Reddit Posts
Introducing r/CryptoCurrency STARs the scammers Community Points
Mentions
After World War II, the Marshall Plan was created to help rebuild war torn European economies and prevent the spread of communism. As part of this, the U.S. lowered its own tariffs to boost global trade, while allowing other nations to keep higher tariffs to help their industries recover. However, many of these foreign tariffs never went away, even as countries like Japan, the EU, and China became economic powerhouses. The U.S. kept its markets open, but other nations continued protecting their own industries, creating an unfair trade imbalance. The U.S. now has every right to demand tariff removal or reciprocal tariffs to level the playing field. For decades, leaders prioritized diplomacy over fairness in trade, but the reality is that foreign countries have benefited at America’s expense. Today, the U.S. is simply pushing for EQUAL treatment in global trade.
NOBODY, state or nation state....that can at least buy EQUAL to MSTR is going to cause any panic buying in the market. Even billion dollar buys from saylor moves the needle on a 2T MC assest such as BTC. Utah passes an SBR? Cool. They'll buy a milly or 2. That's less than 30 mins trade vol.
No, inflation isn’t good because it encourages people to spend. Inflation is good BECAUSE IT IS A RESULT OF GOOD MONETARY POLICY. Inflation is not the cause, it’s the effect. Let’s get down to the basics and fundamentals. People are incentivized to spend, always. Spending lets them secure the goods and services they need to life their lives. People will always desire to spend to get food/shelter/entertainment etc. you don’t need to incentivize people to spend, they will do it naturally. People also desire to save. The are uncertain about the future, they have enough food/shelter/entertainment etc currently and want to be able to secure that in the future, so they save to be able to do that. People will always desire to save. So what do we have? People always desire to spend and people always desire to save. How do these two things work under different monetary policies. If you have an expanding money supply, people can spend part of their income, and they can also save part of their income. Crucially, the amount they can save is EXACTLY EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT THE MONEY SUPPLY EXPANDS BY. This is a mathematical identity. If in year 1 your money supply is x, and in year 2 your money supply is x + y, then the amount of savings over that year is y. By definition. Different people will have different saving rates, but in aggregate total savings will be y, by definition. What happens in a monetary system like Bitcoin where the money supply never changes? In year 1 the money supply is x. In year 2 the money supply is x + y, where y is 0. We know from the paragraph above that y is how much people save in a year. So people’s saving in a fixed money supply is 0. THIS IS WHY FIXED MONEY SUPPLY IS BAD. Savings by definition is 0 in a fixed money supply. But we know that people don’t want to save 0 over the course of a year. They want to save a positive amount so that they can spend in the future. So what happens when people can’t save? They reduce their spending to try and save. Expect spending = income, again by definition. So by trying to save, people reduce their spending and thus reduce everyone else’s income in the economy. This is why an expanding money supply is good for an economy, it allows people to both spend and save. Inflation is a secondary cause of this expanding money supply. But inflation isn’t the driver, it’s an effect.
I never said I want EQUAL distribution of bitcoin or wealth. Common man. I’m asking realistically how does the vast majority of people who work and make the world go around get pulled into a bitcoin standard economy when all the bitcoin is held by an extremely small number of people.
LOL Github, oh brother... I'm saying TECH DOES NOT EQUAL SUCCESS. If it did ICP and a bunch of other coins would be at the top of the market cap leaderboards. I'm saying that PEOPLE buy coins, not robots looking at github and scouring for shit like that. Most of it is word of mouth, tech built on the platform and popular opinion, which you can't find on files from github. You have to hear what the popular opinions are from the most well versed people on crypto. Would you rather trust some dude on reddit with 100 upvotes or someone on X with 500k real people listening to their take on something. Even if they're wrong, they still have a fuck ton more influence on people than the old guy on reddit. If you followed murad on x for example, he was recently turned famous for his take on memecoins and if you look to see what those coins did after his fame... You'd be shocked. Tell me with a fucking straight face that you could find that information, on time, on Reddit. I'll save you the trouble, you just fucking can't and if you think you can, you deserve to lose
These tokens are not much different than what banks do now. Your money isn’t sitting in the bank. It’s put to use. They just give you ticks on a ledger. Now those ticks are now USD. They will become one Chase dollar. Which will be EQUAL to one USD. They will use them to transfer inside their own banking system. But they won’t be transferred back and forth. Jp Morgan won’t accept chase dollars. Chase won’t accept JPM coin. That will be done through stable coins.
Hi, I took a peak at your transaction, and I think I see at least a couple problems that will cause it to fail. Here's your decoded transaction: { "version": 2, "locktime": 867898, "ins": [ { "n": 1, "script": { "asm": "", "hex": "" }, "sequence": 4294967293, "txid": "5bc82e9bf54ba5b95f0d4c07e38b8d781235be84ca2bd69159922df863b90832", "witness": [ "3044022079938a7c4c13bbd20ab43f53f369a95f43e21fbf13564e67833176e7403d4703022062b9282a3c2227c2ee4d0cc57aa4e7078e27d7eac04538c014da475ff4511c2b01", "02f481d449e27e573fd36c2fbb25b5c556c36ba238c66f89b07d99bb1d48ab6cb7" ] }, { "n": 0, "script": { "asm": "", "hex": "" }, "sequence": 4294967293, "txid": "9d20780c9739c9db54549745f6f67882560b4b8ab20d21daa62d899a8d66e35e", "witness": [ "30440220732969f1e742e94ec924855d801ddda0511f27561d9bae2d6334516c8ad4a50c02203a7cf63ad59df75c78c43ef17462c63d575f94fe89613b24944ff0821317b5d701", "02d3bb31feb659d32e40fe61ccf6b712ca242c37fbbb09de3f22f613e87eb76e46" ] }, { "n": 31, "script": { "asm": "", "hex": "" }, "sequence": 4294967293, "txid": "62a89922991598acc15dcab87245add9612d399a4884695d35c4241487467f94", "witness": [ "3044022028e9de96aeb40d0e55f49b3eaf94a208f43e0419bac2df135235ae93b94d2425022026767a08996bdb989bd584f436157e32e0e6f4107b11503b918c973ebc693ca901", "0200e2f5d69c92e47b3a6468a4a6e4485676ae0cb181705dc00de141e5fa24144d" ] }, { "n": 0, "script": { "asm": "001414ec541d2fe70cc944c415c5d1df20ff610b83b3", "hex": "16001414ec541d2fe70cc944c415c5d1df20ff610b83b3" }, "sequence": 4294967293, "txid": "c6d30b4168706463d5ca1d07754bc7ebe6a7ac419d74bd9b4e5de4cbf95396e5", "witness": [ "3044022007a6b6480cd63346f2817f8a16e465ec26e76bdd33b2e98c3042395b7415692602201b8772b8a7b5efe631fed8ddfa87aeb614443e12688d4de7d335b59281e9abd301", "027fde39f5f6c7a8c80cdc964eb0f555076361bb8cb905795b3938eea3e8da9974" ] } ], "outs": [ { "n": 0, "script": { "addresses": [ "3NrVV5oVo64gpyrN5b9BuQDwijti1wxoQP" ], "asm": "OP_HASH160 e8256453f7cb1141f0e1fa0095d3998fc4cde2d3 OP_EQUAL", "hex": "a914e8256453f7cb1141f0e1fa0095d3998fc4cde2d387" }, "value": 4472912 } ], "hash": "9e28754c65cd265639873f943aed887827bd6130eafef7fda69627cc5893848f", "txid": "9e28754c65cd265639873f943aed887827bd6130eafef7fda69627cc5893848f" } If you check your inputs, it looks like you're trying to spend several that are already spent. You're trying to spend txid 9d20780c9739c9db54549745f6f67882560b4b8ab20d21daa62d899a8d66e35e vout 0, but this transaction only has unspent outputs at vouts 4, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 31. You're trying to spend txid 62a89922991598acc15dcab87245add9612d399a4884695d35c4241487467f94 vout 31, but this transaction only has unspent outputs at vouts 39 and 41.
Maybe...just maybe he is mature enough to know his wife is not a possession, it's not 1950 and she can do whatever TF she wants (within reason, in which they agree to as an EQUAL couple) Also seems like she's stacking some stats so yay.
OMG it's simple math and you still can't do it properly. If you all btc to everyone, everyone will hold equal amount. Meaning, you can't rank them according to how much they have BECAUSE THEY HAVE EQUAL AMOUNT of bitcoin as you have divided it equally.
ok i will fix your buttcoin gap when you will fix the sex gap and options between men and women, cuz women have more sex and options than me. i feel offended myself to be honest, why are you allowed to have more options than me? didn't we live in ''DEMOCRACY?!!'' didnt we say both genders are EQUAL!? with EQUAL stuff?!! i demand more sex for me.
Exactly. EQUAtion <- with equa like in EQUAL. And it always bother me to see the Newton one without the vector arrows.
Yeah, anyone can make a pull request, but only five people have the ability to approve or deny it to commit it to the repository. And the nodes don't have to update for the change to take effect on the network because of how they interact with each other with a soft fork. Here's an analogy and comparison with P2SH transactions: > In a soft fork, a protocol change is carefully constructed to essentially trick old nodes into believing that something is valid when it actually might not be. > Here’s an analogy. Imagine a big company with a team of auditors, and a team of traders. The traders want to make a new type of trade that the firm currently disallows: the auditors check what the traders are doing to enforce company policies. Changing the policies can be slow work. But one day, a trader has a brainwave. “Hey guys”, he says, “I’ve had an idea. I’m going to submit some trades for derivatives, but I’m going to write it down on the paperwork as buying land. When you see that, just mentally replace land with derivatives, and carry on as normal. The auditors won’t find out!” > The auditors are people and services that are running Bitcoin full nodes. The traders are people who want to change the rules. Whether their rule change is a good idea or not isn’t relevant here: what matters is how they’re doing it. The auditors are now cross checking every transaction, but their calculations can arrive at the wrong answer, because they don’t understand the true nature of the transactions they’re verifying. > How does this work technically? We can look at how a Bitcoin feature called P2SH was introduced to see. P2SH is a useful feature that makes multisig easier to use, but on the block chain it looks odd: > https://blockchain.info/tx/f837ca5c1a15fa6c2e5c7380386bacba10e936fe8625e12d9fa6c177a8f605c1 > ``OP_HASH160 6af7caf9b09224af8a171318f69d254c1756e54e OP_EQUAL`` > This is a Bitcoin script, and in English it says “anyone who knows the password can spend this money”. The problem with making coins like this is it’s insecure: there’s no signature, so the moment you broadcast a transaction that provides the “password” anyone else in the Bitcoin network can make their own transaction that spends the output as well, because the password is now public. So it ends up being a pure race to see whose transaction propagates to miners first. > P2SH works because the Bitcoin protocol was changed to include a new rule: when you see an output script of the above form, don’t actually treat it as a script at all, instead apply special processing to it: the password is in fact the “real” script so run that. So P2SH is not insecure, don’t worry. But why use this roundabout and strange approach? > This construct is designed to always be considered valid by old nodes that don’t understand the P2SH rule. If presented with a transaction that spends this coin under the classical Bitcoin rules but which doesn’t satisfy the new P2SH rule, they will fail to audit it correctly and calculate an incorrect ledger.
$FTM and $EQUAL. Buy some FTM, put half of it in Equalizer, reap rewards, thank me in 18 months. 🔥
Do you have a source on that? Source? A source. I need a source. Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion. No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence. Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation. Correlation does not equal causation. CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION. You still haven't provided me a valid source yet. Nope, still haven't. I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
One fun fact, Bitcoin address `35Snmmy3uhaer2gTboc81ayCip4m9DT4ko` is actually the hash of script `OP_2DUP OP_EQUAL OP_NOT OP_VERIFY OP_SHA256 OP_SWAP OP_SHA256 OP_EQUAL`. Any person that can find any SHA-256 collision can spend the amount at that address which is about 0.276BTC right now.
DCA means making smaller and EQUAL investments on an ongoing basis, instead of making large or irregular crypto buys.
Pumping doesn't equal legitimacy. *** PUMPING DOESN'T EQUAL LEGITIMACY*** # PUMPING DOESN'T EQUAL LEGITIMACY
You don’t get it. EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, who has an advantage A or B? That was the original question.
This P2Pkh address 1Q2j9rxQcxeE1hSbgp4U7myMkJhqtvPuo5 is this TXO script OP_DUP OP_HASH160 OP_PUSHBYTES_20 fc9e7f11554a3fc6aead003445c57bf08f88d0ee OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG The address is thebase58 representation of the 20-byte hash in the TXO, with a 4-byte checksum appended and a 1-byte network identifier prepended. That is fc9e7f11554a3fc6aead003445c57bf08f88d0ee is the same as 1Q2j9rxQcxeE1hSbgp4U7myMkJhqtvPuo5 To recover this address from a seed phrase, the recovery wallet needs to know the addresses are P2PKH. That's the first thing a recovery function would try, if it was using trial-and-error. This derivation path is commonly represented as 0 or 44 This P2SH address 34dDKqPSRZQTeyAWMk1TuYGAcwS7YDJqRn is this TXO script OP_HASH160 OP_PUSHBYTES_20 20303b26b2cf52da552c4b7dccd97fa8c5cb83bd OP_EQUAL Simple, right? The address is thebase58 representation of the 20-byte hash in the TXO, with a 4-byte checksum appended and a 1-byte network identifier prepended. That is 20303b26b2cf52da552c4b7dccd97fa8c5cb83bd is the same as 34dDKqPSRZQTeyAWMk1TuYGAcwS7YDJqRn P2PKH prefix is '0'. P2SH prefix is '5' PKH means public key hash. SH means script hash To recover a P2SH wallet, the recovery wallet needs to know the exact script which was hashed to create the TXO address
You would need to know the redeemscript that was used to build your p2sh address. p2sh addresses are structured like this: OP\_HASH160 <redeemscripthash> OP\_EQUAL To spend, your scriptsig might look like this for a p2pkh wrapped in p2sh: <signature> <pubkey> <redeemscript>, but multisig and other complex scripts can be different, so you need the redeemscript to know what to put in your scriptsig.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Yeah, you are right. Which is so messed up because we are, as the supreme document outlining the rights and protections of the country says, CREATED EQUAL. NOT SUBORDINATE. If our best and brightest are being coerced into sacrificing their freedoms for the sake of protecting this nation, then they are being abused by the system, its a classic example of tyranny of the people in power. Why is it okay for a congressman to break the rules but not the very people defending us all with their lives? We need to gut the system and start over. It doesn't make sense the government has the right to violate everyone else's rights, especially soldiers, in order to protect their hegemony and their monopoly on power in the country. They side with big banks to control the country with an iron fist. Bitcoin will bring about a separation of money from state. It's been a long time coming and it won't take much longer now. Our people, sovereign individuals, that constitute this country are the people who should matter equally. Not just the rich and politically-motivated senators and house representatives. Bitcoin is going to force this country to be what it was meant to be, we will live free or die. The whole world will benefit from this too with the restricting of the hegemonic powers causing a direct cut from their ability to put expenditures on war.
> the transaction that funded your 0.5BTC wallet has a timelock of 0, so there should be no problem spending this UTXO CLTV encumbers the TXO. This TXO is a scripthash ... OP_HASH160 54a1df7be7557e2fd2f65ca45ff541ee363a0085 OP_EQUAL == 39QWbnkbcPFcrJFEB6yvVDc12eX5zqVt3y We don't get to see the script until the TXO gets spent. OP has provided this script in the rejected spending txinput 7140000 OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP 045332b5e3bcaeef3a062b49d5129ac21017d369e9c52c2f12c472d8d6236e2f5116b580dd1f99fd9b321d9207c9a512f301c263bd58238dbbebf469675e09a2b2 OP_CHECKSIG Let's assume that script hashes to *54a1df7be7557e2fd2f65ca45ff541ee363a0085* Maybe a more diligent person can check According to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Timelock > When the CLTV opcode is called, it will cause the script to fail unless the nLockTime on the transaction is equal to or greater than the time parameter provided to the CLTV opcode. Since a transaction may only be included in a valid block if its nLockTime is in the past, this ensures the CLTV-based timelock has expired before the transaction may be included in a valid block And you said this > you’ve locked it up until block 7,140,000 Which appears to be the correct answer For completeness If the OP used 714,000, then the tx locktime needs to be less than current block and greater-or-equal 714,000. It shouldn't be 0 The GitHub link applies to transactions which have been rejected for relay because of a future locktime. It describes using a tx to spend one of the timelocked tx's UTXOs. This works because the timelocked TX is waiting in someone's wallet, not yet confirmed on the blockchain But the OP funded a scripthash address on the blockchain. The CLTV op is in the script. The timelocked TXO is already on the blockchain
1. Not shilling. I posted an article about a crypto in the crypto sub and I'm discussing it. 2. HBAR Foundation, DLT Science Foundation, etc treat all projects the same. TRY THE PRODUCT FOR FREE (limited time offer, limited duration). 3. Governing Council Members (aka the corporations you hate so much) have 1 vote each, 3 year terms, and 2 maximum terms. This means Google and the London School of Economics (both GC members) have an EQUAL vote. For the GC to pass anything, they need either a majority 2/3 or unanimous vote (depending on the topic). I could go on and on, but something tells me this is going to fall on deaf ears. Do your own research. Corporate and enterprise use cases are the key to mass adoption of crypto, yet when it's happening, idiots like you can't see the forest for the trees.
Governance is KEY to Enterprises. No self respecting Enterprise or Government is going to put a mission critical use case, supporting billions of transactions onto a network with poor governance. Most L1s today have governance that is downright murky. Unkown miners or teams of developers controlling the network, each to an unknown degree, in unknown ways for unknown reasons. Its truly a minefield for any self respecting Enterprise or Government. The dangers run from outright theft and disappearance, forking, funds vanishing, the network failing, security flaws, corruption, poor performance etc, etc, etc. An Enterprise cannot have that. They simply cannot deploy on such a platform (no matter how big the potential return from the use case). So..... Along comes Hedera. A governing council of upto 39, known, term limited, international, dispersed, platform independent, organisations each of which have billions invested in their reputations, and who want a public network for the utility it provides. 39 Enterprises who meet publicly, whose minutes are formally documented and made accessible to everyone. With members with knowledge of the areas they run, who are identifiable. Each organisation with an EQUAL share of the control. The truth is, Hedera is MORE Decentralised than other networks already. This year community nodes will be added, so people outside of the Governing Council will be running nodes. I don`t know how many nodes there will be at the end of 2023, but I know it will be significantly more than 28. And that number will rise, year on year. Eventually anonymous nodes will be added and IMO the numbers will be many thousands of nodes.
I will quote /u/Ricola63 : There are two main themes to the answer. 1. There are FAR more types of use cases for a public DLT than either ETH (2.0) or its many L2`s, or any BTC variant can technically meet (OR come anywhere close to meeting). MOST of these are Enterprise usecases requiring billions of Txns to be registered on a secure Pubic Network. Hedera can meet that requirement, indeed was built for it. Since Scale will ultimately win any competitions between competing platforms it is highly likely Hedera will have scaled before other platforms can catch up. Indeed we already see this strategy paying off as Hedera is, by miles, the most used public network. Its Enterprises that bring these use cases off the bat, startups may build to those kind of massive use cases over time but Enterprises can often simply choose to move onto a Public DLT to achieve the results. 2. Governance is KEY to Enterprises. No self respecting Enterprise or Government is going to put a mission critical use case, supporting billions of transactions onto a network with poor governance. Most L1`s today have governance that is downright murky. Unkown miners or teams of developers controlling the network, each to an unknown degree, in unknown ways for unknown reasons. Its truly a minefield for any self respecting Enterprise or Government. The dangers run from outright theft and disappearance, forking, funds vanishing, the network failing, security flaws, corruption, poor performance etc, etc, etc. An Enterprise cannot have that. They simply cannot deploy on such a platform (no matter how big the potential return from the use case). So..... Along comes Hedera. A governing council of upto 39, known, term limited, international, dispersed, platform independent, organisations each of which have billions invested in their reputations, and who want a public network for the utility it provides. 39 Enterprises who meet publicly, whose minutes are formally documented and made accessible to everyone. With members with knowledge of the areas they run, who are identifiable. Each organisation with an EQUAL share of the control. The truth is, Hedera is MORE Decentralised than other networks already. This year community nodes will be added, so people outside of the Governing Council will be running nodes. I don`t know how many nodes there will be at the end of 2023, but I know it will be significantly more than 28. And that number will rise, year on year. Eventually anonymous nodes will be added and IMO the numbers will be many thousands of nodes.