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
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.
X (formerly Twitter)
Edward Snowden (@Snowden) on X
One of the cool things about Nostr ("Notes and other stuff transmitted by relays", a new decentralized protocol that replaces things like Twitter a...
#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.
From: John Levine #Bitcoin
#014817
November 03, 2008, 01:32:39 PMBitcoin P2P e-cash paper
Replying to: >>014810
Replies: >>014818
> As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power on the network,
> they can generate the longest chain and outpace any attackers.
But they don't. Bad guys routinely control zombie farms of 100,000
machines or more. People I know who run a blacklist of spam sending
zombies tell me they often see a million new zombies a day.
This is the same reason that hashcash can't work on today's Internet
-- the good guys have vastly less computational firepower than the bad
guys.
I also have my doubts about other issues, but this one is the killer.
R's,
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com
“Lost coins only make everyone else’s coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone.”
— Satoshi Nakamoto #Bitcoin
BitcoinTalk #Bitcoin #Satoshi
Re: How divisible are bitcoins and other market/economic questions
2010-02-06 23:25:53 UTC - Original Post - View in Thread
Eventually at most only 21 million coins for 6.8 billion people in the world if it really gets huge.
But don't worry, there are another 6 decimal places that aren't shown, for a total of 8 decimal places internally. It shows 1.00 but internally it's 1.00000000. If there's massive deflation in the future, the software could show more decimal places.
If it gets tiresome working with small numbers, we could change where the display shows the decimal point. Same amount of money, just different convention for where the ","'s and "."'s go. e.g. moving the decimal place 3 places would mean if you had 1.00000 before, now it shows it as 1,000.00.
No mercy for faketoshi Craig Wright We Are All Satoshi except Craig Wright
We Are All Satoshi except Craig Wright
#introductions
#Bitcoin #nostr