Truthcoin
0 Following
1 Followers
0 Liked
0 Shared
Posts
Each Bitcoin Treasury company:
- has expenses
- is taxed and regulated
- may lose all its coins, due to a hack / inside job / mistake.
thus, their ROI must be less than the self-custody Bitcoin ROI.
And:
- Any premium due to "access" to investors, will be competed to zero as new Treasury companies arrive
As far as I can see, no amount of Madison Avenue salesmanship can paper over these disadvantages. -- but hey, I hate to rain on everyone's parade. @verysmallclaims
- has expenses
- is taxed and regulated
- may lose all its coins, due to a hack / inside job / mistake.
thus, their ROI must be less than the self-custody Bitcoin ROI.
And:
- Any premium due to "access" to investors, will be competed to zero as new Treasury companies arrive
As far as I can see, no amount of Madison Avenue salesmanship can paper over these disadvantages. -- but hey, I hate to rain on everyone's parade. @verysmallclaims
Its obvious that Drivechain will destroy and replace everything (other L2s and Altcoins)
What remains to be seen: will we see an epic revolution, of total success and domination, vindication, akin to the end of WW2
Or
Just an awkward shrug (the way COVID ended)?
What remains to be seen: will we see an epic revolution, of total success and domination, vindication, akin to the end of WW2
Or
Just an awkward shrug (the way COVID ended)?
A post on popular mining lies -- https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/popular-mining-lies/ -- which (by the way) includes a heterodox reflection on the Blocksize War.
and
A post on Ideal Perfect mining pools -- https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/ideal-mining/ -- (and how, we almost have them today).
and
A post on Ideal Perfect mining pools -- https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/ideal-mining/ -- (and how, we almost have them today).
Its actually the P2P network that is filtered out, by MARA slipstream (and direct submission and private mempools).
Today, MARA will "pre-announce" the next block, for free. This is useful.
But they could (theoretically) charge $ for that service.
And then Luke would be saying that Mara should pay him [ and each of his nodes] -- but he would be wrong.
It is the full nodes which need the mempool of the mining nodes (to save on bandwidth)
Today, MARA will "pre-announce" the next block, for free. This is useful.
But they could (theoretically) charge $ for that service.
And then Luke would be saying that Mara should pay him [ and each of his nodes] -- but he would be wrong.
It is the full nodes which need the mempool of the mining nodes (to save on bandwidth)
Yet another reason why Luke is wrong:
Luke claims that for any node to *wait* to upgrade to the latest version, is a "failure of Bitcoin".
And -- to *wait* to upgrade to the latest soft fork, is a colossal failure, and "regression to SPV".
However:
1) every node is a full node of itself, but it is also equal to "SPV mode" of an infinity of closely-related protocols. These may not be used by anyone, but they still exist theoretically.
For example, Bitcoin Core v 25 is a full node of itself, but an SPV node of a hypothetical soft fork (of 25) where we always reject a block if the last 4 bytes are 1234 + the versionbits end in 5678
2) Every full node, is **using SPV** on the question: will this block be orphaned ? There is NO way to KNOW the answer to that question using just your node. The ONLY source of illumination, on this question, is to do what spv nodes do: wait for more block headers to roll in, count them, and hope for the best.
So: the "heaviest chain" rule -- is a rule that is only enforced at SPV level. Even the full nodes only enforce it at SPV security.
And so -- Luke's nightmare scenario, --which he aims to prevent via his theory that we must all run the latest version, etc-- that bad outcome is actually the one we are all permanently stuck in, forever. It is inexorably linked to proof-of-work itself.
Luke claims that for any node to *wait* to upgrade to the latest version, is a "failure of Bitcoin".
And -- to *wait* to upgrade to the latest soft fork, is a colossal failure, and "regression to SPV".
However:
1) every node is a full node of itself, but it is also equal to "SPV mode" of an infinity of closely-related protocols. These may not be used by anyone, but they still exist theoretically.
For example, Bitcoin Core v 25 is a full node of itself, but an SPV node of a hypothetical soft fork (of 25) where we always reject a block if the last 4 bytes are 1234 + the versionbits end in 5678
2) Every full node, is **using SPV** on the question: will this block be orphaned ? There is NO way to KNOW the answer to that question using just your node. The ONLY source of illumination, on this question, is to do what spv nodes do: wait for more block headers to roll in, count them, and hope for the best.
So: the "heaviest chain" rule -- is a rule that is only enforced at SPV level. Even the full nodes only enforce it at SPV security.
And so -- Luke's nightmare scenario, --which he aims to prevent via his theory that we must all run the latest version, etc-- that bad outcome is actually the one we are all permanently stuck in, forever. It is inexorably linked to proof-of-work itself.
I propose a new BIP, to limit spam.
- reduce max block size from 4 MB to 400 KB
- retain all conversions between bytes, vbytes, weight etc
Since I already have BIPs 300 and 301 I humbly request this as "BIP 302"
- reduce max block size from 4 MB to 400 KB
- retain all conversions between bytes, vbytes, weight etc
Since I already have BIPs 300 and 301 I humbly request this as "BIP 302"
Bitcoin Core might be dead.
It isn't about OP RETURN per se -- it is about *the reaction* to OP RETURN. The mob justice.
It seems to me, that you can't get anything useful done under these conditions. OP RETURN is a very small fry -- very very small.
So -- what does it mean, for Core to be dead?
In the short run, I don't know.
In the long run, miners will run the software that **maximizes their revenue**. The devs of **that software** will obviously allow all OP RETURN sizes, sorting them by fee.
People who care about DoS protection (or something else), might run different nodes (or no node at all). If they try to reject a *valid*, block that is accepted by 51% hashrate -- then they are hardforking off the network, like BCH. Empty threat.
It isn't about OP RETURN per se -- it is about *the reaction* to OP RETURN. The mob justice.
It seems to me, that you can't get anything useful done under these conditions. OP RETURN is a very small fry -- very very small.
So -- what does it mean, for Core to be dead?
In the short run, I don't know.
In the long run, miners will run the software that **maximizes their revenue**. The devs of **that software** will obviously allow all OP RETURN sizes, sorting them by fee.
People who care about DoS protection (or something else), might run different nodes (or no node at all). If they try to reject a *valid*, block that is accepted by 51% hashrate -- then they are hardforking off the network, like BCH. Empty threat.
🎙️I have an even better version of knots ,
where the datacarrier limit is low, and the blocksize is low, the node cost is lowest, and the relay policy is max restrictive
I call it: KNOT running a node at all
...
Thank you, 💐thank you 💐
where the datacarrier limit is low, and the blocksize is low, the node cost is lowest, and the relay policy is max restrictive
I call it: KNOT running a node at all
...
Thank you, 💐thank you 💐
After 50,000 successful thunder L2 blocks, the latest blocks are coming in slow -- at least 12x slower than normal.
Cause: unclear.
Regrettably -- L2L does celebrate the weekend. So we will be back at it, on Monday.
Cause: unclear.
Regrettably -- L2L does celebrate the weekend. So we will be back at it, on Monday.
MSTR marketcap is $ 113 B,
their Bitcoin is worth $ 57 B,
Seemingly no comparative advantage, (as a Bitcoin Treasury), to them (or anyone else).
So, if you short MSTR + long BTC , (in precise amounts), is that free USD ?
@verysmallclaims
their Bitcoin is worth $ 57 B,
Seemingly no comparative advantage, (as a Bitcoin Treasury), to them (or anyone else).
So, if you short MSTR + long BTC , (in precise amounts), is that free USD ?
@verysmallclaims
Stages of Op Return Enlightenment
- wait a minute... XYZ isn't a fair-minded dev, he's just corrupt! And self-interested!
- wait, those agreeing with him, are corrupt as well!
- the critics on social media, are also corrupt
- I thought there was a Process
- the process is fake ! Developers are SELF-INTERESTED and corrupt ... What do we do?
- oh no
- everyone is a sociopath
- actually, it is pretty good that Altcoins exist...
- yay competition
- sidechains would be even better than Alts...
- wait a minute... XYZ isn't a fair-minded dev, he's just corrupt! And self-interested!
- wait, those agreeing with him, are corrupt as well!
- the critics on social media, are also corrupt
- I thought there was a Process
- the process is fake ! Developers are SELF-INTERESTED and corrupt ... What do we do?
- oh no
- everyone is a sociopath
- actually, it is pretty good that Altcoins exist...
- yay competition
- sidechains would be even better than Alts...
Last week I did a "BTC vs BSV" debate on CoinGeek
I also wrote this article. The link is below -- Just Kidding -- it is right here because IDGAF about the GD algo: https://t.co/UV8WXM43Ou
Many feel, that to critique BSV is beating a dead horse -- but my article contains plenty of information that isn't widely known. Check it out if you like.
I also wrote this article. The link is below -- Just Kidding -- it is right here because IDGAF about the GD algo: https://t.co/UV8WXM43Ou
Many feel, that to critique BSV is beating a dead horse -- but my article contains plenty of information that isn't widely known. Check it out if you like.
Should Bitcoin Core steal money out of @foundryservices 's checking account?
A) No -- and I support the higher op return limit (and merged mining, and bip-300).
B) No -- but I'm very very stupid and don't understand what I'm talking about.
C) Yes.
A) No -- and I support the higher op return limit (and merged mining, and bip-300).
B) No -- but I'm very very stupid and don't understand what I'm talking about.
C) Yes.
Login to explore more contents