Token Daily

2

12 3

anternoon 2 hs ago

This is exactly what I was wondering about as I was researching lightning to try it out. Great article.

1

newgeezas 2 hs ago

Top shelf content right here! Nice.

1

belcher_ 3 hs ago

Never open a channel with a UTXO you own. Get others to open a channel with their UTXO or source a UTXO to open a channel with. Some sources could be Bitrefill Thor, Lightning Lab’s Loop Out, LNBig, Yalls, etc.

This seems incomplete to me(?) You could also open a channel with UTXOs that were coinjoined or otherwise are not linked to your identity.

2

cycryptr 3 hs ago

I feel you. Honestly I lean more on the side of having no on chain footprint than coinjoining in Lightning, just because I feel like associating too many coinjoined UTXOs onto a single node that you'll keep around (for receiving) isn't ideal. Even 1 is 1 too many IMO when you are publicly associating it with your node identity, which you may be associating with a real identity. We're at this stage of regulated entities getting on board Lightning while still having a battle with coinjoin usage. I'd rather nodes are not further discriminated against in the Lightning Network, which is already very reputational based.  For sending, I suggest it's fine to use 1 mixed UTXO in a private channel, just to be on the safe side. Otherwise I worry about too much consolidation on a single lightning node, which is a terrible post mix tool.

1

belcher_ 2 hs ago

Obviously someone opening channels with coinjoined UTXOs shouldnt be linking their real life ID with their node. Also, it seems like there's no such thing as having no on-chain footprint when using LN? Payment channels require an on-chain UTXO.

1

ajpwahqgbi 4 hs ago

Solution: As a node, you may add a random amount of time to forward or accept payments. However, this may degrade the experience of instant payments by a few seconds. I don’t know of any software to currently do this, so I believe it would need to be custom.

I made this C-Lightning plugin to do exactly that. Warning: still needs testing :).

2

cycryptr 3 hs ago

Awesome! I will add that to the article, thanks!

1

belcher_ 4 hs ago

While reading this I'm struck by how people on this subreddit openly advertise their lightning nodes when creating triangle channels. It seems like it would be better to have redditors exchange their node information by private message?

1

MrRGnome 2 hs ago

This is what has kept me from participating.

1

eyeoft Megahub - Cornelius 3 hs ago

It's all about the risk/reward for you personally. I think a Routing Node is an inherently public-facing thing, and I'm not worried about connecting my reddit account to it. If you're *super* concerned about privacy, you should probably just run a private node in the first place.

1

belcher_ 2 hs ago

A win-win is possible here. Have a public routing node but don't link it with your reddit account. This is done by PMing your node ID to the other redditor when they volunteer. There's no need for web crawlers to link your reddit account with your node, as reddit accounts can often contain privacy-relevant information.

1

eyeoft Megahub - Cornelius 5 hs ago

I'm not particularly privacy-focused (at least as Bitcoiners go), but I think it's important for those who are to know how to use Lightning most safely.

1

ajpwahqgbi 6 hs ago

Very informative and well written, /u/cycryptr. Get in here so I can give you a tip.

3

cycryptr 3 hs ago

Thanks for the cross post! I don't check reddit often. I appreciate the offer, not currently accepting tips, though consider a lightning/protocol dev please :) [https://bitcoindevlist.com/tag/lightning/](https://bitcoindevlist.com/tag/lightning/)

2

ajpwahqgbi 54 mins ago

As you wish!

1

MrRGnome 6 hs ago

Good article. More people need to understand the operational details and limitations of what they are interacting with.

2

hyperinflationUSA 6 hs ago

can you dumb it down a little for me?

1

MrRGnome 6 hs ago

Sure. True privacy is hard in almost any context and is subject to any number of caveats. For the most paranoid privacy concerned lightning user you should: * Use 1 mixed input per private disposable node * Never publish invoices * Never use a node alias * Get incoming liquidity without using your own UTXOs, for example using third party services like lnbig or bitrefill's thor. * Not keep your private disposable node online for very long

3

hyperinflationUSA 1 h ago

thanks

1

IBuildBusinesses 6 hs ago

An excellent read. Well written and thorough. Thx.

5

fresheneesz 7 hs ago

Very interesting stuff! It looks like there are major privacy improvements coming down the pike too.

3

coinfeeds-bot 10 hs ago

tldr; The Lightning Network has been growing recently, with around 11,000 active public nodes out of around 20,000 total. Lightning nodes can lock up a Bitcoin Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) into a channel with another node. Senders in the Lightning Network end up having great privacy because of this. Receivers do not have the same privacy.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

4

TheGreatMuffin 10 hs ago

Very good read not only on the privacy aspect, but also on some technicals of how LN works. It points out what privacy weaknesses currently exist but without FUD and with pointers on how to avoid leaking your privacy (at least in some cases).

9

3

25 2

Foxandpound 9 hs ago

Nice

1

inotrussianspy 9 hs ago

Who pays SpaceX?

2

RepFinnese223 9 hs ago

WE ARE GOING TO THE MOON🚀🚀🚀🚀

2

Common_Sense_Bomb 9 hs ago

Right after Musk trashes it? Fuck him

2

ThePoshGazelle 9 hs ago

The 2020’s are exhausting

2

catlolcatlol 10 hs ago

Here we go again....

2

RideMyGoodWood 10 hs ago

Musk the market manipulator

2

capiers 10 hs ago

How is this anything but a way to get other people to help pay for something SpaceX will ultimately make billions on in the future.

2

Shyrolax 10 hs ago

You don’t see what he’s doing he made doge coin drop 45% by joking about it on snl buys a shit ton of dogecoin then says that you can buy a moon mission with it making it rise again he’s playing you like a fiddle

2

dntes1 11 hs ago

Master of puppets!

2

FulkNera 11 hs ago

Hate that guy’s smug face.

2

PM_us_your_comics 11 hs ago

But Dogecoin as a ShAm

1

Stooovie 11 hs ago

It's all just a big game for him.

2

kukukap 12 hs ago

Elon pumped a ponzi to fund his projects...Brilliant!😂🤪

2

alphawhiskey189 12 hs ago

And the value abruptly plummets.

2

terdude99 12 hs ago

This is so fucking dumb

2

CrusherBlackwell 13 hs ago

I love The Honeymooners!

1

throwawaitnine 14 hs ago

Wrong sub

3

CulturalLoss 14 hs ago

Kiss my grits

0

AutoModerator 14 hs ago

Hello! Our rules were most recently updated on June 12th. For more information and the full rules list, please see this thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Flair_Helper 14 hs ago

Hey /u/shinjirarehen, thanks for contributing to /r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:

Rule 5 - Do not repost similar articles.

Check the sub for your story before you submit it; if it’s already here then please vote and comment there instead of posting another version. Similar stories will be removed and frequent re-posters will lose their posting privileges. Do not delete and repost your own submissions without approval.

Please read the sidebar and rules before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you!

1

Scratch_golfer85 15 hs ago

Elon Musk needs to be arrested for this blatant pump and dump scheme.

2

killbot5000exe 16 hs ago

This man is not a hero. Just another billionaire hoarder.

4

GadreelsSword 12 hs ago

Well he rejuvenated the electric car industry and created successful private space flight, so not just a hoarder…

2

R3XM 16 hs ago

DOGE-1 ... im done

10

joshhirst28 16 hs ago

Elon Musk’s life is like one constant Reddit moment

6

Limp-Matter-6455 17 hs ago

He is a genius

2

Lucifers-kid 17 hs ago

Why the fuck does everyone love to shit on Elon?? Are you all that jealous? He’s done some pretty awesome stuff for our species and we’re just lucky he’s not a bad guy

2

3

2 2

2

3

2

4 2

25 2

Reasonable_Pipe3632 4 days ago

Instead of celebrating this, people should start building awareness of the dangers of rehypothetication and commingling coming to Bitcoin. This is the first step for them to bring in their dirty price manipulation tactics based on unbacked credit and debt. It goes against all the sound principles Bitcoin was based on. Not your keys, not your coins.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/caitlinlong/2018/08/13/the-r-and-c-words-enter-the-vocabulary-of-bitcoin-enthusiasts/?sh=1ec96cd768f3

2

sstacker210 4 days ago

Exactly what I’ve been trying to get friends and family to understand for a while now

1

eyespy1172 5 days ago

I sure hope so, I used BCH to buy ARRR lol

1

kkingsley930 4 days ago

So did I lol

2

fanncoulter 5 days ago

Not to mention intelligence projects to themselves.. ahem, the twinklebutt twins.

2

fanncoulter 5 days ago

Btc is by intelligence against the fed - this is clear now. Q: why did Anthony scaramucci know he never wanted to be an attorney at Yale law school and instead wanted to “use his skills to bring people into the fold” (cia recruiting talking point) and now opened a Bitcoin fund? He is an interesting guy…

2

Nerd_mister 5 days ago

That is predictable, the target of BTC is banks and milionaries, since only these guys can afford the fees, also that is the only utility of BTC: Buy, watch the price go up and sell.

Since common people do not use the real BTC, and are forced to store it in exchanges, having the ability to buy and store BTC in another custodian service changes nothing.

That is why banks are adopting BTC but not BCH, BTC is not a threat to them, since people will still depend on those banks to use BTC, while everyone can afford the fees on BCH and be their own bank, so BCH is a real threat to banks.

1

o-block-chief 5 days ago

We’re making history boys

2

Satoshi_1995 5 days ago

Nice find dude

1

chino_ruizz 5 days ago

Thanks buddy

1

circusmonkey89 5 days ago

I think you mean banks are coming to bitcoin

2

tralxz 5 days ago

BTC - banker coin that is unusable to regular people due to high fees and slow confirmations. BCH is p2p electronic cash for everyone.

5

G_F_Y_Plz 5 days ago

The same people that fucked all the crypto buyers over in years past...

1

KingOfNumismatics Bronze 5 days ago

How times change..

2

coinfeeds-bot 5 days ago

tldr; Crypto custody firm NYDIG has partnered with fintech giant Fidelity National Information Services to enable U.S. banks to offer bitcoin in the coming months. Hundreds of banks are already enrolled in the program. Banks are now asking for bitcoin because they can see their customers sending dollars to crypto exchanges.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

1

KingOfNumismatics Bronze 5 days ago

Good tldr bot

1

wildlight 5 days ago

well that makes me think this bull run might not be almost over, but that the financial services industry as we know it is over.

0

twistedfister3 5 days ago

The government wants to switch completely to crypto, I mean most transactions are digital now anyway, say goodbye to the dollar, hello crypto. Do banks own the government or vice versa? Can't remember...

2

Schmovid Gold | 3 months old | QC: CC 103 5 days ago

With those 50$ fees. Awesome tech FTW, ahahahahah.

1

KingOfNumismatics Bronze 5 days ago

Probs gonna need to ask them to transfer the btc..

1

Whiterossy Gold | QC: CC 30 | r/WallStreetBets 32 5 days ago

I really want this to be true. I know this is something you read a lot these days (as you do in every bull run), but it truely feels different this time around. Mass adoption is not just something people say, it is really happening.

1

KingOfNumismatics Bronze 5 days ago

Yea. It’s amazing. It’s coming!!

1

AutoModerator 5 days ago

Hello r/CryptoCurrency readers. Please try out the following links:

To sort comments by controversial first, click here. Doesn't work on mobile.
To potentially find CryptoWikis articles about the subject of this post, click here. To contribute to CryptoWikis, click here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

theimpregnator69420 5 days ago

Banks and bitcoin. Lmao

2

n4spd2 5 days ago

Banks/companies want retail investors to buy their virtual bitcoins while they (or 3rd party) hold the keys.

They can lend bitcoin holdings to other organizations for shorting, driving prices down.

They will sell more virtual bitcoins (10x, 100x, etc...) than actual holdings, creating virtual bitcoin supply thus driving prices down.

The virtual crypto holdings will not be FDIC insured so retail investors take all the risk. The banks will say it's easier and safer for everyone but it's really so people can stay dumb while they gain control and profit.

9

PaleontologistOk222 5 days ago

bitcoin is becoming everything its supposed to not become.

8

John_BrunsWick 5 days ago

Oh this will indeed be huge. Millions of new buyers by the end of the year. I guess we will see heavy price fluctuations though.

2

Cactoos 5 days ago

I don't like it. I don't want banks to control crypto, i want to control my money, and let the free use of crypto on free will to set the price for trading, having fiat just a parameter to measure value, but nothing more.

2

ztsmart 5 days ago

This reminds me of how some taxi cab drivers began doing Uber out of desperation once they recognized the existential risk to their livelihood

11

Cactoos 5 days ago

This is exactly the same.

4

montawksoul 5 days ago

I remember when two of my banks didn’t want to authorize me sending money to an exchange a couple years back. How the turntables

2

spin_kick 5 days ago

Credit card companies as well. Everyone is in the "then they join you" phase

3

Nebuchadnezzar2k21 redditor for a day 5 days ago

Let me ask the Oracle

1

1 2

25 4 4

Mutchmore 3 days ago

Cringe

3

coozu Litecoin Hodler 3 days ago

Buddy Litecoin is POW

5

sunbathingelephant 3 days ago

This is one of those times where it’s probably better to put down our disagreements and help fight against this bill.

6

ams292 New User 3 days ago

LTC and BTC are both great, NY is the problem.

9

NewToTheImternet 3 days ago

This

3

cjwin1977 3 days ago

How is this good for Litecoin? Any POW coin will share the same criticism. If litecoin grew to the size of Bitcoin you don’t think people would be criticizing the energy it uses?

10

BenSherman_LAPD 4 days ago

Bitcoin isnt meant as currency Isnt that clear by now. Its slow and expensive. Its a first crypto, a digital gold, a store of value. Whats the point of this post exactly?

1

DonjiDonji 4 days ago

There isn’t anything unique about bitcoin that makes it a great store of value, except for it’s size and it’s network effects. But it’s getting exponentially more energy intensive as time moves on, and at some point, it just won’t make any sense anymore to keep value in this ancient relic of technology that bitcoin is. So long term it’s risky to hold bitcoin. It’s also not as decentralized anymore if you can identify the infrastructure that runs it and shut it down. What happens when the network gets so big it requires huge mining plantations the size of a Tesla megafactory? If any of these mining locations were attacked, we could potentially see huge dips in service. Then people will flee bitcoin because the mining fees will spike dramatically making it almost unusable. We discuss this in my podcast often https://youtu.be/rqobDpVzFUo Nano would be a much better store of value at scale. There isn’t any environmental concerns, and there isn’t any threat of shutdown of service because it doesn’t rely on huge mining operations that can get shut down.

1

Cry7e 4 days ago

New York has very restrictive Crypto laws. I would definitely move out of there if I lived there.

1

geneticocracy 4 days ago

Cuomo is asking fauci how he can rape the internet while also raping the people.

0

pellmellhell 4 days ago

it's just computers running bro why are peoples panties in a twist

0

Foppo12 4 days ago

Finally, about time something is done about it! Mining is a waste of resources, it's a flawed consensus mechanism and only leads to massive energy consumption, CO2 emissions and centralisation. If there's alternatives that don't use mining, don't use nearly as much energy and have a consensus algorithm that is proven to become more decentralised over time, then what's the point of even having Bitcoin? It's starting to become a slow, very expensive, energy consuming centralised database more than a decentralised cryptocurrency that can be used by anyone.

3

Econanovist 4 days ago

In NY we have the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act signed into law in 2019 which requires New York to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels
Entire fossil fuel power plants are being hijacked and taken from minimal use for public benefit in order to run at full capacity just to mine bitcoin for private profit.
NY State has a right and an obligation to run a full environmental review and to stand up a moratorium until that review is complete.

2

libertyANDdeath 4 days ago

Shouldn't everyone be on board to limit BTC mining in the context of a warming planet that is supposed to be worsened by energy use? It's like we created a new god that requires us to demonstrate fealty by using ever increasing amounts of electricity. As a world can we not at least push back on energy use that's actively wasteful?

1

Econanovist 4 days ago

Especially when there are alternative cryptos that don't have this fatal flaw

1

KrystalPalace_ 4 days ago

Exactly

1

Econanovist Redditor for 2 months. 4 days ago

In NY we have the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act signed into law in 2019 which requires New York to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels
Entire fossil fuel power plants are being hijacked and taken from minimal use for public benefit in order to run at full capacity just to mine bitcoin for private profit.
NY State has a right and an obligation to run a full environmental review and to stand up a moratorium until that review is complete.

2

Econanovist 4 days ago

In NY we have the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act signed into law in 2019 which requires New York to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and no less than 85 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels
Entire fossil fuel power plants are being hijacked and taken from minimal use for public benefit in order to run at full capacity just to mine bitcoin for private profit.
NY State has a right and an obligation to run a full environmental review and to stand up a moratorium until that review is complete.

5

gulliver-swift 4 days ago

Andrew Yang wants to make NYC a bitcoin hub.

I think bitcoin needs to be shut down.

If we can deplatform neo-Nazis we can deplatform bitcoin.

0

fedirafg 4 days ago

Buckle your seatbelts in for a three year alt rally

1

Rocko3legs 5 days ago

Ok can someone explain this like I'm 5? Mining bitcoin involves a computer and blockchain. Why does this make it sound like NY lawmakers think mining bitcoin is like mining coal?

1

zachotule 5 days ago

Mining Bitcoin, at least for the people profiting the most off it now, involves a huge server room that uses enormous amounts of energy and generates enormous amounts of heat. Moreover, since mining is more competitive, the more operations that begin the more power it takes worldwide to generate a single Bitcoin. And that amount is already 120 gigawatts per second. Remember Back to the Future’s ridiculously high made up number for the amount of energy to power time travel, 1.21 gigawatts? *That* amount is something like a million microwaves running all at once.

5

ChaChaChaChassy 4 days ago

>gigawatts per second This is nonsense. A watt is 1 joule per second. You already have the "per second" part baked into the definition of the watt. I assume you aren't referring to the 2nd derivative...

7

zachotule 4 days ago

ELI5 means not to assume they understand per second is baked into a watt. The redundancy helps the explanation.

1

ChaChaChaChassy 4 days ago

The "redundancy" makes it wrong. watts is a completely different thing than watts per second. One is a rate of energy consumption, the other is an acceleration of that rate. 1 watt per second is one joule per second per second, or 1 joule per second squared... 1J/s^2 It's completely different. Unless bitcoin miners are using energy at an exponential rate with respect to time...

1

drjokepu 3 days ago

I’m with you dude, units are serious business. It’s not “redundancy”, it changes the meaning.

1

pellmellhell 4 days ago

it's a lie to get people to hate bitcoin

0

ChaChaChaChassy 4 days ago

I own bitcoin, eth, ltc, doge... But I'm sure bitcoin mining uses a shit-ton of electricity. I was just pointing out that he didn't understand the term he was using.

3

Rocko3legs 5 days ago

Ok so a massive electric demand. That makes more sense lol. Thanks!

6

tinderbax 5 days ago

Just because it stops in NY doesn't mean it won't continue to grow. Fracking made the US the biggest energy producer in the world over night and NY didn't do it. Likewise, we don't need to build expensive energy thirsty environmentally damaging technology if we don't need it.

13

2_dam_hi 5 days ago

We already know that mining is contributing huge amounts to global warming. We don't need 3 years to show the evidence.

7

Legote 4 days ago

For real, just mining 5 percent of 1 bit coin can cost like 30-40k in electricity bills and that doesn’t even include the cost of hardware

0

knightofcookies 4 days ago

Do you have a source on those numbers? I feel like nobody would do it if it was that expensive since that would be 600k+ to get one bitcoin worth 50-60k

11

SomeoneElse899 4 days ago

The price of BTC is around $58k right now, and a reward for mining a block is 6.25BTC. For mining to be profitable, I would say one BTC couldnt cost more than $9280 (58k/6.25). This isn't taking into account TX fees, which on the BTC network, are ridiculously high, so that number is probably lower. Edit: Just down votes? No one dares to explain why my estimation of less than $9k in electricity for one BTC is off?

0

older_than_you 5 days ago

r/Whooosh

0

MrsSchenker 5 days ago

Probably best to just let China build another coal fired power plant to do all the mining over there. Way better for the environment.

0

crapcrop 4 days ago

Lol exactly all this environmental activism means nothing until china and india make massive changes

1

apocolyptictodd 4 days ago

On the macro scale, sure. But banning mining here might save Seneca lake from getting fucked up. I consider that a win.

2

Folorunsho15 5 days ago

Yeah right I expect an alt rally soon. I'm accumulating oro tokens at current low prices though before it spikes

1

Bozzooo 5 days ago

Texas! Kentucky! Wyoming!

All crypto mining friendly states.

6

zinke89 Gold | QC: BTC 39 | TRX 14 5 days ago

They’re literally solving nothing with this bill. The BTC will be mined elsewhere.

1

lokivpoki23 5 days ago

This is good

2

SomeoneElse899 5 days ago

Is anyone mining in NY anyway? Electricity here is much more expensive that most places, isnt it? So I can't imagine profitablity is that high for mining.

If we had zero emissions power plants, like Indian Point, we could produce surplus electricity, and not have to worry about Bitcoin mining.

8

lokivpoki23 5 days ago

We already import power from other states and Canada, so I don’t think keeping Indian point will give us a surplus. That being said, we should increase our renewable (nuclear too) capacity

10

SomeoneElse899 5 days ago

I was talking about building more nuclear power plants, in addition to Indian Point. Surplus power will bring the cost down, and could even boost innovation in new technology that might require a significant amount of power, like carbon sequestration.

6

Souperplex 4 days ago

> and could even boost innovation in new technology that might require a significant amount of power, like carbon sequestration. There's an incredibly effective, incredibly cheap carbon-capture technology that uses literally no electricity: Trees. Nothing we make will ever be anywhere near as effective as just planting a bunch of trees.

0

C_Gull27 4 days ago

We still have to bury those trees or put them at the bottom of the ocean when they are done growing. Otherwise that carbon just gets released again when the wood is burned/decomposed

3

satchelsofg0ld7 4 days ago

Are you opposed to growing trees because they’ll eventually die? Some trees live for hundreds, even thousands of years.

0

C_Gull27 4 days ago

I believe algae can be a far more efficient method of removing carbon. Obviously trees are good too and we should plant them wherever we can but it’s not as simple as plant trees= no more carbon.

3

satchelsofg0ld7 4 days ago

Trees have environmental benefits beyond just eating carbon, they improve air quality in general, prevent soil erosion, and reduce the urban heat island effect.

1

C_Gull27 4 days ago

I’m all for planting trees yes. Trees are awesome. We should also look at algae. Algae pools can be built in places that trees can’t grow. It can be used produce biofuels with zero net carbon. It can be made into cattle feed and replace grains. Algae can be used at fertilizer. I think we should look into seeding algae blooms in the oceanic dead zones to try and kick start rebuilding those ecosystems.

3

lokivpoki23 5 days ago

Sounds good to me!

4

7 1 2

juakeem 2 days ago

It kinda just sounds like automakers are branching out to now become manufactures of other products as well. Doesn’t really have much to do with JIT manufacturing

2

KushMaster5000 6 days ago

JIT can suck with price volitility!

4

WorkingHardNot 6 days ago

This isn't a problem with JIT but a problem of the breakdown of supplies chain due to unchecked government power of locking down entire populations. Who would guessed there would be a lack of supplies when people are told not to work and stay at home?

I made comments about this last year about how the lockdown will hurt us much more than COVID deaths - a virus that has a 98% survive rate. Just like all humanitarian issues, the problem won't be readily seen in first world countries but will be readily apparent in third world countries - food shortages, government insecurities, supply chain break downs and much more.

3

PeterFiz 1 week ago

As predicted we're going backwards.

People will be back to horse pulled buggies in the next few decades at this rate.

0

tomoldbury 1 week ago

The automotive panic has caused problems for everyone in the electronics industry, causing mass parts shortages for anything even remotely related to an automotive product. The big automakers will hopefully suffer badly from their mishandling of JIT, as it has caused billions of dollars of other damage.

0

PeterFiz 1 week ago

I don't think they mishandled it, it's just that the crazy lockdowns are destroying industries so they are having to go backwards to survive a bit longer.

4

[deleted] 6 days ago

[deleted]

0

PeterFiz 6 days ago

That would be same as the hollowing out of American manual labour jobs, like farming. It's just an economic fallacy that gets thrown around but you're probably right.

1

[deleted] 6 days ago

[deleted]

1

PeterFiz 6 days ago

>Well, it’s factually supported by numerous case studies that the hollowing out of manufacturing jobs in the USA has contributed to a stagnation (and eventually a decrease) in our middle class’ standard of living. But that's not factually supporting anything. You know just from looking at it at the most superficial level that people moving to easier, safer and higher paying jobs instead of manufacturing is the OPPOSITE of stagnation and INCREASES the standard of living. Things like inflation, the dot com bubble and the great recession are ALL the consequence of leftist policies, like those trying to protect "American jobs" and central banks arbitrarily setting the cost of money. This is the actual reason for the damage to the middle class. It's a big topic but suffice to say that the exact opposite of what you're saying is the actual truth. >Globalization plays a part in the displacement of key supply chains to Asia. That's the *opposite* of displacing key supply chains and is the only thing keeping most people eating today given the unprecedented regulatory and tax burdens everyone bears from our out of control and bloated governments. If globalization were to end we are all going to starve and that's what we're seeing the beginning of with the lockdown caused shortages and businesses having to reverse decades of progress to just keep their doors open a little bit longer. Basically you're about to get your nativist wish and it'll be a nightmare you can't even imagine.

2

vorheehees 5 days ago

I don’t have a nativist wish, but we do live in a world where events cannot be categorized as predominantly good or bad. I would agree that cheaper goods due to globalized supply chains had a deflationary impact and initial benefit to our domestic workers. Long term, their wages would balance out and the world would be better off. In the short term, the evidence is undeniable that it has resulted in real wage stagnation (again, not the only variable. New monetary theory advocates and their ideas play a large role in this as well). Is it so hard to fathom that people losing their jobs in the short term has a destabilizing effect on their families, wages, and communities? There are some regions of this country that did not make the blue to white collar transition so seamlessly as people like to pretend. It’s really a question of time tables. Globalization is much better for humanity in the long turn. In the immediate? It’s a mixed bag.

1

azwildcat74 1 week ago

JIT makes life a living HELL on employees and now it's biting organizations in the ass in Covid-world. Good fucking riddance.

16

Hessarian99 1 week ago

Yep Good riddance indeed

5

grey_rock_method 1 week ago

https://archive.vn/XnsEu

TOKYO— Toyota Motor Corp. is stockpiling up to four months of some parts. Volkswagen AG is building six factories so it can get its own batteries. And, in shades of Henry Ford, Tesla Inc. is trying to lock up access to raw materials.

The hyperefficient auto supply chain symbolized by the words “just in time” is undergoing its biggest transformation in more than half a century, accelerated by the troubles car makers have suffered during the pandemic. After sudden swings in demand, freak weather and a series of accidents, they are reassessing their basic assumption that they could always get the parts they needed when they needed them.

“The just-in-time model is designed for supply chain efficiencies and economies of scale,” said Ashwani Gupta, Nissan Motor Co.’s chief operating officer. “The repercussions of an unprecedented crisis like Covid highlight the fragility of our supply-chain model.”

...

10

2

1 2

25 2

hoyeto 5 days ago

And that's why you don't make contracts in memecoins.

1

davout-bc 5 days ago

What does that have to do with crypto?

0

hoyeto 5 days ago

The contract

1

rupturedprophecy warning, I like bit-Coin! 5 days ago

This is to do with contracts, not code.

3

Rupe_Knabu 5 days ago

Why does that cartoon look like Jared from Subway tho?

2

MyeshaLanphere 5 days ago

Gemsniper $gsnpr- Smart Contract for buying tokens instantly on launch, 50k supply - Pancakeswap Listing in 9 hours - gemsniperfinance

1

Smodol 5 days ago

It is a startup and so far, they are still trying to generate their first dollar in sales. The purpose of the contract was to generate sales

So just to be clear, the real story here is that a 'company' (see: two dudes in a discord) paid this guy to generate sales, he completely failed in that regard, and now the company wants the money back. Just losers on top of losers. Still, don't claw back cash - stay the fuck out my pockets, crypto or no.

25

ungoogleable 5 days ago

What are the odds that the product literally no one wanted was some kind of crypto scam?

20

kandrejevs 5 days ago

in this case it is guaranteed

5

HopeFox 5 days ago

I have worked with this person for many years, and he has a tendency to try to change the terms of payment after agreeing on a certain way of operating.

This guy matches the profile of somebody who would work for crypto.

20

buylow12 5 days ago

Why would you keep working with someone like that?

2

SnapshillBot 5 days ago

Sorry for your Ross :(

Snapshots:

Code is law! Unless I regret paying... - archive.org, archive.today*

I am just a simple bot, not a moderator of this subreddit | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

8

bettypinzon Redditor for 3 months. 6 days ago

Your employer: 🤡🤡🤡🤡

1

jar-el 6 days ago

This sounds ridiculous and I can't imagine the employer is legally entitled to do that. Those crypto are not his property anymore. Neither is the employee.

1

kelldricked Tin 6 days ago

Sorry but dont people have contracts where this stuff is secured in? Like if my boss would wanted to pay me with something else than euros he would need a written premision from me and he could never try to get it back without my permision or one of the most expensive complicated lawsuits ever.

1

MogulMowgli 6 days ago

Nopeeeeeeeee

1

red27195 6 days ago

Economic decentralisation is a human right.

1

targrimm Tin 6 days ago

Oh start-ups, you're so funny.

1

MMaior Tin 6 days ago

It's ridiculous just to think that this will ever happen! What if, let's say, the dollar crash. Can the employee go back to the boss and say "pay me in crypto" for the same reason? Absolutely ridiculous!

1

Bpool91 6 days ago

LOOOLLLLLLLLL HAHHAHAHAHHAA

FUCK HIM

1

Rupe_Knabu 6 days ago

Why does that cartoon look like Jared from Subway?

1

landete 6 days ago

Hahahaha! No! I mean, no F***ing way!!

1

NoLove7 6 days ago

Your boss is a total scumbag! He/she paid you when crypto was in that price range, and now they want their money back because it has increased by 700%? They should all close their mouths because it's no longer theirs!

3

Mac_Gee_88 6 days ago

"ha, no" would be the appropriate response to that.

2

ReverendBlue Gold | QC: CC 26, BTC 15 6 days ago

Pull a Mt. Gox and pay back the original fiat value but keep the crypto. Or, how about you can’t claw back salary for work that’s already completed you putz!

1

HitchlikersGuide 6 days ago

Send him 6 moon and a couple is doge coins 😂

0

sjaaaak Tin 6 days ago

So how does getting paid in crypto work? Do you agree on a salary in USD and calculate the amount of crypto with the current rate? Or do you set a fixed amount of crypto each month even if it goes up or down?

1

jmack64 6 days ago

spent it...sorry had to pay the bills

3

MrFuqnNice Bronze 6 days ago

If the employee was paid and holds the crypto, then quit and keep it.

1

2

3 3

2

25 5

AutoModerator 1 week ago

Welcome to r/patient_hackernews! Remember that in this subreddit, commenting requires a special process:

Declare your intention of commenting by posting a pre-comment containing only the single letter R. (This pre-comment will not be visible to others.)
Wait 24 hours or more (you will receive a reminder).
You can then post a new comment with your actual reply in the same location.

Comments that don't abide by the 24h delay will be automatically removed.

NOTE: since step 3 is not mandatory, pre-comments can also be left as a way to set up a reminder to check up on the discussion in 24h.

More information on how this forum works.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

qznc_bot2 1 week ago

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

1

silverman_nz 1 week ago

Just updated my full node! It's a shame to see my bandwidth get reset, I had just reached 5TB sent since the last restart haha!

1

comp21 1 week ago

what's the difference between bitcoin.org and bitcoincore.org? I'm only seeing v 0.21.0 on bitcoin.org?

1

mabezard 1 week ago

anyone got an ELI5 or ELI12 on "taproot" first time I've ever heard of it. After 10 years of bitcoin you start to slack off on keeping up with developments lol. I gather it has to do with multisigs and can help to reduce txns and fees but don't understand what is changed. Is this an implementation of schnorr signatures?

1

hMsats 1 week ago

upgraded nodes

1

PlentyJacket4174 1 week ago

hi all,

New to Taproot so have a noob question,

If it goes live in November and Schnorr signatures become active will they have a different address format like SegWit did to legacy

2

bit_moon 1 week ago

This is a appreciation post!

1

Arkelator 1 - 2 years account age. 100 - 200 comment karma. 1 week ago

Every update that makes bitcoin a bit better is a good update in my opinion. Kudos for slush to already signaling.

3

Rhonin- 1 week ago

I have no idea how this works or get developed, but I just wanna appreciate the people working on making bitcoin better.

7

ebaley 1 week ago

Bigger news than Buterin changing his shitcoin's monetary policy again.

7

Spartan3123 1 week ago

Why are you inviting altcoin discussion this is against the rules, your comment contributes nothing to the discussion except encourages people to break the sub rule

1

ebaley 1 week ago

I didn't name the coin. And I was disparaging. Shouldn't be a problem.

0

Kazizli 1 week ago

Can anyone explain like I am five what Buterin has done again?

1

ebaley 1 week ago

Told the miners to do his bidding.

0

mrbosey 1 week ago

Feeling salty?

1

exab 1 week ago

Salty for a scammer? No.

0

ebaley 1 week ago

Salty about what? That it's centralized? Or that ETHBTC is still down 65% from its ATH?

0

varikonniemi 1 week ago

Just sad for the people that drink his koolaid. Just like Bitcoin's lightning is the only crypto that scales, also it's smart contracts are the only ones that scale.

2

CountryLeast7025 redditor for 7 weeks 1 week ago

18DgD6EpnigC2e45CCzJB2ypTgDydJPT5v please make me rich for fun 🤩

1

CountryLeast7025 redditor for 7 weeks 1 week ago

18DgD6EpnigC2e45CCzJB2ypTgDydJPT5v please make me rich for fun 🤩 que

1

callebbb Platinum | QC: BTC 122, CC 25 1 week ago

SlushPool has already begun signaling! KUDOS to them!

3

maximovious redditor for 6 weeks 1 week ago

SlushPool has signalled for it in this block!

https://mempool.space/block/681458

15

exab 1 week ago

Where does it show the signal?

1

WeirdHovercraft 1 week ago

version bit 2 https://taproot.watch

5

Extra-Performer-6763 redditor for 3 months 1 week ago

True? Or tire? 😁

0

nnnnkkkkkkyyyyeeee 1 week ago

So far no signal for taproot: https://taproot.watch/

0

RussianGunOwner 1 week ago

Wrong.

2

Crafty_Lavishness_76 1 week ago

And what does it mean

1

nnnnkkkkkkyyyyeeee 1 week ago

No pools so far has upgraded to 0.21.1 and/or votes for taproot activation. The sooner taproot is activated, the mooner. So we all should push it forward.

1

Pure-Canary1549 redditor for 7 weeks 1 week ago

I have what might be a silly question.

I often see discussions about the importance in people running non-mining full-nodes, particularly when it comes to deciding the future of Bitcoin via agreeing to install protocol-changing updates.

But the update here is very specific about it being miners who need to activate these features and decide if Taproot becomes law or not.

Can anyone point me towards a resource to better understand the power/impact we have running non-mining full nodes in regards to feature changes?

Like, let's say the miners all updated to a protocol-changing feature but none of the non-mining full-nodes did. So the non-mining nodes would not be relaying the blocks they deemed as invalid, right? And then we have a hard fork where the miners are on their own?

Basically trying to understand what happens if some future change that might be good for miners but bad for people comes about.

2

TheGreatMuffin 1 week ago

> Like, let's say the miners all updated to a protocol-changing feature but none of the non-mining full-nodes did. So the non-mining nodes would not be relaying the blocks they deemed as invalid, right? And then we have a hard fork where the miners are on their own? That's basically it, yeah. Keep in mind that mining a chain without users is senseless, even if you have like 99% of miners on that chain. No users = nobody will buy your coins or transact on that chain = no profitable mining for you. Keep also in mind that introducing such update mechanisms through mining is more a coordination thing than a power thing. It's just easier to do when a majority of miners signals for it because it is more objective, unfakeable data and it avoids a potential chainsplit or other dangers much better than other mechanisms. And although miners get some kind of a veto power alongside of this, there are also other ways to "force" them to update, if the majority of the users are for it (see f.ex the Segwit/Segwit2x happening in 2017).

6

Spartan3123 1 week ago

You are making a big assumption that the main chain has no users, what if it has most of the users? Because the minority chain doesn't produce blocks it can't be used, therefore it will be worthless. ( Too high difficulty ) People will gradually switch to the chain that miners are supporting even if they supported taproot. You can't force updates without enough miner support.

1

TheGreatMuffin 1 week ago

> what if it has most of the users? Then it's all fine and dandy :) > You can't force updates without enough miner support. You kinda can although it then becomes a dangerous chicken game (with the threat of splitting the network, which is in neither groups' interest), this is pretty much exactly what UASF tried to achieve. > Because the minority chain doesn't produce blocks it can't be used, therefore it will be worthless. ( Too high difficulty ) Well, you definitely will need *some* miners, but sooner or later they will find blocks. Sure, if 99% of miners quit and mine on another chain it's going to be tough. Of course it's not a realistic assumption, the conditions are not as black and white as "no users"/"no miners" at all.

1

Spartan3123 1 week ago

yes i agree, making the assertion that 99% of miners will not support it is similar to making the assertion that 99% of users will not support the old chain. However, miner support is more transparent due to block signalling, where was user support can easily be sybilled unless people all do some holder based voting ( signing a message based on your keys ) I think people are trivialising how dangerous the UASF was, Bitcoin is much bigger now with institutional investors they will not like the possibility of a network split. We should commit to activating via miner signalling and if some don't do it we need to address their concerns or making mining more decentralized. Cowboy behaviour and nonchalantly waving a nuke around (UASF) is reckless. This is why i quit Bcash, since they HF everyone 6 months and created multiple splits of bcash BSV, BCHA, BCHN and probably more ever time the upgrade.

1

Pure-Canary1549 redditor for 7 weeks 1 week ago

That makes sense, thanks!

2

grinnersaok 1 week ago

Look into soft fork vs hard fork. Miners could attempt to force through a soft fork (ie: tightening the rules), but not a hard fork (ie; expanding rules). For example, my node says the bitcoin coinbase reward must be no more than 6.25 bitcoin per block. A miner could decide to tighten this, and only allow a coinbase reward of 5.25 bitcoin per block, and my node would still accept that as valid as it is within the rules I set (only further restricted). This is a soft fork. My node would reject a miner forcing through an increase in their coinbase reward to 7.25, as this is not within my ruleset (and hence incompatible) so would be a hard fork. This can't be forced through by miners. There's a bit more nuance to what soft forks miners could force (as users could render an attempted soft fork incompatible) but that's the basics.

3

Pure-Canary1549 redditor for 7 weeks 1 week ago

Nice example re: the reward changes. Thanks!

1

belcher_ 1 week ago

> But the update here is very specific about it being miners who need to activate these features and decide if Taproot becomes law or not. That's only a way which adds additional safety which lets us do the update more quickly. If miners ended up not activating taproot using this Speedy Trial scheme then we would activate taproot anyway using a UASF probably coded into Bitcoin Core (but that would have to take much longer for it to be safe). > Like, let's say the miners all updated to a protocol-changing feature but none of the non-mining full-nodes did. So the non-mining nodes would not be relaying transactions they deemed as invalid, right? And then we have a hard fork where the miners are on their own? No, we'd have new rules being enforced by miners, but those rules would stop being enforced as soon as 51% of miners stopped enforcing them. To put it another way, if taproot was only enforced by miners then 51% of miners could steal coins from taproot addresses. If taproot is enforced by the economy the no amount of mining power can steal coins in taproot addresses. We use miner activation here because it makes accidental reorgs much less likely. > Can anyone point me towards a resource to better understand the power/impact we have running non-mining full nodes in regards to feature changes? https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Balance-of-Power-Fallacy "Power in Bitcoin rests with miners and merchants. Yet these two powers are not "balanced" between each other, as if locked in some sort of checks-and-balances system. Miner power is orthogonal to merchant power. Miners control transaction selection, merchants control validity, and neither can control the other." > Basically trying to understand what happens if some future change that might be good for miners but bad for people comes about. Then we use miner fees. Suppose a portion of miners decided they would censor transactions by only mining them if users give them their full KYC information. Users who wanted to use bitcoin anonymously would then pay higher miner fees, and those miner fees would only go to miners that didnt censor. In this way the users would preferentially give revenue to non-censoring miners and take away revenue from censoring miners (because mining is a zero-sum game, one miner's gain is another miner's loss). That's how users resist changes they disagree with that miners try to impose.

12

Spartan3123 1 week ago

Can you explain how a UASF could be safe and gurantee a split will be avoided? Also it's unrealistic to assert all users/merchants will unanimously be against the miners.

1

belcher_ 1 week ago

> Also it's unrealistic to assert all users/merchants will unanimously be against the miners. I agree, I think the most helpful way of understanding the system is that users/merchants and miners are constantly locked in a mutually-beneficial trade, and as long as the incentives line up the benefits keep flowing. > Can you explain how a UASF could be safe and gurantee a split will be avoided? A couple of different ways: * Monitor the community for any opposition to taproot. Me and others are constantly doing this and I've never seen any business or user opposing taproot itself. * Have the new soft fork rules be protected by standardness. This is done for taproot, taproot transactions are seen as non-standard by old nodes. Those old nodes will not relay taproot transactions on the p2p network, they will not create them. * Use a flag-day activation as a UASF method, without any kind of long period of forced signalling. Flag day activation works simply: we choose a block height and after that block height the new taproot rules become enforced. The lack of forced signalling means that non-upgraded miners will not accidentality created taproot-invalid blocks just because of their own lazyness or lateness in updating. Because of the above-mentioned standardness rules old miners will also not mine taproot-invalid transactions. * Get mining pools, businesses and users to look at the code for UASF and ask if they (a) think its either neutral or good for their business or use case and (b) they believe others view it similarly and that the consensus changes proposed have a good social consensus around them. * Setting the flag day further in the future (18 months to 2 years in the original proposal) Further reading: Pieter Wuille's argument for why soft forks are pretty safe, nowhere near the danger of hard forks as another posted said: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012014.html Matt Corallo's flag day soft fork proposal: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018501.html My (Chris Belcher's) post about flag days: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018538.html

4

Spartan3123 6 days ago

So basically it's impossible to mine an invalid block unless the miners run custom software and nobody can force send them an invalid taproot transaction? Therefore the community can update the nodes and simply wait for miners to start processing taproot txns? An invalid taproot txn would be rejected by both updated and non-updated nodes due to "standardness"?

1

belcher_ 6 days ago

Yep

3

Link_1986 6 days ago

Thanks for posting, the Memes are fun, but it’s great to read up on some of these technical aspects that make bitcoin so important

1

Lobbelt 1 week ago

“Could steal coins from taproot addresses” - i.e. by double spending, right? Or is there another way 51% of miners can steal coins in that scenario?

1

whitslack 1 week ago

As in all soft forks, nodes that have not upgraded to enforce the new rules will see transactions using the new rules as though "anyone can spend" their outputs. But if "anyone" tries to spend them, that'll only appear valid to the un-upgraded nodes. The upgraded nodes would reject any block with such a theft transaction in it. If less than half of the mining power is upgraded, then there would be a chain split, which everyone wants to avoid, so that's why we're trying to get 90% hashpower signaling support before we start enforcing the new rules.

7

Spartan3123 1 week ago

Yes this is why UASF is almost like a hardfork as a split can be forced is someone mines a non standard txn using a modified client. People in this sub still promote it, but basically is almost like a HF and it should not be celebrated.

1

whitslack 1 week ago

I agree in principle. A UASF is "almost like a hard fork" in that it can cause a persistent chain split. However, the threat of that may be just the kick in the pants that miners need in order to get with the program.

1

Pure-Canary1549 redditor for 7 weeks 1 week ago

Excellent info, thanks for taking the time to share!

1

coinfeeds-bot 1 week ago

tldr; Bitcoin Core version 0.21.1 is now available for download. Bitcoin Core will begin enforcing additional consensus rules specified in BIPs 341 and 342 at block 709,632, expected in early or mid November. If miners don’t lock in taproot by the end of the three month signaling period, a separate attempt to activate it using another mechanism is expected to be tried.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

5

techma2019 1 week ago

Can someone please explain what Taproot is/does?

6

TheGreatMuffin 1 week ago

> Summary > > * If you are a singlesig HODL-only Bitcoin user, Taproot will not affect you positively or negatively. Importantly: Taproot does no harm! > > * If you use or intend to use multisig, Taproot will be a positive for you. > > * If you transact onchain regularly using typical P2PKH/P2WPKH addresses, you get a minor reduction in feerates since multisig users will likely switch to Taproot to get smaller tx sizes, freeing up blockspace for yours. > > * If you are using multiparticipant setups for special systems of trade, Taproot will be a positive for you. > Remember: Lightning channels are multipartiicpiant setups for special systems of lightning-fast offchain trades! https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/hrlpnc/technical_taproot_why_activate/

24

techma2019 1 week ago

Thank you!

4

Truck-Unique 1 - 2 years account age. 100 - 200 comment karma. 1 week ago

Can anyone simplify this , i’m a bitcoin holder and know the basics but this shit just looks like jiberish. Didn’t even know you could update the blockchain like that

2

diradder 1 week ago

This is one Bitcoin node software (Bitcoin Core), the most popular one, releasing a version that allows miners to signal in each block they mine if they support the activation of Taproot as proposed in the same source code. Taproot is an upcoming change to Bitcoin rules allowing smaller and more private multi-signature transactions partly thanks to a new signature scheme: Schnorr signatures (and a new address format). It's a rather non-controversial change and for current users it implies no changes at all unless they intend to use those new features (it is a [soft fork](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork)), kinda like SegWit, people can still use legacy address if they want, they just don't benefit of the improvement of SegWit (and fee discount). But as you suggested it's not easy to upgrade a decentralized system of the scale of Bitcoin, even with optional upgrades like those. So firstly a certain threshold of blocks signalling for it (90%) has to be reached within a certain period (~ 3 months). You can see the progress here: https://taproot.watch/ (it shows 2016 blocks, because during those 3 months, each group of 2016 blocks is looked at and at least one has to reach the threshold). If there is enough consensus (i.e. miners/users using this change of the rules of Bitcoin) the new rules will be activated around November 2021 (when block 709,632 is mined).

5

WTWIV Platinum | QC: CC 143 | r/Politics 14 1 week ago

Thanks for the update. This will go largely ignored while crap about safemoons gets voted to the top. Shame

3

Truck-Unique 1 - 2 years account age. 100 - 200 comment karma. 1 week ago

Thanks for the clarification

2

diradder 1 week ago

From the blog post:

[...] miner block templates produced by this version of Bitcoin Core will signal readiness to enforce taproot during the roughly three month period specified by BIP341.

If, during that time, 90% of blocks within a 2,016 retarget period signal readiness, taproot will be locked in and this version of Bitcoin Core will begin enforcing the additional consensus rules specified in BIPs 341 and 342 at block 709,632, which is expected in early or mid November.

If miners don’t lock in taproot by the end of the three month signaling period, a separate attempt to activate it using another mechanism is expected to be tried. The activation mechanism has been designed so that, by roughly mid August, it will either provide us with an assurance that we’ll soon have taproot or immediately give us valuable information that users and developers can use to make the next activation attempt more likely to succeed.

Pretty exciting stuff, you can watch the progress of signalling here over the upcoming ~3 months: https://taproot.watch/

3

AutoModerator 1 week ago

Hello r/CryptoCurrency readers. Please try out the following links:

To sort comments by controversial first, click here. Doesn't work on mobile.
To potentially find CryptoWikis articles about the subject of this post, click here. To contribute to CryptoWikis, click here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

coinfeeds-bot 1 week ago

tldr; Bitcoin Core version 0.21.1 is now available for download. Bitcoin Core will begin enforcing additional consensus rules specified in BIPs 341 and 342 at block 709,632, expected in early or mid November. If miners don’t lock in taproot by the end of the three month signaling period, a separate attempt to activate it using another mechanism is expected to be tried.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

5

DrDankMemesPhD 1 week ago

This is the mining community's chance to stay relevant in discussions concerning upgrades, and to do so they'll need to prove their value by activating this upgrade quickly.

The node operators flexed with the UASF in 2017, if we have to do it again this time the miners may never be treated as worthy of consideration again.

17

Digi-Digi 1 week ago

They'll stay in line this time. Blocks and fees are worth much more now, and no asic boost, miners cant afford to put up a fuss and there's only pain for them in doing so, with no chance of gain like there was before.

3

Spartan3123 1 week ago

A contentious SF without a enough miner support can result in a split, please don't turn btc into bcash by doing something reckless. Remember segwit never activated via the UASF

1

Digi-Digi 1 week ago

It was activated *because* of UASF, not via UASF directly.

5

Spartan3123 1 week ago

Exactly we don't know what would have happened if it activated via the UASF. It could have caused a reorg battle or a split if someone deliberately mined a non standard transaction. It was a reckless PR stunt to trigger the centralized mining pools to updated demonstrating pools are miners and not the hashers

1

Digi-Digi 1 week ago

It would have just ended up as it is now, that's why miners capitulated before the deadline.

1

Independent-Metal610 redditor for 4 weeks 1 week ago

Looking at taproot.watch, it’s all red squares. Not looking promising so far.

3

dlq84 1 week ago

Do you really think miners instantly downloads and deploy new software, on a weekend? Relax...

1

TheGreatMuffin 1 week ago

The software just got released... don't panic just yet ;) edit: to explain further: the activation time is three months. In those three months, there should be 6 periods (2016 blocks) in which the activation can happen\*. The 90% signaling is needed in one of **those** periods. Not right now. It's not reasonable to expect miners to update their client on the same day it got released. And it's not necessary to be that quick either. So all is well for now :) \* an activation period is 2016 blocks, which roughly need 2 weeks to be mined.. so there are four weeks in three months, meaning 6 possible activation periods (without actually doing the math with the blocks, which might change the time frame slightly)

14

RGauthamRam 1 week ago

How does a miner signal their response?

1

whitslack 1 week ago

!lntip 500

2

lntipbot 1 week ago

Hi u/whitslack, thanks for tipping u/TheGreatMuffin **500** satoshis! *** *[^(More info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/lntipbot/wiki/index) ^| [^(Balance)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=balance&message=!balance) ^| [^(Deposit)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=deposit&message=!deposit 10000) ^| [^(Withdraw)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=withdraw&message=!withdraw put_invoice_here) ^| ^(Something wrong? Have a question?) [^(Send me a message)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=drmoore718)*

2

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Join r/NFT Discord

© 2021 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Join r/NFT Discord

© 2021 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily