The unintentional mining of a 2nd-seen double-spend tx with higher fees not because you support RBF, but because you have a hard lower limit on fees which the 1st-seen tx didn't cross.
What if a payee accepted the 1st-seen tx as valid, relying on the fact that most nodes have also seen it first, and assuming miners enforce the 1st-seen rule?
I'm not sure about that... Doesn't 0-conf safety require that miners abide by the 1st-seen rule? What FreeTrade describes here can be called "accidental RBF":
The unintentional mining of a 2nd-seen double-spend tx with higher fees not because you support RBF, but because you have a hard lower limit on fees which the 1st-seen tx didn't cross.
I'm not sure about that... Doesn't 0-conf safety require that miners abide by the 1st-seen rule? What FreeTrade describes here can be called "accidental RBF":
In any case, I agree it will be more profitable to mine when the mempool is bigger, but the *degree* to which miners will smooth over block-time variability depends on their costs.
No comment
At this rate, Johoe may soon have to change the color palette again... We wouldn't want that chart to be all black...
handling fiat means inherent centralisation.
True, I was thinking more along the lines of local.bitcoin.com, which doesn't act as a centralized intermediary for fiat, just a centralized "meeting place" for p2p exchanges.
Europol are rookies. They shut down bestmixer.io and put a banner on the front page. I bet the pros at NSA are running *dozens* of mixers, tracing all the coins, and making bank, too! https://tinyurl.com/eubtcmix2019
Fortunately we now have CashShuffle so there's no need to use mixing services that can track us.
A bunch of fake accounts have been created just now. be aware of these impostors:
#memo
For a split second I was irritated, but then I remembered how happy I am that nobody can prevent this sort of thing. Censorship resistance is great, despite the occasional annoyance.
yea but from Blockstreams pov its fine, doing what they wanted. cripple btc
Yes. BTC will never be upgraded in any way.
SegWit is not fine. It's a deviation from Bitcoin. It creates mountains of technical debt. But most importantly - it's unnecessary. Why would BCH need it??
Which is your preferred denomination?
Long term I think the bit is a clear winner in terms of usability. Simple, easy to understand, and divisible to 100 sats, just as all present-day currencies are divisible to 100 cents.
;) Yeah he’s been moved now, but this was at first, much cooler in the garage yet no heat nor too much sound for inside the house...
Excuses, excuses... Just admit it: you were trying to use Bitcoin Cash for money laundering!
Tried that, but I can't see an option to sign up with Badger, only standard username+password. What am I missing?
All this talk of big storage devices is irrelevant, if not damaging. You're tacitly accepting core's notion of non-mining full nodes. That was never part of Bitcoin's original design.
There aren't enough people who stand up publicly for Ross. Thank you, Naomi, for being unabashedly on the right side of history.
Cash Accounts are great for adoption! Go to cashaccount.info while three digits are still available... I'm x2dm#123 :)
Your client could be set up to ignore dislikes if you want, or to color posts that have a lot of dislikes, or whatever. It's just machine readable info on how some feel about the post.
Agreed, I was referring to the suggestion that people will be able to pay to censor others, site-wide. That's a very different mechanism.
It's not censorship, it's information. Censorship is saying you can only say you like something but not that you don't like something. What *you* do with the info is up to you.
If you're referring to downvotes, I agree, they are informative. But censorship is never informative. Express your opinion, positive or negative, but don't hide other people's content.
Not only is censorship always bad, but this idea doesn't even make sense technically. Memo (the protocol) is uncensorable by definition, since anyone can broadcast a bitcoin tx. (1/3)
be visible on other, interoperable sites? Just adding a mute option, so YOU will not see posts from certain people YOU don't like, makes a lot more sense. (3/3)
Not only is censorship always bad, but this idea doesn't even make sense technically. Memo (the protocol) is uncensorable by definition, since anyone can broadcast a bitcoin tx. (1/3)
Memo.cash (the site) can choose to hide certain posts, but other memo sites will pop up that don't. You're suggesting we pay the admins of a site to censor posts that will still (2/3)
I mean every memo user has a chance (for some $$$/hour) to censor (silence) for a limited time any one other user. Yes, it is negative reinforcement but at least it is distributed.
Not only is censorship always bad, but this idea doesn't even make sense technically. Memo (the protocol) is uncensorable by definition, since anyone can broadcast a bitcoin tx. (1/3)
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - Buckminster Fuller
That the high value would pretty much render "bits" useless since you could use satoshi like you use USD
In any case, the bit~dollar, sat~cent paradigm is more than sufficient for the foreseeable future...
That the high value would pretty much render "bits" useless since you could use satoshi like you use USD
If that actually happens we would have to change the protocol to add more digits, for divisibility... Then the whole paradigm would have to be changed anyway.
Probably been suggested before but: Use bits not satoshis. sats are too small. Long term, bits will be like dollars, sats like cents. Standard should be to denominate everything in bits.
For bitcoin to be widely used in commerce, we need to adopt a standardized unit of account ASAP. People are used to the $1=100cents paradigm. We should strive for bit~dollar, sat~cent.
