Then you made some really silly decisions. Sorry about that! No asset has a better track record.
Depends on the timeframe. Stocks are highly monetized. Won't always be.
I store my MP3 collection in excel. Each song is a cell.
This *will* happen with adoption. It's a technical challenge that we still have to solve for. Bankers didn't create it and probably don't even understand it. This is why layered architectures are the solution.
"I desperately want to be right about Luke because I like the attention and at this point I've prescribed too much malice to say maybe I misunderstood what I was talking about."*
#Bitcoin #ftfy
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=576x576&blurhash=UbPsLGbY%7D%24j%3F%3DqoyR%3Ba%23%7D%7Ef*E9bIFikBn3jY&x=3aa205a46c789767624bb89325b257ab2dcf9fd6bc15a0f92d94fc3b47f14aa0
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=1200x1600&blurhash=_QNcW%40xuysI9rqxas%2CG%5Eofn%2CWAR%2BWBNGxZoeMckDt6s%3An%24.8n%23RjofNHtRX9K6f%2BjEWBnhWCoLv%7DoexXs%3ASiV%40n%25NwocofWCWYR*n%7EbcbIn%24WBo0t7axs%3At7j%5BWAWEaebG&x=365f3876126ddabfd0ef9c394d89d1a68470d446f52d08dc541d806edaac4437
Bypass of datacarriersize limit using OP_FALSE,OP_IF
Ramifications are that datacarriersize, an important node policy parameter, is bypassable. I.e. a bug that makes an option in core not behave as intended.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures#CVE-2023-50428
What would happen to these fediverse-nostr bridges if threads also integrated with Nostr? Would there be like two versions of everything? The bridge version and the native version?
Thats not a problem with mempool policy, that's a 'problem' with fee estimates.
Being angry about the CVE specifically is a more nuanced outrage that 98% of what I am seeing on the Nostr. I can see the argument there. Don't agree still, but I see the argument.
My mempool policy is relevant to what is included in my mempool. That's why it's called mempool policy...
So the uproar is about a miner setting mempool policy on their node that you disagree with? Then don't use their node? They all set mempool policies!
Screaming "censorship!" is nuts...
Who is trying to remove this from mempool policy and move it to consensus rules? Links to PR or discussion?
"Wins" is still suggesting a misunderstanding of the difference between mempool policy and consensus rules. Of course my mempool policy does not determine what can be mined into a block by other miners. That is not the goal or intent of mempool policy.
# Transaction Relay Policy
**Policy** (Mempool or Transaction Relay Policy) is the node's set of validation rules, in addition
to consensus, enforced for unconfirmed transactions before submitting them to the mempool. These
rules are local to the node and configurable (e.g. `-minrelaytxfee`, `-limitancestorsize`,
`-incrementalrelayfee`). Policy may include restrictions on the transaction itself, the transaction
in relation to the current chain tip, and the transaction in relation to the node's mempool
contents. Policy is *not* applied to transactions in blocks.
This documentation is not an exhaustive list of all policy rules.
- [Mempool Limits](mempool-limits.md)
- [Mempool Replacements](mempool-replacements.md)
- [Packages](packages.md)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/doc/policy#transaction-relay-policy
My mempool has different rules than your mempool and THAT'S A GOOD THING.
Node Policy != Consensus Rules