Why is blocksteeam promoting quantum FUD? In the list of problems bitcoin currently has quantum isn't even a minor concern.
This is a joke right? WiFi exists and can be measured. Mystically woo-woo can't because it doesn't.
Quantum is not on the near term horizon. Not even close. It's decades probably centuries off and in my view more than likely will never be a threat. It's highly theoretical at best and has achieve no actually useful results so far.
Gaslighting nonsense. The biggest threat to decentralisation is making it harder to run nodes. That's exactly what facilitating spam does. Bitcoin has all the utility it needs to become the dominant global store of value. Once we get there then layered payment solutions will be needed and yes that may involve centralised solutions. Satoshi foresaw the development of 'bitcoin banks' as inevitable. Bitcoin is the base layer. The base layer should be kept as simple, stable and risk free as possible.
Exactly. So why not drop the push to open up bitcoin to more 'use cases' against the wishes of a large segment of bitcoiners and focus instead on making bitcoin the sound money the world needs.
I would describe myself as a technical user and I understand the technical arguments core is attempting to make but I think you are still wrong here.
Yes perfect spam filters don't exist, but saying that decentralised spam filters can never work is not true otherwise email would be unusable. Yes I know email is more centralised now than originally intended so maybe not the perfect example but I can still run an email server and filter 90%+ of spam myself.
What's important is making bitcoin hostile to spam, yes it's a cat and mouse, wack-a-mole game that will never be 'won', but total victory is not needed.
The alternative, to accommodate spammers by giving them a 'nice' way to spam only encourages them, both to spam more and to demand more and more 'accommodations' via essentially blackmail - give us what we want or we harm the chain with more UTXOs etc. Making bitcoin hostile to spammers has worked pretty well for years (apart from the inscriptions fiasco caused by core not fixing a bug - again an example of what happens if you accommodate spammers). There is a reason most scams/spam has occured on other chains rather than bitcoin up till now.
Yes. At least it will slow the proportion of junk round the network. Even better though as the % of knots nodes rise and hopefully become the majority it's a powerful signal to core that they are on the wrong side of this debate. If they refuse to change, they risk becoming the minority bitcoin implementation and thus increasingly irrelevant.
Don't think he knows what maxi means.
When you buy Bitcoin with the Blockstream App, it goes straight to your wallet, giving you full self-custody with no extra steps.
https://blossom.primal.net/e846117ca03f8c37e848650b7dd2d5a48e7ef1de22c5c873587558fb1d98e1ca.mp4
That's great but the fee/premium is too high. A competitive premium needs to be at least 10x less than it is now.
How do you avoid the annually refinanced loan compounding by 10% (or whatever the rate is) each year). Eventually you pr your estate will have to pay off an enormous loan. This is only really possible or sensible if you have a very large stack of bitcoin.
Catch this great write-up by nostr:nprofile1qqsxhwmaw842y4zzzk580cfke4l5jr6xyh44v3v6pk59dnyzjm2a7vqcd5flv Insider on one of the latest innovations from Blockstream Research
Shielded CSV, developed by Jonas Nick with contributors from Alpen Labs and Zero Sync, is a pragmatic step toward more private and efficient Bitcoin transactions.
https://insider.btcpp.dev/p/some-of-us-still-want-private-bitcoin
“Full privacy with only 64 bytes on-chain sounds impossible?”
Catch Jonas breaking down Shielded CSV nostr:nprofile1qqsphtcc46rrelvptfm4c2y58k85alnam0lfu773mgwdmtynka0zspsql7emy 2025 in Las Vegas, one of the most promising paths for private, efficient Bitcoin transactions.
https://blossom.primal.net/a108f1097c11842bf13b181b5b3984a299280abdc7b9df2a64af94ed47e42e38.mp4
The thing I don't understand is that ultimately all these scaling solutions apart from lightening , require trust in at least one third party. Not just for the bridge but in the nodes as well (maybe I'm missing something but what forces users to respect the nullifiers?). If you have to complete trust at least one third party then why use a blockchain at all?
What if the blind oracle is unavailable, or at some point in the future is shut down?
You spelt without wrong.
Environmentalism.
This is standard in my experience. People are far too trusting of AI answers. The worst thing is that it will give made up answers with complete confidence where a human would just admit they don't know. Yet another indicator that there is no real intelligences here just glorified auto-complete.
That's interesting but if the placebo group show higher incidence of the disease in question it still kind of indicated that the vaccine works no? I assume it does right?
In practice they do. Yes spammers can pay more or go to more effort to go direct to rouge miners but that does not mean we should abandon all attempts to limit spam.
Your second paragraph reveals the problem with your thinking. It is the nodes that are in charge, miners should respect node runners preferences not the other way around. Nodes Mempool filtering (which they have always done) is a signal of our preferences to the miners. Thanks to miner pool centralisation, individual rouge miners are able to ignore the nodes wishes and put unwanted junk in the blocks. The fact that mining has become this centralised gives us bigger problems anyway but that's another issue.
If we accept that nodes no longer have a say in the content of the Mempool then bitcoin is dead and we might as well let the big two mining pools run everything. Then we have become ethereum or any other shitcoin.
I believe that doesn't include those running behind tor? Which includes all the Umbrels and start9s?
I would still rather trust this one person who appears to understand what bitcoin is for and what makes it unique, than a group who appears to have been compromised, either ideologically or financially, to introduce a change that is clearly against the long term interests of bitcoin.
If it does nothing why remove it? They is Core devs..
It clearly does or they wouldn't want to remove it.
So because some spammers might go to the trouble and expense of direct miner submission we should abandon all attempts at stopping spam? This is not a credible argument.
You need one before the other. No one will use it as cash until it is accepted as a store of value by most people we are not there yet.
Surely if anything it shows the opposite? no mind would create something so non-sensical.
If a bad actor tries to censor transactions, node operators can simply not accept blocks generated by the bad actor. I thought the blocksize wars already established that the miners don't have all the power.
I want BTC to be used as currency as much as anyone but I think bitcoiners need to chill and accept that it won't be widely used in the west as such whilst it is still rapidly monetising against the dollar. Becoming the dominant store of value asset is a necessary first step before the majority will even consider using it as currency.
Quantum computing has always been and i'm pretty confident will always be vapourware. I'm not even convinced that what they claim to be able to do is even theoretically possible.
Exactly, feature creep has ruined so many great pieces of software. Developers like to develop. It's not in their nature to say 'the is feature complete, let's not break it'. I say this as a developer.
They don't want civil war they just want to get rid to Trump. I'm wondering how many more 'lone gunman with mental health issues' it will take before the mainstream media starts asking the right questions.
'judge a person by their enemies ' is appropriate here. The best thing about Trump is that annoys all the right people. The mainstream media, the deep state, lefty Hollywood/TV types, all are clearly terrified of a second Trump term and getting more and more desperate.