Soy boy bitch. Calling me a shit coiner. I am going to find out who really are. Show your face bitch. Tell it to me on a livestream.

nostr:npub15c3rmcmcafw645z4w7u8e8q8akjpk9cmqfr95mnyl86r2m6xqfdsluh6re is a soy boy bitch.

nostr:npub15c3rmcmcafw645z4w7u8e8q8akjpk9cmqfr95mnyl86r2m6xqfdsluh6re is a bitch. Hiding under some fake picture. I will debate anyone on any day. You call me a shit coiner. My only asset is Bitcoin. So come out of hiding soy boy bitch.

I will debate you. Stop hiding like a bitch under so gif.

Satoshi was very conscious of the fact that #Bitcoin would either disappear or become a phenomenon. There was no in-between.

⁤⁣ “It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.”

— Satoshi Nakamoto

I am dedicating my life to #Bitcoin

#BitcoinOS #Bitcoin is peer-to-peer electronic cash system that is programmable. Bitcoin will dominate it all in 3 years. What Ethereum does will be on Bitcoin only better. Proof of Stake on L2s is going to be revolutionary. We can can build anything on Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Optech Newsletter #288

Feb 7, 2024

https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2024/02/07/

#Bitcoin #nostr

You need a lesson in reality. Probably another late person to #Bitcoin. Giving me a lecture is comical.

#Satoshi Nakamoto about second layers.

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.0

I start to realize how moronic the new class of Bitcoiners 2019 - present are. I am a #Bitcoin maximalist. I call the buffoons who lack to learn toxic maxi pad Bitcoiners. They never read the Cypherpunk mailing list, Satoshi writings white paper, or Bitcoin academic papers. #nostr

Read Satoshi writings. Get back to me. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I have been making money by purchasing #Bitcoin every day, as much as I could afford. I have continued doing so. During the same time, I have also been studying various technologies such as #EVM, ring signatures, smart contracts, zero-knowledge proofs, DeFi, and distributed ledger technology. Through my studies, I have come to realize that all of these technologies are gradually being incorporated into Bitcoin. #nostr

#Bitcoin has the potential to surpass #Ethereum in all aspects eventually. This is not to say that #Ethereum is illegitimate in any way. Bitcoin was designed to be an all-in-one solution, and it's getting closer to achieving that goal. With the introduction of BitVM, the potential of drivechains becoming a reality, payment scaling solutions being implemented, L2s, super meta protocols, and inscriptions, Bitcoin is moving towards becoming a more powerful platform.

#Satoshi #Bitcoin cited 10 people in the paper: Dave Bayer, Stuart Haber (time-stamping concept), W. Scott Stornetta, Wei Dai (creator of b-money), Henri Massias, Xavier Serret-Avila, Jean-Jacques Quisquater, Ralph Merkle, William Feller and Adam Back (Hashcash creator).

Here are some of the Cypherpunk documents that influenced Bitcoin’s creation:

“Security without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete” (1985) by David Chaum, which described anonymous digital cash and pseudonymous reputation systems.

“A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto” (1993) by Eric Hughes, which laid out the core beliefs of the Cypherpunk movement, including the importance of privacy, cryptography, and freedom from centralized authority.

“The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto” (1992) by Timothy C. May, which advocated for the use of cryptography to create a stateless society.

“b-money” (1998) by Wei Dai, which proposed a decentralized digital currency that used proof-of-work to prevent double-spending.

“BitGold” (2005) by Nick Szabo, which described a decentralized digital currency that used proof-of-work and was backed by gold.

4 million #Bitcoin have been lost forever.

Re: BitDNS and Generalizing #Bitcoin

December 09, 2010, 10:46:50 PM

Quote from: nanotube on December 09, 2010, 09:20:40 PM

seems that the miner would have to basically do "extra work". and if there's no reward from the bitdns mining from the extra work (which of course, slows down the main bitcoin work), what would be a miner's incentive to include bitdns (and whatever other side chains) ?

The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra side chains also for the same work.

While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work?

If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too.

You have one piece of work. If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS. In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree. To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.

In practice, to retrofit it for Bitcoin, the BitDNS side would have to have maybe ~200 extra bytes, but that's not a big deal. You've been talking about 50 domains per block, which would dwarf that little 200 bytes per block for backward compatibility. We could potentially schedule a far in future block when Bitcoin would upgrade to a modernised arrangement with the Merkle Tree on top, if we care enough about saving a few bytes.

Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain.

External link

Permalink

#Satoshi theorizes completely separate blockchain can co - exist with #Bitcoin

#BitcoinTalk

BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin

View all posts

External link

satoshi

#222

Re: BitDNS and Generalizing Bitcoin

December 09, 2010, 09:02:42 PM

I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.

The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.

I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.

Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.

External link

Permalink

Edward Snowden #Bitcoin #Nostr

One of the cool things about Nostr ("Notes and other stuff transmitted by relays", a new decentralized protocol that replaces things like Twitter and Instagram)—beyond censorship resistance—is that you aren't limited to 280 characters.

Find me there. https://t.co/B7JUHeeSdP

#Bitcoin  #Satoshi discussion on #Layer2 #L2

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

Quote from: gavinandresen on June 17, 2010, 07:58:14 PM

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

Quote from: laszlo on June 17, 2010, 06:50:31 PM

How long have you been working on this design Satoshi?  It seems very well thought out, not the kind of thing you just sit down and code up without doing a lot of brainstorming and discussion on it first.  Everyone has the obvious questions looking for holes in it but it is holding up well

Since 2007.  At some point I became convinced there was a way to do this without any trust required at all and couldn't resist to keep thinking about it.  Much more of the work was designing than coding.

Fortunately, so far all the issues raised have been things I previously considered and planned for.