nostr:nprofile1qqs0w2xeumnsfq6cuuynpaw2vjcfwacdnzwvmp59flnp3mdfez3czpsprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumr0wpczuum0vd5kzmp0ksxxx2
That seems to be the claim by the author of Libbitcoin. You would expect much faster sync time from Bitcoin Core too. It is limited by CPU signature validation.
I made a Christmas Music Video for you to enjoy with people you care about:
Last Christmas (Without Bitcoin)
PS There is an extra special message at the end of the video.
https://blossom.primal.net/3dd280c01a45d1b49f2e13b1f6472c1d0dff4f75ed8d802d01840beafa1ce450.mp4
Chicken nuggets? No! They're coffee beans!
What node version are you running?
What about population increase to the area? More people wanting to live there increases the demand for land. Supply is fixed.
Wait for it https://youtu.be/ZfjNDpZQvhk
The risk is purely hypothetical. However both pools made *more* money by mining sub sat txs. They certainly didn't *lose* money.
I don't know if they have each other as peers. I do know that at least two pools have complained that ignoring the subsat tx filters caused them to lose money via an increased orphan rate. CKPool complained about this here: https://x.com/ckpooldev/status/1957235824451559746 and Mara Pool complained about it here: https://x.com/PortlandHODL/status/1958520763083825640
So if they *are* peering with one another it is apparently insufficient. The miners who *ignore* that peering (maybe Ocean?) and just broadcast blocks to the rest of the network benefitted by getting their blocks propagated faster, and winning more races. I want to see that play out again, but this time with inscriptions, and to that end I am excited to see the Knots count rise.
That's not what your linked posts are complaining about. Both pools have an orphan rate of zero. In fact all pools mining sub sat txs have an orphan rate of zero https://x.com/mononautical/status/1968138304265900433
Common enough that Mara Pool and CKPool both stop mining subsat transactions because doing so increased their orphan rate too high.
Mara Pool's post on this: https://x.com/PortlandHODL/status/1958520763083825640
CKPool's post on this: https://x.com/ckpooldev/status/1957235824451559746
Wrong. Stale blocks (what the above commenter calls orphan blocks) are very rare, and neither MARA not CKPool have mined any since including sub sat fee rate txs in their blocks. Read the posts you are linking and also see stale blocks here fork.observer
Can you just connect to their IP directly? 103.165.192.203
This doesn't work if we want mining to be decentralized and permissionless. Unfortunately it works today because there are so few mining pools.
All you need is the utxo set to know if a tx you recieved is valid. Meanwhile the node syncs the chain in the background to eventually validate that the assumed utxo set is indeed the correct one.
See https://blog.lopp.net/bitcoin-node-sync-with-utxo-snapshots/
This is the exact usecase for assumeutxo. You can use it in Bitcoin Core v29 but it's not the most user friendly experience.
How are they not money transmitters already?
Wow I have never seen her be so polite to anyone.
The reason the minRelayFee filter works is because there is very little economic incentive to bypass it. It is cheaper to just bump your fee to 1 sat/vbyte. This is not so for larger OP_RETURN txs or other types of non-standard txs.
Someone tried to blackpill me today. But I coughed it up and spit it out.
The blackpill was that decentralized systems can't innovate because it is too hard or impossible to make breaking changes. Centralized systems like facebook can just innovate without permission or compatibility and so they will always innovate much faster, and so decentralized system can never keep up and will never compete with them.
I partially agree. Yes, centralized systems can innovate faster. Yes, it might always be that most people will be on the centralized systems.
But where I disagree is this: Centralized systems keep letting us down. And some of us are happy enough to use a decentralized system for a subset of our social media, to have at least some level of reliability and trust that we can depend on.
Moxie Marlinspike (fittingly named after a knot) poo-poo's decentralization here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdM-XTRyC9c
but much of what he claims is wrong, adjacent to the truth but not quite correct or meaningful.
Let's look at breaking changes. Consider how breaking changes can occur:
1) You go around and get everybody to update their software (PITA and eventually impossible)
2) You just give up on the feature and decide we can live without it (a cop out)
3) You version the protocol.
nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 valuing simplicity rejected (3) in his writings early on for nostr. Because versioning multiplies complexity. You have to keep all the old code and have case dependent code for the newer code.
But I still believe that (3) is the only way out, and growing complexity is inevitable. Yes of course any change that can be made non-breaking is definately the preferred approach, but not everything can do that.
There are real world examples of this that are working just fine. The Vulkan API is in a sense decentralized. It works on many different hardware devices and with many different OS vendors. It is versioned. How did it not ossify? It's a fucking mystery ain't it?!
Also, Moxie talks about IPv4 not being able to get to IPv6 and IPv4 ossifying. But fails to mention the obvious: IPv4 is the greatest success story ever. Damn near everybody uses it all the time. So who cares if some parts of it have ossifed? Not me. And to be honest, parts of it (like congestion control) were able to change very late in the game. So this is a piss-poor argument against decentralization.
Also, Moxie talks about how many people are programming stuff and you can't keep up with all of them. But he fails to mention that less than 10% of those people are useful. Or that the management interference almost necessarily breaks any useful thing they end up doing. Against the view of all the pundits (Bill Gates most notably) open source software supercedes commercial software in almost every domain. Because in open source, and with decentralized solutions, the entire world participtes, rather than just one or two buildings in Redmond. And generally only the most intellgent high-IQ people can pick it up and run with it, meaning you have a worldwide team of highly intelligent people versus a limited commercial team that is mostly deadweight and plagued by managers who want to make their mark.
I may not be a bright-eyed (red eyed?) bushy-tailed spring chicken bitcoiner who is upbeat about everything and believes everything is possible. I'd say I"m a bit more cautious than most about what I hope for or aim at. But I am still a "can do" person and I will never stop trying.
*spits out the black pill*
> open source software supercedes commercial software in almost every domain
Absolutely false. There are some big ones but mostly niche domains. Most software that normal people actually use is not open source.
Version 29 has a significant performance improvement.
