41–50 of 55 posts
The Bitcoin Core GitHub repo was long ago hijacked by the for profit company, Blockstream. Every update made since their takeover has hurt the core principal of Bitcoin, which is to be peer to peer digital cash, a replacement for Visa-like daily payments.
I see a lot of resentment here for this software. But it’s perfectly possible to make your own implementation of the bitcoin protocol. Like Luke, who made Knots. And other versions exist too. The real pain comes from the choices in the past to keep bitcoin inclusive. Smaller blocks mean the ability to download and verify on simple cheap hardware. Have a look at ETH, SOL or EOS. What kind of server park do you need to…
It’s actually pretty easy to run Ethereum nodes. Also, statelessness and verkle trees will enable Ethereum to be validated on cell phones eventually. That’s not going to happen with Bitcoin. Also, funny to see Bitcoiners talk about running censoring client implementations for Ordinals.
It looks like that is going to happen with https://zerosync.org/ steadily progressing...
I have read the whitepaper and followed discussions about the protocol for quite some time, but never looked into the actual software landscape. Bitcoin Core is a "Node", right? A software you run if you want to have the whole history of all Bitcoin transactions of your own hard drive? Therefore I would think it is only used by researchers and analysts?
Your node (or the node you choose to connect to) defines what is bitcoin, according to you. Everyone gets a vote on what bitcoin is, but the definition of bitcoin that you vote for is that defined by the code running on the node you choose to connect to the network through. Running your own node let's you speak for yourself. If you connect to someone else's node you're effectively saying "I vote for whatever they're…
As long as you work for Blockstream Inc. If not you have effectively no say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your node (or the node you choose to connect to) defines what is bitcoin, according to you. Everyone gets a vote on what bitcoin is, but the definition of bitcoin that you vote for is that defined by the code running on the node you choose to connect to the network through. Running your own node let's you speak for yourself. If you connect to someone else's node you're effectively saying "I vote for whatever they're…
> Everyone gets a vote on what bitcoin is As long as you work for Blockstream Inc. If not you have effectively no say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your node (or the node you choose to connect to) defines what is bitcoin, according to you. Everyone gets a vote on what bitcoin is, but the definition of bitcoin that you vote for is that defined by the code running on the node you choose to connect to the network through. Running your own node let's you speak for yourself. If you connect to someone else's node you're effectively saying "I vote for whatever they're…
> Everyone gets a vote on what bitcoin is As long as you work for Blockstream Inc. If not you have effectively no say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your node (or the node you choose to connect to) defines what is bitcoin, according to you. Everyone gets a vote on what bitcoin is, but the definition of bitcoin that you vote for is that defined by the code running on the node you choose to connect to the network through. Running your own node let's you speak for yourself. If you connect to someone else's node you're effectively saying "I vote for whatever they're…
The way I understand it: If another person's node connects to your node, your node can stop relaying certain blocks to them. And if everybody stops relaying those blocks to them, then those blocks will not reach them. So in a way, your node can do something a bit similar to "voting" in this situation. But does a node on a lonely notebook have any real world impact? Do actors who accept Bitcoin payments connect to ran…
Regarding the impact of a single node on the network, that node is a way that _you_ can vote on what bitcoin is. You could equally shut it down and vote by connecting through someone else's node, but then you'd be trusting that their node defines bitcoin the way you want to.
In other words, the people decide what bitcoin is, not individual nodes, but the nodes that people connect through define what they are voting for. If you want to be _sure_ that your vote isn't being misdirected, that what the node is reporting as bitcoin really is bitcoin then connect to the network through your own node.
Anyone know what is (or isn’t) being done to secure Bitcoin against quantum attacks? Last I heard it was still “quantum isn’t a problem yet” but I have reasons to believe that even at that time the assertion was untrue.
Do you mean that anyone will be concerned with bitcoin saftey after our banking system collapses along with other https dependent traffic (as its no longer http'S' ?
I see a lot of resentment here for this software. But it’s perfectly possible to make your own implementation of the bitcoin protocol. Like Luke, who made Knots. And other versions exist too. The real pain comes from the choices in the past to keep bitcoin inclusive. Smaller blocks mean the ability to download and verify on simple cheap hardware. Have a look at ETH, SOL or EOS. What kind of server park do you need to…
The only resentment I have with Bitcoin and any other crypto is that they try to be "decentralized", but the moment the developers of your main node/wallet app are under a payroll, funded by a business, crypto is no longer decentralized. Bitcoin Core, long ago, was "purchased" by Blockstream and they started pushing their own agenda for the protocol, and Luke Jr is one of the devs on their payroll. Yes, of course, yo…
It's absolutely not the case. It's more like a conspiracy theory that keeps getting pushed into Bitcoin-related threads at Hacker news (maybe to tilt future analysis?)
If we take a look at the past month of commits from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulse/monthly, the top ten authors are:
- MarcoFalke
- fanquake
- hebasto
- ajtowns
- glozow
- ismaelsaadeq
- TheCharlatan
- instagibbs
- brunoerg
- mzumsande
None of them works at Blockstream.
When you say "long ago", it likely points to the "Bitcoin Cash" incident. Almost every person that knows of Bitcoin Cash thinks that Bitcoin is a scam; almost everyone else laughs at the idea of Bitcoin Cash working.
Long ago, that was also the case: https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61blfg/blockstream...
(edited for format)
Anyone know what is (or isn’t) being done to secure Bitcoin against quantum attacks? Last I heard it was still “quantum isn’t a problem yet” but I have reasons to believe that even at that time the assertion was untrue.
> Anyone know what is being done to secure Bitcoin against quantum attacks? Do you mean that anyone will be concerned with bitcoin saftey after our banking system collapses along with other https dependent traffic (as its no longer http'S' ?
Just going to drop in here that we need to be working on these solutions faster than is commonly known. The SOTA in breaking large swaths of our security infrastructure, including SHA, is much farther along in certain rarified environments than is commonly understood.
The Bitcoin Core GitHub repo was long ago hijacked by the for profit company, Blockstream. Every update made since their takeover has hurt the core principal of Bitcoin, which is to be peer to peer digital cash, a replacement for Visa-like daily payments.
Do your bankruptcy creditors know about your 'investments' in Bitcoin competitors that you're promoting here?