Reddit Posts
First Strategy 2 Earn (S2E) Game on the blockchain technology launching on Aug 16th 17:00 UTC and listing on BitMart Aug 17th.
Mentions
That hurt$ -- ACK! At least I have some. Better than not. Good fortune all.
We are BACK with a capital ACK
Relevant: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408 PR to allow limiting Ordinals * ACK - In favor of limiting Ordinals: 11 votes * NACK - Against limiting Ordinals: 14 votes Still closer than I thought it would be. Ohh well, maybe next year.
I am concerned every time i make a transaction, especially because it is always a new address. I feel like I can never be 100% sure I’ll receive the money until i do receive it. I usually send a small sum before in order to make sure, but since the address is always a new one, i find it stressful every time i hope future protocols could have some kind of ACK mechanism to confirm the new address is mine, before doing the actual send
> Also, aside from removing one RTT, TFO won't do anything for the slow start phase, so file transfers will still take a long time. It's always been the case, even on Earth, that you're supposed to tune the TCP receive window size to the bandwidth×delay product. If you did that for an interplanetary connection, the receive window might be gigabytes in size, meaning an entire large file could be transmitted before the sender receives back an ACK of the very first segment. So, again, no problem with TCP, as long as you set its parameters appropriately. >Also, what browsers support it now? I have no idea. It's trivial to add. >Or just ditch Web pages for such scenarios, and use efficient machine-oriented protocols instead? Ideally, yes, but that requires buy-in on the server side as well, and that's by no means a given.
> TCP Fast Open allows the client to send its request inside its initial SYN packet, and the server can begin sending its response inside its SYN+ACK packet, so there's only one round-trip delay of latency per request. Helpful, yes. Do note, however: TFO requires the client and server to have already had a connection in which the server provides a security cookie, before it can be used with that pair. Also, aside from removing one RTT, TFO won't do anything for the slow start phase, so file transfers will still take a long time. Also, what browsers support it now? I found information that it was removed from both Edge and Firefox a couple of years ago, possibly in favor of QUIC. Not sure about others, though. > Imagine trying to do online banking when it takes half a hour for each page to load. Your login session would time out at the server before you even received your account dashboard. There will need to be a proxy on Earth to which Mars-based browsers can send a script of which links to "click" and what form data to fill in. Or just ditch Web pages for such scenarios, and use efficient machine-oriented protocols instead?
TCP Fast Open allows the client to send its request inside its initial SYN packet, and the server can begin sending its response in its SYN+ACK packet, so there's only one round-trip delay of latency per request. As for timeouts, yes, they would need to be changed from the defaults in most implementations, but that's easy enough to do. Would be nice if the timeouts were configurable per routing table entry so we could have a different set of timeouts for off-planet destinations. That's a minor software fix, though; no changes are needed to the protocol. Packet loss really shouldn't be any more of an issue than it is in the terrestrial Internet. There's usually nothing in the gap between Earth and Mars to interfere with the signal. We'll need a large phased-array antenna in orbit around each planet, but that's already doable with current technology, so it's just a matter of time and money to get it done. Although TCP will work fine at interplanetary distances (with some adjustments to its parameters), application-layer protocols will need some work. Web browsers are going to need significant changes to facilitate scripting a browsing session. Imagine trying to do online banking when it takes half a hour for each page to load. Your login session would time out at the server before you even received your account dashboard. There will need to be a proxy on Earth to which Mars-based browsers can send a script of which links to "click" and what form data to fill in. Of course, there will be banks established on Mars, too, but there will likely always be a need for an interplanetary session marshalling service to overcome the problem of relatively short session timeouts in interactive web services.
Ya, if you tried to tell people their packets were performing three-way SYN, SYN-ACK, ACK handshakes they might think you were having a stroke. All that the end user needs is a reliable, easy-to-navigate front-end and they'll be satisfied.
>Or.. resist any significant changes to the code that would be against their interests. The resistance is fully nodes. There's no company telling users what to run. If you have a proposal and it gets BIPed then you convince people running nodes why they should run it. Convince me why I should ACK something. This is not easy and the fact that it's not easy is why Bitcoin sets the benchmark for security. ​ >Why hasn't BIP 300 & 301 been included in Bitcoin Core if there are many people who are for it? I'm myself only sort of for it. I think it's ok to let people experiment with drivechains and spacechains away from core protocol but the way the core protocol needs to be aligned or how it may affect the core protocol are critical debates in Bitcoin. Paul needs to campaign for it and get users on board. If users are on board and want to run something, it happens. I will say the same thing for Jeremy Rubin as well. He's barking up the wrong tree. For Bitcoin users to be willing to run a major software change you need to make a really compelling case for it and maybe it should be on a sidechain or on Litecoin first. This is how SegWit, Lightning and Taproot all got adopted. TARO and RGB are happening because they will have no impact on the core protocol but exists on fringes of Lightning. Even Lightning nodes can run their Lightning protocol as they are without being affected by these but still collect routing fees routing TARO asset transfers denominated in sats.
For peer to peer, have the offline perform a zk check that requires the ACK to provide an email or something so it can't be approved by a bad actor. For commercial/institutional, require a pre-registered offline key that matches the ACK from the receiver. Stuff like depositing to your bank, paying rent, etc that you do over and over. In both scenarios you could have an offline encrypted "friends list" that does these automatically after the first time.
ACK! your comment brings me joy.
apologies, looks like the automod removed this comment for some reason and I didn't see it until now (had to approve it manually). > So what? I didn't claim that they weren't. I only claimed that many were full on endorsements. It seems you agree. context matters. ACK or NACK is too simplistic for me personally. Destroys the nuance. Devils in details and all. though it might be suitable for others, I don't like it personally as conflation/omission can happen either way with people in the middle. > I just don't think its correct to say CTV "enables" whitelists, when whitelists are already enabled. Saying it "enables" something implies that thing was not previously possible. this is a fairly good point. it's more fair to say it enables whitelists in a different way then already enabled, and apparently not beyond what is currently enabled (though this has been yet to be demonstrated for obvious reasons). Again, getting very specific helps. > Just like you wouldn't say that OP_CHECKSIGADD "enabled" multisig in bitcoin - multisig was already possible. more accurate language here would be it enables better/cheaper multisig? > "CTV can be used to create whitelists, but only ones that are far less flexible and usable than ones that multisig already enables". That's the honest and clear way of putting it. I think I agree, and I hope that's the case. I'd be interested in seeing this demonstrated though for confirmation and curiosity. ie compare the costs of a multisig whitelist setup vs a CTV one. This would be challenging though since who wants to be the one to create that kind of Frankenstein just for comparison purposes (they risk being labelled a bad actor by bad faith opponents). > Explain it to me then. Does it have any benefits (to the entity interested in whitelisting) over plain old multisig? cont.
ACK to all three points. With txindex=1, the Bitcoin blockchain currently occupies 525GB. (I run a full node on a Rock Pi 4).
It follows nasd-ACK until it doesn't. Shorts gonna get rekt 🙃
Choosing internet protocols were messy. And by extent, TCP/IP is still quite messy with most vulnerabilities using ACK-SYN floods network attacks. Ipfs is a web3 protocol that isn’t a decade old and used to store NFT’s, front end applications similar to AWS s3. You can easily upload a react app on ipfs without backend and have it run 24/7 without paying server fees or downtime. Again, the inventor of the world wide web and javascript is working in this space. Web2 requires a client-server model whereas web3 is p2p protocols.
Some hilarious comments * This is a good start, but storage uses energy too. Recommend piping block data to /dev/null. It’s fast as hell and supports sharding. * Signatures are very computationally expensive to produce and validate. We can save a further 99.5% of energy by replacing signatures with the string "I want to send this transaction", which is also less than half the size of a Schnorr signature. *Strong concept ACK. CI failed but we could ignore and disable it to save energy.
ACK It's not clear in the pull request what the specifics are, how Core preferences port 8333 nodes Seems this has now been merged, will be in the next release. Good work vasild and all who participated in the discussion and review
ACK-SHU-ALLY... Sometimes it does.
ACK CHEWALLY, with Banano, the paper is yellow.
Full ACK! $ONE has such a great roadmap and dev team!
> You can run Rosetta for Intel compatibility in the M1 if there are only Intel builds. Unless there's some other reason. Tails builds are Intel based. To boot Tails on a Mac you need Intel silicon, or at least you used to. [Maybe it runs on PowerPC](https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/start/mac/index.en.html) now, IDK ACK on the RPi, just OP seemed to be looking for the lowest build-out option.