Reddit Posts
Twitter Space for Developers to Learn About Most Up-to-Date Interoperability Tech.
Frens of EPNS and find out what they are building in Web 3.0
Meet Frens of EPNS and find out what they are building
The Bitcoin 2X Leveraged Index Token (BTC2X-FLI) - Explained
Bitcoin 2X Leveraged Index Token - Explained
Mentions
> the problem is that I do not have that much money to put in so that 2-3x would make a diff. Rather than trying to invest in some crazy moonshot, why not try to contribute something of value to the ecosystem. If you can provide some positive impact there are loads of funding opportunities for public goods through projects like Gitcoin, Giveth, CLR.fund and Optimism's RPGF rounds. There are lots more ways to make money in crypto than just buying an asset and waiting for the price to go up.
> Coinbase customer service didn’t even point me to the link you shared. That is very bizarre. I don't need a gift though, find an interesting public good to donate to on Gitcoin, CLR.fund or Giveth.
Gitcoin, Giveth and CLR.fund are the big ones, and the GreenPill podcast is all about crypto projects that are working to make a positive impact. Start with the first few episodes rather than the most recent as they lay the foundations of what it is about.
CLR Bruce Rivers (youtube) has many videos going over the details of Tate’s charges and includes videos of Tate admitting to defrauding his pornstars with fake tax slips and physical abuse, all in Tate’s own words. What disturbs me is, someone I know refuses to change his high opinion of Tate even after watching those videos
>When someone is interested in Bitcoin, this is one of the first places they come to Very much doubt that. >“I’m considering investing in Bitcoin” is not “you need to break the chains of fiat slavery and run a node.” The answer is always to [run a node](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/zturtd/think_bitcoin_is_inevitable_think_again/) and [Lightning node](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/zvj4xp/lighting_statistics_of_my_routing_node_6_months/) (very inexpensive to do), then a [home miner](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/zzraj0/comment/j2njt2a/) if you can. If you can code, you can [contribute to development](https://twitter.com/summerofbitcoin/status/1584910670814142465) and get paid through grants and sponsors. Who do you think is going to do it but you? Bitcoin is not an investment, no one ever sold it to you. It's an open protocol built upon 40 years of research to fix money by removing trust in humans and released to the world for free. The same people (cypherpunks) who were involved in TCP/IP were involved in the research that contributed to the invention of bitcoin. It's a new monetary system built from the ground up by us, literally random people on the internet voluntarily supporting, securing and developing it. There's no company, foundation, premine, ICO, VCs, licenses, trademarks, branding or marketing teams, no official website, code repo or even a formal specification. Through voluntary adoption, bitcoin is where it is today against all odds, having started from zero 14 years ago. Any "normie" reading this, it's time for you to learn about [money](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1124cxd/comment/j8itipz/) from first principles. No, you were not taught about this in school. Why? Because if you were start thinking critically about money, you may wake up to the fact that you're a slave. No, bitcoin is not an investment. Yes, you are a slave who exchanges real value (your work) for fake value (legally counterfeited money created out of nothing and [printed to infinity](https://twitter.com/LordFusitua/status/1580781002733277185) by a privileged few). But for the first time in human history, you "can" do something about it. >Normies don’t need to see backyard scraps re: Roger or block size Wrong. It's actually extremely important to learn about the [blocksize war](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS). You cannot understand why bitcoin is antifragile without learning about the blocksize war.
Regarded. Even before the network was launched, it was always clear that fees would be how miners are paid. Block subsidy is only a means of distributing bitcoin. The subsidy dropped from 50 to 25, then 25 to 12.5, then 12.5 to 6.25. That's an 87.5% drop! Was it a problem? No. It didn't happen overnight. Somehow the value of subsidy + rewards is significantly higher every time it drops. How come hashrate doubled since ATH price last November while dollar price dropped 75%? Isn't that weird? It's from [innovations in energy efficiency](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zf10j5/ethereums_energy_switch_saves_as_much_electricity/iz9ibgw/) as bitcoin is being integrated into cost, incentive dynamics improving the economics of energy systems. This is going to accelerate on a scale you cannot even imagine over the next 5 years. I actually get paid to [heat my home](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FenduPzXkAAcatX?format=jpg&name=4096x4096). Who doesn't want to? Security budget FUD is the dumbest out of all FUDs. People who bring this up as some kind of flaw are incredibly naive, keep one variable constant while changing everything else and confuse themselves by comparing subsidy + reward to original 50 BTC. When subsidy was 50 BTC, the price was 0. How is 50 bitcoin to 25 bitcoin any different from 20 million sats to 10 million sats? The network is not adjusting from 50 bitcoin to 10 million sats. **The short answer is, bitcoin network can autonomously adjust to all realities till the end of time.** **This is the great innovation. The difficulty adjustment is Satoshi's masterstroke.** Through every 4-year period, the network organically adapts to a new subsidy and reward composition and eventually after several decades transitions to fee only model. In the meantime, block space efficiency keeps scaling sufficiently that block rewards are still tens of millions of satoshis as they are now. This is what it is today right now, tens of millions of satoshis ranging from 20 to 50 million satoshis even with pretty low fee rates. Then you account for any other potential revenue streams such as drivechains, spacechains or similar. Taproot also already supports on chain batch verification once fully adopted. Many people don't seem to know this. CISA, musig2, channel factories etc. all these contribute to both scaling and block space efficiency. Essentially, your transactions are better optimized for block space usage but you may still pay a similar fee as determined by fee market. 20 years from now, the base layer will be mainly used for large settlements only like buying a car or a house, by governments and corporations. Your day to day retail transactions will be on Lightning and other layers. Lightning will never be suitable for large settlements but at the same time it's perfect for day to day payments and micropayments. Also remember that the only reason there wasn't an actual block size increase in 2017 was because it wasn't required! This was [decided by Bitcoin users](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) through UASF against the interests of miners and corporate actors. SegWit scaled virtual block size almost 3 times without increasing actual block size. It was an optimization of block space usage. SegWit adoption rate is close to 90% now. At some point block size will most likely increase as it would make sense, storage, bandwidth become cheaper, cost to run a node will be same as today or even less possibly. At some point, there's also no price in dollars but value in purchasing power measured against goods and services. Fix your unit of account and think in satoshis. Fees alone make up tens of millions of satoshis per block already now. The value of subsidy + reward composition finds the right balance over every 4 year period when subdity halves. Bitcoin is designed such that difficulty, hashrate, fees, block rewards all find equilibrium halving after halving perpetually. There's no sudden shock, it's gradual, organic, and naturally adjusts without human interference. [This](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-security-without-mining-subsidy) article from Dillon Healy and [this](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5de588aa3e9c044c1ad8cb59/t/6329b32325b7205aea8e14f8/1663677220899/Bitcoin+Transaction+Fees+Final+Draft.pdf) report from Blockware are both worth reading on the subject.
Miners don't control bitcoin. This was proven in practice in 2017. I'd recommend reading [The Blocksize War](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) by Jonathan Bier. If you're not fond of books, Andreas explained [here](https://youtu.be/_UO3SsEmJpc) long before the blocksize war. Regardless, [this](https://i.redd.it/k7n9wh6or4o91.jpg) is the distribution of hash power.
Block subsidy is only a means of distributing bitcoin. Fees are already tens of millions of satoshis per block today. The subsidy dropped from 50 to 25, then 25 to 12.5, then 12.5 to 6.25. That's an 87.5% drop! Was it a problem? No. It didn't happen overnight. Somehow the value of subsidy + rewards is significantly higher every time it drops. How come hashrate doubled since ATH last November while dollar price dropped 75%? Isn't that weird? It's from [innovations in energy efficiency](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zf10j5/ethereums_energy_switch_saves_as_much_electricity/iz9ibgw/) as bitcoin is being integrated into cost, incentive dynamics improving the economics of energy systems. This is going to accelerate on a scale you cannot even imagine over the next 5 years. I actually get paid to heat my home. Who doesn't want to? Most people who bring this up as some kind of flaw are naive as to how bitcoin works, keep one variable constant while changing everything else and confuse themselves by comparing subsidy + reward to original 50 BTC. When subsidy was 50 BTC, the price was 0. How is 50 bitcoin to 25 bitcoin any different from 20 million sats to 10 million sats? The network is not adjusting from 50 bitcoin to 10 million sats. **The short answer is, bitcoin network can autonomously adjust to all realities till the end of time.** **This is the great innovation. The difficulty adjustment is Satoshi's masterstroke.** Through every 4-year period, the network organically adapts to a new subsidy and reward composition and eventually after several decades transitions to fee only model. In the meantime, block space efficiency keeps scaling sufficiently that block rewards are still tens of millions of satoshis as they are now. This is what it is today right now, tens of millions of satoshis ranging from 20 to 50 million satoshis even with pretty low fee rates. Then you account for any other potential revenue streams such as drivechains, spacechains or similar. Taproot also already supports on chain batch verification once fully adopted. Many people don't seem to know this. CISA, musig2, channel factories etc. all these contribute to both scaling and block space efficiency. Essentially, your transactions are better optimized for block space usage but you may still pay a similar fee as determined by fee market. 20 years from now, the base layer will be mainly used for large settlements only like buying a car or a house, by governments and corporations. Your day to day retail transactions will be on Lightning and other layers. Lightning will never be suitable for large settlements but at the same time it's perfect for day to day payments and micropayments. Also remember that the only reason there wasn't an actual block size increase in 2017 was because it wasn't required! This was [decided by Bitcoin users](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) through UASF against the interests of miners and corporate actors. SegWit scaled virtual block size almost 3 times without increasing actual block size. It was an optimization of block space usage. SegWit adoption rate is close to 90% now. At some point block size will almost certainly increase as it would make sense, storage, bandwidth become cheaper, cost to run a node will be same as today or even less possibly. At some point, there's also no price in dollars but value in purchasing power measured against goods and services. Fix your unit of account and think in satoshis. Fees alone make up tens of millions of satoshis per block already now. The value of subsidy + reward composition finds the right balance over every 4 year period when subdity halves. Bitcoin is designed such that difficulty, hashrate, fees, block rewards all find equilibrium halving after halving perpetually. There's no sudden shock, it's gradual, organic, and naturally adjusts without human interference. [This](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-security-without-mining-subsidy) article from Dillon Healy and [this](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5de588aa3e9c044c1ad8cb59/t/6329b32325b7205aea8e14f8/1663677220899/Bitcoin+Transaction+Fees+Final+Draft.pdf) report from Blockware are both worth reading on the subject. >ETH no longer can be mined, so that seems to have an eternal life Care to elaborate? Eth can be changed to anything at anytime by ethereum foundation. It's also unsecure with [tens of billions worth of exploits](https://decrypt.co/86503/defi-users-lost-billion-theft-fraud-2021-mostly-ethereum-report) every year and users losing fees on [millions of failed transactions](https://cryptopotato.com/over-1-2-million-ethereum-transactions-failed-in-may/) every month. **“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.** **Proof-of-work has the nice property that it can be relayed through untrusted middlemen. We don't have to worry about a chain of custody of communication. It doesn't matter who tells you a longest chain, the proof-of-work speaks for itself.”** **― Satoshi Nakamoto** Satoshi created an internal perpetual clock which is backed by energy, math, time all of which cannot be forged or controlled by anyone or any authority and this clock is designed to adapt itself and run forever without any intervention at all. The unforgeable cost of work is what links bitcoin the digital money to the physical realm. Otherwise you go back to human trust based political system. Corporate governance is based on stake. Fiat is based on stake. Trust based stakeholder systems is literally what Satoshi fixed using proof of work. If you go back and read the post on bitcointalk forums which originally proposed proof of stake in 2011. It was proposed a way for companies issuing shares to create a closed, permissioned blockchain to prevent outside influence. Proof of stake has no link or value interface with the real world.
>These fees will likely be much lower than the current block rewards Current fees alone are exponentially higher than block rewards when block rewards were 50 BTC, 25 BTC, 12.5 BTC. Block subsidy dropped from 50 to 25, then 25 to 12.5, then 12.5 to 6.25. That's an 87.5% drop! Was it a problem? No. Why? It didn't happen overnight. Somehow the value of subsidy + fee rewards is significantly higher every time it drops. How come hashrate doubled since ATH last November while dollar price dropped 75%? Isn't that really weird? From [innovations in energy efficiency](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zf10j5/ethereums_energy_switch_saves_as_much_electricity/iz9ibgw/) as bitcoin is being integrated into cost, incentive dynamics improving the economics of energy systems. This is going to accelerate on a scale you cannot even imagine within the next 5 years. I actually get paid to heat my home. Who doesn't want to? Anyone who brings this up as some kind of flaw is naive as to how bitcoin works, they keep one variable constant while changing everything else and confuse themselves by comparing subsidy + fee rewards to original 50 BTC. When subsidy was 50 BTC, the price was 0. How is 50 bitcoin to 25 bitcoin any different from 20 million sats to 10 million sats ? The network is not adjusting from 50 bitcoin to 10 million sats subsidy. The short answer is, bitcoin network can autonomously adjust to all realities till the end of time. This is the great innovation. The difficulty adjustment is Satoshi's masterstroke. Through every 4-year period, the network organically adapts to a new subsidy and fee reward composition and eventually after several decades transitions to fee only model. In the meantime, block space efficiency keeps scaling sufficiently that block rewards are still tens of millions of satoshis as they are now. This is what it is today right now, tens of millions of satoshis ranging from 20 to 50 million satoshis even with very low fee rates. Then you can account for any other potential revenue streams in future such as drivechains, spacechains or similar. Taproot also already supports on chain batch verification once fully adopted. Many don't seem to know this. CISA, musig2, channel factories etc. all these contribute to both scaling and block space efficiency. Essentially, your transactions are better optimized for block space usage but you may still pay a similar fee as determined by fee market or possibly even slightly higher. 20 years from now, the base layer will be mainly used for large settlements only like buying a car or a house, by governments and corporations. Your day to day retail transactions will be on Lightning and other layers. Lightning will never be suitable for large settlements but at the same time it's perfect for day to day payments and micropayments offering [privacy similar to cash payments](https://twitter.com/LN_Capital/status/1614308872973344768). We should also remember that the only reason there wasn't an actual block size increase in 2017 was because it wasn't required! This was [decided by Bitcoin users](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) through UASF against the interests of miners and corporate actors. SegWit scaled virtual block size almost 3 times without increasing actual block size. It was an optimization of block space usage. SegWit adoption rate is close to 90% now. At some point block size will certainly increase if it made sense and as storage, bandwidth become cheaper, cost to run a node will be same as today or even less possibly. At some point, there's also no price in dollars but value in purchasing power measured against goods and services. Fix your unit of account and think in satoshis. Fees alone make up tens of millions of satoshis already now. The value of subsidy + fee reward composition finds the right balance during every 4 year period when subdity halves. Bitcoin is designed such that difficulty, hashrate, fees, block rewards all find equilibrium halving after halving perpetually. There's no sudden shock, it's gradual, organic, and naturally adjusts without human interference. [This](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-security-without-mining-subsidy) article from Dillon Healy and [this](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5de588aa3e9c044c1ad8cb59/t/6329b32325b7205aea8e14f8/1663677220899/Bitcoin+Transaction+Fees+Final+Draft.pdf) report from Blockware are both worth reading on the subject.
>Should I diversify into ETH? Ethereum foundation centrally premined 72 million eth before a single block was mined of which 12 million was supposedly given to founders for free which is clearly a lot of coins already and it's the same as any equity issuance where ownership and management control issuance and distribution but then if you were to look at the actual sale curve, it follows the [mathematical precision of a power function](https://prestonbyrne.com/2018/04/23/on-ethereum-security/) which is only possible if it was almost entirely paid out to a [single entity](https://twitter.com/Leerzeit/status/1591190118492098560) or small group of people working in concert. There's a central issuer company with an executive board of directors which owns [trademarks](https://trademarks.justia.com/866/34/ethereum-86634529.html), licensed AWS central servers, creates roadmaps, locks up funds, has [branding, marketing teams and business plans](https://nitter.net/HODLneverSODL/status/1505891471668482050#m). [Ethereum Foundation creates an altered version of Ethereum on July 20 2016 to reverse the DAO theft (to recover founders' coins). As trademark rights holders, the Ethereum Foundation applies the Ethereum (ETH) brand to the new forked chain](https://ethereumclassic.org/knowledge/history) Ethereum foundation [decides](https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1567587149523947522) what's ethereum. Period! This is why there's never any contention over hard forks. This is why they are able to pull off a hard fork every six months. There are also only a handful of economically significant nodes like infura, alchemy and only [∼ 3k nodes](https://ethernodes.org/network-types?synced=1) with majority on central hosting servers. Ethereum upgrades require no consent from users. It's irrelevant what anyone thinks. A hard fork breaks consensus forming a new chain and enforces that change on users. It's only possible to do frequently if there's a central authority. You either upgrade to their chain or leave. You have no other option. You can no longer run older versions if you don't like the change ethereum foundation makes. You also cannot fork the chain yourself no matter how many users join you. It will not be ethereum as ethereum foundation holds the trademarks. By contrast, bitcoin upgrades are soft forked. It first requires miners to signal and then if that fails, it requires users to signal and then requires users to adopt them voluntarily. If users don't adopt then it doesn't happen. This is why bcash hard fork and SegWit2X failed despite support from miners and corporate actors. Users rejected them and activated SegWit through UASF (User Activated Soft Fork). [The Blocksize War](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) by Jonathan Bier captures the whole saga. >Can Vitalik help me get over my trust issues? You do not want a "project" you can trust. You want a protocol that requires no trust. You want a protocol every person on earth can independently verify and assert their self sovereignty. It's not about new rulers. It's about rules without rulers. That is the great invention. [The proof of work speaks for itself](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zf10j5/ethereums_energy_switch_saves_as_much_electricity/iz9ibgw/)
Block subsidy dropped from 50 to 25, then 25 to 12.5, then 12.5 to 6.25. That's an 87.5% drop! But it didn't happen overnight. Somehow the value of subsidy + rewards is significantly higher every time it drops. How come hashrate doubled since ATH last November while dollar price dropped 75%? Isn't that weird? From [innovations in energy efficiency](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zf10j5/ethereums_energy_switch_saves_as_much_electricity/iz9ibgw/) as bitcoin is being integrated into cost, incentive dynamics improving the economics of energy systems. This is going to accelerate on a scale you cannot even imagine over the next 5 years. I actually get paid to heat my home. Who doesn't want to? Most people who bring this up as some kind of flaw are naive as to how bitcoin works, keep one variable constant while changing everything else and confuse themselves by comparing subsidy + reward to original 50 BTC. When subsidy was 50 BTC, the price was 0. How is 50 bitcoin to 25 bitcoin any different from 20 million sats to 10 million sats? The network is not adjusting from 50 bitcoin to 10 million sats. The short answer is, bitcoin network can autonomously adjust to all realities till the end of time. This is the great innovation. The difficulty adjustment. Through every 4-year period, the network organically adapts to a new subsidy and reward composition and eventually after several decades transitions to fee only model. In the meantime, block space efficiency keeps scaling sufficiently that block rewards are still tens of millions of satoshis as they are now. This is what it is today right now, tens of millions of satoshis ranging from 20 to 50 million satoshis even with pretty low fee rates. Then you account for any other potential revenue streams such as drivechains, spacechains or similar. Taproot also already supports on chain batch verification once fully adopted. Many people don't seem to know this. CISA, musig2, channel factories etc. all these contribute to both scaling and block space efficiency. Essentially, your transactions are better optimized for block space usage but you may still pay a similar fee as determined by fee market. 20 years from now, the base layer will be mainly used for large settlements only like buying a car or a house, by governments and corporations. Your day to day retail transactions will be on Lightning and other layers. Lightning will never be suitable for large settlements but at the same time it's perfect for day to day payments and micropayments. Also remember that the only reason there wasn't an actual block size increase in 2017 was because it wasn't required! This was [decided by Bitcoin users](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) through UASF against the interests of miners and corporate actors. SegWit scaled virtual block size almost 3 times without increasing actual block size. It was an optimization of block space usage. SegWit adoption rate is close to 90% now. At some point block size will almost certainly increase as it would make sense, storage, bandwidth become cheaper, cost to run a node will be same as today or even less possibly. At some point, there's also no price in dollars but value in purchasing power measured against goods and services. Fix your unit of account and think in satoshis. Fees alone make up tens of millions of satoshis per block already now. The value of subsidy + reward composition finds the right balance over every 4 year period when subdity halves. Bitcoin is designed such that difficulty, hashrate, fees, block rewards all find equilibrium halving after halving perpetually. There's no sudden shock, it's gradual, organic, and naturally adjusts without human interference. [This](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-security-without-mining-subsidy) article from Dillon Healy and [this](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5de588aa3e9c044c1ad8cb59/t/6329b32325b7205aea8e14f8/1663677220899/Bitcoin+Transaction+Fees+Final+Draft.pdf) report from Blockware are both worth reading on the subject.
>current schedule is not sustainable Relative to what? Block subsidy dropped from 50 to 25, then 25 to 12.5, then 12.5 to 6.25? That's an 87.5% drop! But it didn't happen overnight. Somehow the value of subsidy + rewards is significantly higher every time it drops. Isn't that weird? How come hashrate doubled since ATH last November while dollar price dropped 75%? From [innovations in energy efficiency](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/zf10j5/ethereums_energy_switch_saves_as_much_electricity/iz9ibgw/) as bitcoin is being integrated into cost, incentive dynamics improving the economics of energy systems. Most people who bring this up as some kind of flaw are naive as to how bitcoin works, keep one variable constant while changing everything else and confuse themselves by comparing subsidy + reward to original 50 BTC. When subsidy was 50 BTC, the price was 0. How is 50 bitcoin to 25 bitcoin any different from 20 million sats to 10 million sats? The network is not adjusting from 50 bitcoin to 10 million sats. The short answer is, bitcoin is either valuable or it's not and bitcoin network can autonomously adjust to both realities till the end of time. Through every 4-year period, the network organically adapts to a new subsidy and reward composition and eventually after several decades transitions to fee only model. In the meantime, block space efficiency will keep scaling sufficiently that block rewards are still tens of millions of satoshis as they are now. This is what it is today right now, tens of millions of satoshis ranging from 20 to 50 million satoshis even with pretty low fee rates. Then you account for any other potential revenue streams such as drivechains, spacechains or similar. Taproot also already supports on chain batch verification once fully adopted. Many people don't seem to know this. CISA, musig2, channel factories etc. all contribute to both scaling and block space efficiency. Essentially, your transactions are better optimized for block space usage but you may still pay a similar fee as determined by fee market. 20 years from now, the base layer will be mainly used for large settlements only like buying a car or a house, by governments and corporations. Your day to day retail transactions will be on Lightning and other layers. Lightning will never be suitable for large settlements but at the same time it's perfect for day to day payments and micropayments. Also remember that the only reason there wasn't an actual block size increase in 2017 was because it wasn't required! This was [decided by Bitcoin users](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) through UASF against the interests of miners and corporate actors. SegWit scaled virtual block size almost 3 times without increasing actual block size. It was an optimization of block space usage. SegWit adoption rate is close to 90% now. At some point block size will almost certainly increase as it would make sense, storage will become cheaper so the cost to run a node will be same as today or even less possibly. At some point, there's also no price in dollars but value in purchasing power measured against goods and services. Fix your unit of account and think in satoshis. Fees alone make up tens of millions of satoshis per block already now. The value of subsidy + reward composition finds the right balance over every 4 year period when subdity halves. Bitcoin is designed such that difficulty, hashrate, fees, block rewards all find equilibrium halving after halving perpetually. There's no sudden shock, it's gradual, organic, and naturally adjusts without human interference. [This](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-security-without-mining-subsidy) article from Dillon Healy and [this](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5de588aa3e9c044c1ad8cb59/t/6329b32325b7205aea8e14f8/1663677220899/Bitcoin+Transaction+Fees+Final+Draft.pdf) report from Blockware are both worth reading on the subject.
Relative to what? Reward never shrinks more than 50%. Block subsidy dropped from 50 to 25, then 25 to 12.5, then 12.5 to 6.25? That's an 87.5% drop! But it didn't happen overnight. Somehow the value of rewards is significantly higher every time it drops. That's weird right? Also, how come hashrate doubled since ATH last November while price dropped 75%? From innovations in energy efficiency as bitcoin is being integrated into cost, incentive dynamics improving the economics of energy systems. Many people who bring this up as some kind of a flaw are naive, uninformed as to how bitcoin works and confuse themselves by comparing subsidy + reward to original 50 BTC. How is 50 bitcoin to 25 bitcoin any different from 20 million sats to 10 million sats? The network is not adjusting from 50 bitcoin to 10 million sats. The short answer is, bitcoin is either valuable or it's not and bitcoin network can autonomously adjust to both realities till the end of time. Over every 4-year period, the network organically adapts and adjusts to a new subsidy and reward composition and eventually after several decades transitions to fee only model. In the meantime, block space efficiency will keep scaling sufficiently that block rewards are still tens of millions of satoshis as they are now. This is what it is today right now, tens of millions of satoshis ranging from 20 to 50 million satoshis. Then you account for other potential revenue streams such as drivechains, spacechains or similar. Taproot also already supports on chain batch verification once fully adopted. Many people don't seem to know this fact. CISA, musig2, channel factories etc. all contribute to both scaling and block space efficiency. Essentially, your transactions are better optimized for block space usage but you'll still pay a similar fee as determined by fee market. 20 years from now, the base layer will be mainly used for large settlements only like buying a car or a house, by governments and corporations. Your day to day retail transactions will be on Lightning and other layers. Lightning will never be suitable for large settlements but at the same time it's perfect for day to day payments and micropayments. Also remember that the only reason there wasn't an actual block size increase in 2017 was because it wasn't required! This was [decided by Bitcoin users](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) against corporate interests. SegWit scaled virtual block size almost 3 times without increasing actual block size. It was an optimization of block space usage. SegWit adoption rate is close to 90% now. At some point block size will most definitely increase because it would make sense and storage will become way cheaper so the cost to run a node will be same as today or even less possibly. At some point, there's also no price in dollars but value in purchasing power measured against goods and services. Fix your unit of account and think in satoshis. Fees alone make up tens of millions of satoshis per block now. When subsidy was 50 BTC, the price was 0. The value of subsidy + reward composition finds the right balance over every 4 year period when subdity halves. Bitcoin is designed such that difficulty, hashrate, fees, block rewards all find equilibrium halving after halving perpetually. There's no sudden shock, it's gradual, organic, and naturally adjusts without human interference.
>instability concerns for BTC in the long run as block rewards halve Did you say this when subsidy dropped from 50 to 25, then 25 to 12.5, then 12.5 to 6.25? But somehow the value of rewards are significantly higher every time it drops. That's weird right? Also, why did hashrate double since ATH last November while price went down 75% from ATH? I'm sure you're asking about few decades from now when you think block subsidy will be in tens of millions of sats. Let's discuss it. The security budget is arguably even more naive than energy FUD. It just keeps one variable constant and assumes everything else to change. The value of the rewards as I said is way higher each halving. Over the 4-year period, the network organically adjusts to a new subsidy and reward composition and eventually after several decades transitions to fee only model. In the meantime, block space efficiency will scale sufficiently that block rewards are still tens of millions of satoshis as they are now. This is what it is today right now, tens of millions of satoshis ranging from 20 to 50 million satoshis. Then you account for other potential revenue streams such as drivechains, spacechains or similar. Taproot also already supports on chain batch verification once fully adopted. CISA, musig2, channel factories etc. all contribute to both scaling and block space efficiency. Essentially, your transactions are better optimized for block space usage but you'll still pay a similar fee as determined by organic fee market. Also remember that the only reason there wasn't an actual block size increase in 2017 was because it wasn't required and this was [decided by Bitcoin users](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) against corporate interests. SegWit scaled virtual block size almost 3 times without increasing actual block size. This was an optimization of block space usage. SegWit adoption rate is close to 90% now. At some point block size will most definitely increase because it would make sense and storage will become way cheaper so the cost to run a node will be same as today or even less possibly. At some point, there's also no price in dollars but value in purchasing power measured against goods and services. Fix your unit of account and think in satoshis. It's tens of millions of satoshis per block. It's a bit of a cognitive bias to compare subsidy and rewards relative to initial 50 BTC subsidy. When it was 50 BTC, the price was 0. The value of subsidy + reward composition naturally finds the right balance over every 4 year period when subdity halves. Bitcoin is designed such that difficulty, hashrate, fees, block rewards all find equilibrium halving after halving perpetually. There's no sudden shock, it's gradual, organic, and naturally adjusts without human interference.
Can you tell me why bitcoin users [rejected](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) the Chinese miner fork bcash and why are they running Lightning nodes and not bcash nodes?
>The next halving in 500 odd days, the block reward will reduce to 3.125 BTC per block. > >Assuming BTC price remains the same (it wont, but just assuming this), that represents a 50% reduction in miner income. Did you say this when it dropped from 12.5 to 6.25 as well? But somehow the value of rewards are significantly higher every time it drops. That's weird right? Also, do you know why hashrate is double since ATH last November while price is now 25% of ATH? >explain how miners will be rewarded when 21m bitcoin have been mined That's 100 years but I'm sure you're asking about few decades from now when you think block subsidy will be in tens of millions of sats. But sure, why not? Let's discuss it. The security budget is arguably even more naive than energy FUD. It just keeps one variable constant and assumes everything else to change. The value of the rewards as I said is exponentially higher each halving. Over the 4-year period, the network organically adjusts to this new subsidy and reward composition and eventually after several decades transitions to fee only model. In the meantime, block space efficiency will scale sufficiently that block rewards are still tens of millions of satoshis. This is what it is today right now, tens of millions of satoshis. I just look from my node now the last 144 blocks, the fee % is something like 3% of reward. Then you account for other potential revenue streams such as drivechains, spacechains or similar. Taproot also already supports on chain batch verification once fully adopted. CISA, musig2, channel factories etc. all contribute to both scaling and block space efficiency. Also remember that the only reason there wasn't an actual block size increase in 2017 was because it wasn't required and this was [decided by users](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) against corporate interests. SegWit scaled virtual block size almost 3 times without increasing actual block size. SegWit adoption rate is close to 90% now. At some point block size will most definitely increase because it would make sense and storage will become way cheaper so the cost to run a node is same as today or even less possibly. At some point, there's also no price in dollars but value in purchasing power measured against goods and services. Fix your unit of account and think in satoshis. It's tens of millions of satoshis per block. Bitcoin is designed such that difficulty, hashrate, fees, block rewards all find equilibrium halving after halving perpetually. There's no sudden shock, it's gradual, organic, and naturally adjusts without human interference.
Yes, you are wrong on this, using a sensationalistic headline and then the content of the post is rife with misinformation. I will start with mining pools and then explain why nobody can corner the market like that and the role of nodes and miners. Mining pools are not monolithic entities. A mining pool has millions of geographically separated miners from all over the world. Every individual miner within a pool controls their own hashrate. They're in pools because it gives them a small steady revenue regardless of which miner within that pool finds a block instead of having a rare chance of finding a block on their own. This is not like literally handing over your coins to a staking company who cut you an interest just like banks. Individual miners control their own hashrate and they can and do switch pools at any given time. I run my own whatsminers at home. I'll never stop running them off solar and repurpose the heat at any price because it's useful for me regardless of price. Just last week when the Poolin news came out about their wallet service getting disabled, all miners within that pool immediately switched to other pools. It was seamless. Years ago, China had over 60% of global hashrate. Now hashrate is way better distributed across many countries. The hashrate migration didn't affect the network at all. It was also seamless. Stratum V2 protocol will make Bitcoin even more censorship resistant by allowing individual miners within the pool who find each blocks to add transactions themselves. https://stratumprotocol.org/ Now let's talk about large industrial scale miners you are mentioning. First of all, why are they mining? Because it's economically viable. Why are energy producers mining? Because it's economically viable, it lets them monetize energy waste, it lets them cut down methane emissions. Industrial scale miners run businesses with huge risks like every other business and they not only have huge upfront costs but they also have non stop operational costs to keep their business profitable. That's the big difference about proof of work. It's not like you just hold onto a bunch of coins and accrue interest on it forever and increasing your wealth by compounding interest. You have non stop operating costs to pay and it's a cut throat industry. Because of the difficulty adjustment algorithm and constant research in energy efficiency, cooling, heat repurposing, nobody can actually corner the market for any great period of time without continuously innovating. What's wrong with that? This goes for any scale small or large. I am able to keep my own whatsminers running because I'm running off solar and repurpose the heat to save on heating costs for myself. Why would I ever stop this? The fact of the matter is simple. Bitcoin has an internal clock based on time and energy which are two things no one can cheat no matter how much money you have and it connects bitcoin the digital money to physical reality without need for trust. If price goes up and a lot of hashrate is on the network then this internal clock adjusts accordingly to upside. If price goes down and hashrate is lower then this internal clock adjusts to the downside. It's like a free market for energy efficiency. That's actually a good thing how Bitcoin helps to drive energy efficiency and because of it increased renewable energy production worldwide as a global scale currency. To clear your confusion about nodes and miners. Miners are working class citizens of Bitcoin. Self sovereign full nodes control the Bitcoin protocol. This was already proven in practice back in 2017 when Chinese miners and corporate entities tried to force through a fork which nodes rejected and then unanimously passed the UASF. You can read about it in Jonathan Bier's critically acclaimed book, [The Blocksize War](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS). It's a 5 star rated book on Amazon. Everyone should give it a read. If you want to understand more about role of miners and nodes at a slightly more technical level, I would also recommend this article below [Bitcoin Miners Beware: Invalid Blocks Need Not Apply](https://medium.com/hackernoon/bitcoin-miners-beware-invalid-blocks-need-not-apply-51c293ee278b)
You said no, they are not and didn't follow up with anything to disprove what I said. I'm still waiting for your expert technical rebuttal. How about explain how mining pools work and who actually validates blocks in POW? Pools don't even control the hashrate within their pool. Individual miners find blocks. The purpose of joining a pool is to share the block reward and fee no matter which individual miner within that pool finds a block. It just lets you have a steady income instead of having a small chance of finding a block going it alone. Rich people including the largest companies in the space tried to force big blocks fork in 2017. Full node users with their $50 rasp-pi rigs rejected the change. You should do some reading on what happened then right [here](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS). Proof of work **SPECIFICALLY** requires work based on math so that how many coins someone owns does not give them any control or influence over others.
Exactly this. When security of blockchain depends on the coin created by itself and only people with staked coins can validate blocks, you're FUBAR when someone with enough coins wants to attack or force changes to their own benefit. Amount of coins held by someone should not give them any control or influence over protocol like it does in the fiat system. This is actually the crux of Satoshi's invention using proof of work. Proof of work separates mining and validating functions. Miners are just working class citizens. Back in 2017, Chinese miners and some of the biggest companies within the ecosystem tried to force big blocks hard fork through but got rejected by full node users. [The Blocksize War by Jonathan Bier ](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) chronicles how it all went down.
You're making a hopium statement with no factual grounds. The miners are working class citizens in Bitcoin. Nodes are the validators in charge of the protocol. I would invite you to read [The Blocksize War: The Battle for Control Over Bitcoin’s Protocol Rules ](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) to learn what happened when a cartel of Chinese miners tried it on. But when the security of a blockchain depends on the coin created by system itself (not to mention staking centralization itself like LIDO) and only the people with large amount of staked coins can validate blocks, you're FUBAR when someone with enough coins wants to attack the chain or force changes to their benefit. With Bitcoin all you need to overpower rogue miners is $50 full node rasp-pi rig. It's amazing how the balance of power is distributed in the kind of system Satoshi built and because of the difficulty adjustment algorithm it manages to automatically scale forever according to its usage.
"a cartel of imperfect human bitcoin miners" Let me stop you right there. Miners don't decide a damn thing. Miners are working class citizens in Bitcoin. I'm once again asking you to read the book [The Blocksize War: The Battle for Control Over Bitcoin’s Protocol Rules ](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS) to learn what happened when a cartel of Chinese miners tried it on.
Many people here probably don't even know this. Coinbase and a bunch of other companies orchestrated the attack on Bitcoin which led to the blocksize wars. They desperately tried in so many underhand ways to destroy Bitcoin and promote the chinese miner fork Bitcoin cash. Ultimately full node users won and proved who truly had the power in Bitcoin. Read the book Blocksize war [here](https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-Control-Bitcoins-Protocol/dp/B096CLR1SS). Brian Armstrong has always been a piece of work.
tldr; ETHStaker and clr.fund are running a CLR funding round to help boost important projects for the Ethereum staking ecosystem. This funding round utilizes Constrained Liberal Radicalism, often referred to as Quadratic Funding (QF), to allocate a large pool of funds (more than $350k!) to relevant projects. This round is run on top of Arbitrum – a scalable optimism roll-up. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
If you’re interested, Uniswap, Gitcoin Grants and CLR.FUND are actual examples of protocols doing this today: https://clr.fund/ https://openorgs.info/
Tell me you don’t know about CLR without telling me you don’t know about CLR. He isn’t talking to miners with one asic like you buddy its ok
And CLR just switch the letters around
I’m invested in 2 altcoins that have massive potential with low market caps that many people don’t know about. First is RLC, platform for decentralized cloud computing partnered with a lot of major players and will soon allow for a worker pool for mining Second is CLR, which offers layer 2 scaling and is about to release a major update
Just bought some more CLR for $3.15 , gotta clean my bathroom. ;)
For you and everyone else asking : ADA at 2.10 CLR at .14 My shib and eth are up but not enough coins to really matter
Same here but changing CLR for ETH
I've been in REN and CLR, made good gains so far.
I FOMOed into CLR somebody tell me if I should sell or buy more
A quick recap for Q3: * Ethereum.org Content updates * CLR funding round for ETh2 projects * Focus on translation program, ETH in 35 languages * Community growth in the Ethereum.org community
Celer looking great today !!! If you guys don’t know about this hidden gem, check it out . $CLR
I've used Celer's app as a "terminal" of sorts and it works really well. The TVL is only $2M so I'm super surprised to see them get coverage here.... makes me want to buy more $CLR tbh.
That's not true everywhere, and you're likely to find even states in the US have similar laws to the commonwealth. > to accept cash That's where I see most of this confusion coming from. Using that term changes the context of the discussion, because it's being stated as an alternative to an alternate payment method (i.e. card), not about accepting *legal tender* aka money. Here is an example of a person that has a meal at a restaurant, and needed to pay. The restaurant wouldn't accept their payment in legal tender. It was definitively resolved in 1956 by the High Court, and I'm afraid that you're wrong. In Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1956) 99 CLR 560 at 567-8, the Court said: > The common law does not and never did conceive of indebtedness in a sum certain for an executed consideration as a mere breach of contract : it is rather the detention of a sum of money and that was so whether the creditor enforced his demand by an action of debt or by indebitatus assumpsit. Were it otherwise it would not be necessary for a defendant who sets up a plea of tender to bring into court the amount of the debt with his plea. The reason he must do so is that the tender answers only the breach of obligation alleged and not the debt. This is explained by the following statement by Wilde C. J. in Dixon v. Clarke (1848) 5 C B 365 (136 E R 919) : "In actions of debt and assumpsit, the principle of the plea of tender, in our apprehension, is, that the defendant has been always ready (toujours prist) to perform entirely the contract on which the action is founded; and that he did perform it, as far as he was able, by tendering the requisite money; the plaintiff himself precluded a complete performance, by refusing to receive it. And, as, in ordinary cases, the debt is not discharged by such tender and refusal, the plea must not only go on to allege that the defendant is still ready (uncore prist), but must be accompanied by a profert in curiam of the money tendered. If the defendant can maintain this plea, although he will not thereby bar the debt (for that would be inconsistent with the uncore prist and profert in curiam), yet he will answer the action, in the sense that he will recover judgment for his costs of defence against the plaintiff" (1848) 5 C B, at p 377 (136 E R, at pp 923, 924). That covers all of the commonwealth countries. Most countries will have similar statutes or precedents. Like I said.
Except you're wrong. Here is an example of a person that has a meal at a restaurant, and needed to pay. It was definitively resolved in 1956 by the High Court, and I'm afraid that you're wrong. In Young v Queensland Trustees Ltd (1956) 99 CLR 560 at 567-8, the Court said: > The common law does not and never did conceive of indebtedness in a sum certain for an executed consideration as a mere breach of contract : it is rather the detention of a sum of money and that was so whether the creditor enforced his demand by an action of debt or by indebitatus assumpsit. Were it otherwise it would not be necessary for a defendant who sets up a plea of tender to bring into court the amount of the debt with his plea. The reason he must do so is that the tender answers only the breach of obligation alleged and not the debt. This is explained by the following statement by Wilde C. J. in Dixon v. Clarke (1848) 5 C B 365 (136 E R 919) : "In actions of debt and assumpsit, the principle of the plea of tender, in our apprehension, is, that the defendant has been always ready (toujours prist) to perform entirely the contract on which the action is founded; and that he did perform it, as far as he was able, by tendering the requisite money; the plaintiff himself precluded a complete performance, by refusing to receive it. And, as, in ordinary cases, the debt is not discharged by such tender and refusal, the plea must not only go on to allege that the defendant is still ready (uncore prist), but must be accompanied by a profert in curiam of the money tendered. If the defendant can maintain this plea, although he will not thereby bar the debt (for that would be inconsistent with the uncore prist and profert in curiam), yet he will answer the action, in the sense that he will recover judgment for his costs of defence against the plaintiff" (1848) 5 C B, at p 377 (136 E R, at pp 923, 924). That covers all of the commonwealth countries. Most countries will have similar statutes or precedents. Like I said.
What? I don't see the problem if I am able to code smart contracts in Java or C# or whatever and it gets compiled into Haskell or whatever base language that is required to execute on the Cardano network. It reminds me of the .Net framework where it doesn't matter if you program in C#, VB.Net, or whatever - it gets compiled into CLR. That's how I see Cardano going. That being said, the decision to pick Haskell means early adoption will be severely low considering there aren't many Haskell developers out there.