pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @lightcoin OP 3 Mar \ parent \ on: Steven Roose's proposed roadmap for bitcoin soft forks is gaining traction bitcoin
If you shared a full explanation of why you claim that VTXOs are a scam, and that explanation was not supported by opinions, factual errors, or logical fallacies, then I would consider responding to the claim directly. But that's not what you did. You did a drive-by name-calling and left it at that. There is nothing there of substance to respond to. Time scamming.
Nope. https://lightco.in/2017/03/06/the-problem-bitcoin-solves/
VTXO's are literally centrally coordinated shitcoins being shilled as scaling
no technical explanation only ad hom
pRoNoUnS iN tHe BiO
and more ad hom
exactly the quality of argumentation I expect from a time scammer
Worth mentioning Zerosync as well, which doesn't help with IBD per se but enables a node to sync to the chain tip with full security faster than proof-less syncing.
Have you looked at Winden? https://winden.app/s
It is based on the Magic Wormhole protocol:
also shared in #848887
I think it is I who should be thanking you for agreeing with me, since it seems that you no longer feel this way:
I dont agree about your replace -- Bitcoin does not link an on-chain address to an off-chain entity.
As long as the meatspace signing part worked
this is the central caveat which makes it the same problem
you cannot assume this part works in either scenario
The point is that discussing how humans exchange human readable addresses between each other is the layer above this problem, and that is the layer in which the DDNS problem exists. So we are discussing very different things here.
No they are not different, it's the same problem. Again:
If you have a secure way to pass someone your address so that they do not send money to the wrong place, then you also have a secure way to pass someone a DDNS name so that they don't go to the wrong website.
Bitcoin does not let me transmit an invalid tx, because it is self contained and must consume an existing output, and send to a new output. The input ScriptSig must be correct as per the bitcoin protocol. DDNS lets me submit any invalid names, be it fake, fraud, phishing, squatting, just plain wrong. There is no way to validate it it in protocol. This is the fundamental difference.
"submitting an invalid name" ("incorrect" is a better term than "invalid" here) is no different than "submitting an incorrect bitcoin address", which the bitcoin protocol will let you do. Address replacement is a well-known attack. See e.g.
if you don't run both at the same time then there is no justice tx risk. but if your node is offline then you cannot respond to cooperative close requests which risks a force close.
it's strange to characterize conservation as a left-wing thing, when it shares the same etymological root as "conservative". anyways, I can't be bothered to assess whether $25 for 10 x 10 area of conservation land (+ management etc) for 30 years is a reasonable deal but unlike your "placebo credit" it's certainly not nothing. so what was actually the point of this writeup?
Just grab an image cloning software like Acronis for example, put the both disks together and start the cloning, sector by sector. Done.
gonna want to be real careful of this with the lightning nodes, so there is no concern about force close or justice transactions. maybe better for a novice to close the channels and reopen them on the new node once it is set up.