monokh

Something to be aware of with regards to the "Blockchain Timestamp" feature: OP_RETURN data is limited to 80 bytes. I wonder if there are any such limits with the bitcoin software itself that you would need to reverse to construct the offchain transactions.

On the flip side, they become the central honey pot for every apple user ever. Most of whom sit generally further along the wealthy/important person scale. Incredibly high incentives there for exploit. The high stakes should translate to proportionate attention? One can only hope.

Mac has a storage explorer called "Storage management app". I found it great for making space as it can sort by categories and file size. Before realising this, it was a pain to find decent software for the MacOS.

I imagine this was added recently.

Really tempted to install starship but I also do a bunch of sensitive stuff with my terminal. Should I be worried about using this? I understand it's open source, yet still not confident.

Don't you think we have other problems too if Sha-2 is broken? I'm going to assume that you aren't worried about the numerous other applications where this scenario would be catastrophic?

In any case, this scenario has very well been accounted for. The Bitcoin network can fork its consensus rules when such drastic requirements require it. Such as to a different hashing algorithm, and snapshotting of its previous state.

> Ponzi scheme This goes back to square one, which is that in the absence of understanding the value of bitcoin, a scheme is the only logical explanation.

We are now sitting at 10 years and $XXB ponzi scheme. Perhaps one of greatest schemes in history? Maybe it will unravel in the next 10? Time will tell.

> The only difference between my offer and bitcoin is that many people are trading these magic numbers.

And that is a world of difference. If I sold a Bitcoin for half the market price, anyone rational would take that offer without thinking. Your shitcoin on the other hand has no persistent or reliable market value and you would not be able to find a buyer.

Your viewpoint on forks doesn't really check out. It's based on a misunderstanding of how related these forks are to Bitcoin.

Anything that forks off of bitcoin is an entirely separate network, asset and market. You can in fact fork Bitcoin today and attempt to create a market, will your new coin be valued as a Bitcoin and derive its current ~9000 USD price? So the value of a fork coin is not in its approximation to Bitcoin. It's merely tied to how much fire power you have to convince others to buy it.

Regardless of how you personally view the best use of cpu cycles, the market overwhelmingly disagrees. The network total hashrate has done nothing but go up and to the right since inception. Which is to say, that the market also disagrees with your theory that Bitcoin will lose scarcity (therefore value) over time.

Based on which signs or hypothetical scenario are you imagining that this whole systems turns back on itself and breaks?

What you describe is exactly the property of Bitcoin. Have a look at how many forks have tried to create "Bitcoin2". Some even with overwhelming support from powerful actors. If they fail like they have during Bitcoin's infancy, later on they have no chance.

The common mistake is to try to compare Bitcoin to a predefined experience of money.

Bitcoin's value is multifaceted. From a very simplistic perspective, it can be compared to gold. Things get more interesting when you value aspects such as it being:

- Fully digital

- Verifiable by the common individual

- Sent and received with no interference from third parties

- Free from supply emission increases or control

Each of these is especially hard to come across in any other form of money. Combining them is unprecedented.

Great post. Could this get merged to the rust book? Because the guide there was super confusing.

Incredible. The idea that YouTube artificially limits the function to get you to do stuff is really annoying. I love that you can send the audio to the background. I've wanted that for years.

I tell you what: it has been working pretty well so far. Just about every year, this is exactly how Bitcoin is portrayed.

- Bitcoin is used for scams

- Bitcoin hacks

- Bitcoin used for illegal activity

All the meanwhile, more people become aware and interested.

These sort of events prime the "nocoiners" to read and understand that little bit more.

How about the possibility of a Bitcoin marketing campaign?

I really didn't imagine a purely financially motivated hack could be turned into politics. I guess I underestimate the levels of innovation.

They do often supply some coins to themselves to create the illusion that there is activity.

That explorer probably does not count unconfirmed transactions.

Some reports that this was related to compromised OAuth tokens. How would someone know and what is the source of the compromise? A third party app that all of these accounts use?

This must be a twitter exploit. Just too many high profile accounts have been pushing out scams at the same time.

Feels more like a twitter exploit. Just about every prominent crypto account is pushing this scam out.

Run git on a personal server[1]? It's not as complicated as you might think. Probably much more usable to setup gitlab.

Then set up the alternative remote on your repos.

[1]https://www.linux.com/training-tutorials/how-run-your-own-gi...

Good point, I had taken the mechanism for granted.

So the scenario is that miners drop off at a pace where you don't reach the next adjustment?

Taking that into account, the "mining death spiral" theory doesn't seem too far fetched? In bad circumstances, if the network drops a substantial amount of hash rate early in the adjustment, and price took a hit, you could see some major disruption from the miners following suit.

The adjustment happens every 2 weeks. It's unlikely that miners would go offline simultaneously across the globe to the extent that it would completely grind the network to a halt.

2 powered raspberry pis and a moderately functioning internet is the answer.

The network adjusts it's requirement for power based on the total power thrown at it. This is called "difficulty adjustment". Beyond total world collapse that would set society back a century, I cannot imagine a scenario where you couldn't continue running Bitcoin as long as a few people had the motivation.

"The path to decentralisation" for these projects are usually very primitive and don't actually arrive at the broad claims. Too often it's just putting wall paper over the hole in the wall. A DAO it self doesn't bring you decentralisation, the hardest problem is how you determine the members of the DAO. With how this is being played (tokens) you arrive at oligarchy or a federation, not decentralisation. The developers know this. That's why you don't see anything but baby steps forward with regards to decreasing their power over the protocols.

Ditto on the non custodial claims, I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen this term used to describe a product and for it to actually be the case.

> These can't happen on Bitcoin but they already exist on Ethereum and DeFi. All possible in a trustless way.

In reality, just about every DeFi platform is not trustless nor are the usecases possible in a trustless way. Uniswap is one exception that comes to mind.

The parallel is that you can have the existing financial systems replicated on Bitcoin, Ethereum, with some additional properties and tradeoffs. I don't think you could make that kind of comparison with ham radio?

Twitter is already way ahead of curve[1]

> Dummy value => Placeholder value, sample value

Any clues on who this terminology is excluding exactly?

[1] https://twitter.com/TwitterEng/status/1278733305190342656/ph...

> Of course, there will be some extra requests from bots, but having such statistics is better than nothing.

I think this is a bit understated. A simple number coming off the image requests is going to be very unreliable. On average, you will not be able to discern bots and real users.

A plotting of the hits over time may be more usable.

I've also been keeping an eye on Braver. There was an initial flurry of work that seemed to have gotten it to a decent point but no activity since.

Thanks, that was a mistake. I've corrected it.

It also:

- Acts as the primary mechanism to make the data in the chain immutable, as the cumulation of the work (chain of valid blocks) becomes harder and harder to reproduce.

- Anti spam, i.e. you need to put something at stake (electricity and hardware cost) to participate in the issuance and transaction ordering