 1 kg of beef) you will also get different prices.
Value is like mass - it's an inherent property of an asset. Price is like a weight - it's a relative measurement when you express value of an asset denominated in a value of other asset (UsdBitcoinPrice == ValueOfBitcoinUnit / ValueOfDollarUnit).
My claim is that not only 'price' of bitcoin increased, but also 'value' of bitcoin increased. And it's obvious why is that the case - adoption is bigger, there are more use-cases, the track record is longer - those increase the inherent value of bitcoin unit.
Hope that clear things up. Todays sats have more value than 2011 sats, so we need to pay less of them for the same thing.
AAAAAAA it annoys me so much: why anyone in those discussion ignores that fact that bitcoin gets more valuable with time? It makes those discussion so intellectually dishonest.
"Average mining fees per day have dropped to lowest levels since 2011"
NO! Bitcoin get over 100x more valuable since 2011. So NO, the average mining fees are NOT the lowest when you consider value. It makes sense that mining fee go down when denominated in bitcoin.
Note that I am not talking about fiat price of bitcoin (price != value). I am talking about value (so value accrued by network regardless of any denominator you might use to measure it). When talking about FIAT everyone here remembers that 'fiat gets less valueable over time' in their reasoning. But when it comes to bitcoin everyone seems to forget that 'bitcoin gets more valuable over time'.
My question is: if the fee market settles around 0.4 sats/vB, might that imply that for some of the last few years, Bitcoiners were paying artificially inflated prices to get their transactions confirmed?
No. The more adoption bitcoin have and the more value is being stored in the network, the more each sat is worth. Therefore todays 0.4 sat/vb is like 40 sat/vb in 2011.
Literally no reason to ever do that.
If Bitcoin reaches $1M
Bitcoin network doesnt know its dollar price. So it means you are trusting some oracle.
Also timelocking for "I don't want access my bitcoin for a time" is really dump. If you security gets compromised you cant immediately migrate your UTXOs. Hackers have all the time to figure out your keys/passwords and will be ready for the time timelock is off.
If shitcoin devalues in this way, the government of shitcoin may have to print more shitcoin, leading to even more devaluation. If shitcoin enters into a hyperinflationary spiral, it could get to the point where it becomes almost worthless, and most economic transactions are just done in hardcoin.
Or, more realistically (which happened in our world), the shitcoin country will use the shitcoin-printing-power to quickly finance the army that takes over the hardcoin country, 'solving' the problem via force.
My hope is that bitcoin is different - it's a bottom up revolution. It's individuals that adopt it. Central power cannot possibly coerce each individual (With gold that was doable because of banks that held gold instead of individuals).
Why would you use consumable material as money? That is kinda crazy. Monetary use case will compete with industrial use case.
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @CruncherDefi 21 Jul \ parent \ on: Tether Fun Unbelievable Details - Part I bitcoin
They want to limit arbitrage opportunities for others, so they can collect all the arbitrage revenue. And there is some serious money in there - ask wallstreet.
Arbitrage is extremely-margin-thin and zero-sum game. If they themselves don't pay the fee, it effectively makes it impossible to get into the game for others, cause they will sweep the opportunity before it's ever profitable for other players.
Also an example, in which the author is a sufficient condition to disregard (or at least scrutinize more) the paper.
He is literally proved to be a fraud in the court.
Of course you are not required to listen to the podcast and as a adults people it should be explainable to each other.
However
I finally told him the truth which is that I prefer AI slop over listening to his podcast.
seems like an unnecessary cruelty.
Can a human institution override Natural Law?
You made it say as if "Natural Law" wasn't invented by man. It is. Maybe it's more ancient/low_level/basic but still it's invented by man. Similarly institutions/goverments and constitutions are invented by man.
And as both are man-made I don't see any contradiction by one overruling another. It's just a convention we made up.
What if the person is innocent?
That is the problem with death penalty. It's an ultimate tool to silence inconvenient people forever.
Without death penalty if you set up someone and send them to jail (think dictator states) you risk getting exposed somewhere in the future. It introduces some back-pressure to the oppressive state.
And that is the reason why I am against death penalty. It's just a too powerful tool for dictator wannabes.
yea you're a real expert
I wouldn't go that far, but nevertheless I added my remarks to the PR discussion for this BIP. I encourage you to do the same on the github PR page! Surely you have some useful insight to share with the community xDDD
Such a quantum threat would also be a quantum miner, making key-cracking superfluous.
Wtf are you talking about. Quantum threat is only about breaking key-signing of UTXOs.
When it comes to mining, quantum algos improves SHA generation only slightly, nothing game changing.
Anyways its clear from this post that you are clueless, so its an end-of-topic from my side.