🦯 a cane will have to suffice
We should teach children that you beat the shit out of the thief, but only to the extent necessary to prevent them from stealing from you.
I don’t disagree that one can be arbitrary and capricious in creating and enforcing laws. But that doesn’t mean we must accept all unjust force against us…
I’m not saying government can’t do bad things, but I am saying bad people doing bad things exist and are a legitimate target for moral use of force.
Any adventurous bitcoiner out there want to test a miniscript script?
I don’t understand the _v part of the and statement…
andor(multi(3,keyA,keyB,keyC),older(4032),andor(multi(2,keyAA,keyBB),older(32768),and_v(v:pk(keyAAA),after(1200000))))
(Formatted for humans):
andor(
multi(3, keyA, keyB, keyC),
older(4032),
andor(
multi(2, keyAA, keyBB),
older(32768),
and_v(
v:pk(keyAAA),
after(1200000)))
)
But as far as I can tell, this script does exactly what one thinks it should.
But I’m ok with stealing from criminals. For example, if someone steals my wife, I will steal her back by force without feeling bad about my theft.
I think I’m OK with the US federal government earning bitcoin by stealing it from genuinely bad people as adjudicated by a US court system. I think that’s better than f’ing people over by printing dollars to buy shit, and it’s kind of like a proof of work all on its own.
Everyone is forced to have a relationship with Apple. And Google. And meta. Etc…
Welcome to the panopticon.
It’s not a thing anymore. If you’ve ever wondered why NSString is a class for iOS programming, it has to do with the company jobs ran after getting fired from Apple. The company was called next step and their next is played an evolutionary role in apples subsequent products.
Apple really has something against select all buttons…so annoying.
If you’re already a pirate, no need to create laws to fit your behavior :)
If you want to break the law, get new ones written first. Bitcoiners are finally learning from the elites…de minimis bitcoin capital gains exemption will be just the first step.
Fake money makes us slave to the printer and his friends. Bitcoin fixes this.
I’ll buy an option betting the opposite
I still kind of feel bad for the gold bugs. Yeah gold is up and it’s up a lot (for gold), but they dig up a lot of gold every year. The gold victory can’t last forever.
Anyone know much about miniscript?
I like this miniscript I wrote. Has an anti kidnapping 4032 (~4 week) zenHodl period where funds simply can not be spent and then becomes a 3 of 3 and later a 2 of 2 multisig and years later a single sig…
I don’t think there will be a better security model than this, but I don’t trust the miniscript precisely because I wrote it and have tested it…seems to work as expected. But not sure how to reason about possible shortcomings of this script:
andor(multi(3,keyA,keyB,keyC),older(4032),andor(multi(2,keyAA,keyBB),older(32768),and_v(v:pk(keyAAA),after(1200000))))
Easier on the eyes below:
andor(
multi(3, keyA, keyB, keyC),
older(4032),
andor(
multi(2, keyAA, keyBB),
older(32768),
and_v(
v:pk(keyAAA),
after(1200000)))
)
If you assume stocks will go up at 15% risk free, then it’s a measly $186,000 for the 50-50 point (for $1M in 10 years). No matter how you slice or dice it, bitcoin at $125,000 is cheap.
If I expect bitcoin to be worth $1M in 10 years, and I assume today’s price is $125,000 and that I can get a 10 year bond at 5%, then bitcoin should be worth:
(8/1.05^10)x$125,000=4.911 x 125k = $614,000
So today I would pay no more than $614,000 per bitcoin. That’s $489,000 gains that could be had today if the world agrees bitcoin will be worth $1,000,000 in 10 years. Let’s assign the probability of this at 50-50….then it would be reasonable to sell bitcoin at $125,000+$489,000/2 =$369,500.00
$370,000 is a reasonable price target that splits the estimated 10 year gains equally between buyer and seller.
We are still early.
You can still shun nonstandard bitcoin transactions while noting and forwarding metadata about the transaction. This will let mempools work better.
Doomed to stay single because they can go off unpredictably 😂
I have manufactured nearly a dozen of these and it’s all springs and spring pressure keeping it from going off at any moment. No rigid mechanical barriers in the manual safety either.
The current op return issue boils down to this: how to maintain efficacy of transaction shunning while preventing economic incentivization of out of band payment for transactions like slipstream?
Some believe it can never be done, so open up the filters.
Others believe it can be done or does not need to be done right now.
Anybody really knowledgeable about miniscript?
I think this wallet script does most everything anyone could want, modulo minor tweaks.
The fact it took me like 15 minutes to write makes me feel like I’m making some major mistake:
andor(multi(3,keyA,keyB,keyC),older(4032),andor(multi(2,keyAA,keyBB),older(32768),and_v(v:pk(keyAAA),after(1200000))))
This fields a wallet that has 1) a 4 week zenHODL anti-kidnapping period where funds can not be spent, 2) a 3 of 3 multisig for blocks 4032-32768 (like 6 months or so), a 2 of 2 multisig after that until 3) block 1,200,000 where it degrades to a single sig wallet.
What am I missing?
And what I’m saying is that doing so causes the problem that nobody wants.
Which is why relaying spam makes sense
Making unusually profitable transactions available to all miners in the goal.
Agreed.
The main issue to how to couple transaction shunning with something effective to stop profits for miners through out of band payments. This is a both or none type scenario.
I hear people saying that as if it were true and meaningful. I don’t deny there is a new place to stuff data and it’s easier from a mental perspective, but it’s not like there weren’t other places to stuff data before en masse.
Thinking about ways to discourage OoB payments to preserve the utility of transaction shunning…reputational damage might be the only way.
Something like “miner xyz just included a nonstandard transaction paid for out of band and shame on them…”
We need something to make slipstream unprofitable, otherwise shunning based on standardness criteria is doomed to fail.
I don’t understand your question. This is about protecting bitcoin from unwise transaction shunning…
The balance of incentives for bitcoin participants is a complex one. Miners know we don’t like it when bitcoin centralizes…remember when a mining pool disbanded when they controlled ½ the network? Such altruism may not hold in the corporate mining environment.
BTW, we spoke in Prague in 2024 over lunch in the VIP room upstairs. I’m guessing I’m the only carnivore physician you met at that meeting…but you never know!
lol…I ran 1-10 and found a few more missing…maybe users can/could delete their own accounts too?
I had someone offer to buy my account…and it didn’t seem to be for good purposes. Crazy world in which we live
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3;sa=summary
When you look at your profile, the number is in the URL.
I was the 413th user on bitcointalk.org…but a bunch don’t exist anymore. Like user #2 who is not satoshi (user 3) or nostr:npub1g53mukxnjkcmr94fhryzkqutdz2ukq4ks0gvy5af25rgmwsl4ngq43drvk (4). I miss those days and those guys.
All political games. Meaningless games.
I don’t have reason yet to doubt messages were on the cartridge cases, but I won’t believe it until I can see it.
I’m sure it’ll all be figured out in time…sad.
Totally agreed. I’m talking about the CSAM that is more and will also eventually be in the blockchain.
I suspect most of those who feel most strongly about this change would be better served by setting blocksonly=1
Identities come and go. At least an nsec thief can’t lock you out of your account.