Reddit Posts
What happens if Bitcoin price gets high enough, such that it becomes necessary to go ahead and take it to the 9th decimal place? Can that be done w/ backward compatible SF, or is a HF req'd? Can someone with knowledge detail the process? Can't seem to find answers on this researching around...
Friend claims she purchased $5M in ETH and holds in Roth IRAs - Can anyone explain how this could be done?
Seeking Feedback: Parrot 🦜, a Chat-Based AI for Personalized Bitcoin Investment Strategies
FINJ - The new crypto social media aggregator?
Mentions
I told you. You don't understand how a fork works. There was Bitcoin before the HF and then after it Bitcoin ceased to exist and split into 2 coins with separate development paths. Here is a visual representation. https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7adupl/visual_representation_of_bitcoins_many_forks/
I told you. You don't understand how a fork works. There was Bitcoin before the HF and then after it Bitcoin ceased to exist and split into 2 coins with separate development paths.
You mentioned keywords like the top 10 assets and silver, gold. You are right. That is what institution like hedge funds would be interested. The successful grow of bitcoin would attract them to look deep into bitcoin. I talked with some pro traders from US HF 4 years ago in HK, they are skeptical at bitcoin but trade them anyway.
>That is 100% how it works. Someone running a bitcoin node from long before segwit can send and receive bitcoin to/from people running segwit nodes, they do not need to trust segwit at all, they can operate by the same fixed rules they already trust. No, they have to trust that the part of the consensus they cannot see doesn't do some bullshit. SF can actually increase the amount of coins for example. A softfork could double the coins to 41 million. Again all your rambling boils down to what YOU think is important vs what other people think is important. Satoshi wasn't afraid of hard forks. Otherwise he wouldn't have suggested this: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 The SF / HF differentiation is a pure dogma, a cultist rule to separate the "good guys" from the "bad guys" to push a narrative.
> Yes, lol, they designed segwit to work within the existing protocol so its not a hard fork... That's the point. If bch could have been done the same way, then it would just exist in unison with segwit within the original bitcoin protocol. You drank the Kool Aid aka SF good HF bad. In reality BCH blocksize increase could of course be done as a SF, but you choose the best tool for the job so you do not collect technical dept. The dirty Segwit hack is what enabled ordinals because their signature space is vast and cheap. Lesson: Don't be a cultist, choose the best technical way with the least dept. >Yes, because its the difference between a segwit node sending a payment to a person running an older bitcoin node and it just working, vs having to tell the person "oh, actually they changed bitcoin, and you have download this new software and follow this new protocol You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. That is not how it works at all. The chains are split now. If you want to access your prefork BCH you choose a BCH wallet if you want to access your pre-fork BTC you choose a BTC wallet.
What's a reference client? And why is a client from 2013 important? However you answer this question you will end up at the conclusion that it is people who put value on this specific feature. But it is also people that put more value into the p2p cash feature or the scaling feature. Even Satoshi suggested a hardfork to for increase the blocksize limit. Did you know that Bitcoin started out with 32MB blocks? Limiting the blocksize is tightening the consensus rules aka a SF. Increasing the blocksize limit is a widening of the rules aka a HF. I wonder why the ones that sold you L2 scaling also were the biggest cultists about not to HF. >Of course. Anyone can choose to run a bitcoin cash node, just like they may run a litecoin node, or an ethereum node, or an avalanche node. Not the same and you know it. >But if I run the latest bitcoin node, I can make payments to people running bitcoin software from 2013, and their node software will accept it. That's a circular argument if you run BTC you can make payments to BTC. But only so many people because the throughput is severely limited. It's also again a non-argument, because people running a BCH client can also transact to and from addresses/coins before 2017. Besides there are no old nodes on the network. At least non that count, because Blockstream met with miners before the fork an made sure they only run their segwit node. Know why? If miners would run pre segwit nodes, all the "everyone can spend" segwit hack coins would become spendable and the network would split. Yes, you read that right. No, in this contentious fork there are no good and bad guys. There are only people with interests. >Just no... a lot of alt coins do this where they run two nodes next to each other who rapidly send transactions to each other, and act like this is "proof" that the same throughput could be achieved in the real world between thousands of nodes distributed around the world. Another example is Solana, the centralized nodes in well connected server farms can send tens of thousands of transactions between each other, but actual end user transactions only scale to a few hundred per second before the network maxes out. Again another non-argument. Just because other chains (almost all of them PoS by the way with BSV as exception) do it that way doesn't mean BCH didn't do it right. The whole world "failed" at mobile phones until apple and their Iphone came along.
Bitcoin has only unintentionally hard forked once, back in 2013, due to a bug in all the previous clients. If you run that 2013 version it will work with the current bitcoin chain to this day. >Segwit for example is widening of the rules and actually a HF, but because they had this dogma against HFs they hacked in the segwit part in such a way that it was a SF Yes, lol, they designed segwit to work within the existing protocol so its not a hard fork... That's the point. >You tell me if it is a good idea to hide consensus relevant information from older nodes just to be able to say "see!!!!! older nodes confirm to our chain" Yes, because its the difference between a segwit node sending a payment to a person running an older bitcoin node and it just working, vs having to tell the person "oh, actually they changed bitcoin, and you have download this new software and follow this new protocol, just trust me bro this is the *real* bitcoin now, not what your own bitcoin node says."
>And "bitcoin cash" blocks simply do not follow that protocol. That's just the old "but an old noce doesn't sync" argument, which in itself is just an arbitrary goal to set. BTC hard forked before. A "virgin coin" argument doesn't work. In order to keep that old nodes must sync rule BTC hid parts of its consensus from older nodes, because Segwit is in its core a HF hacked into the chain as a SF. Now you tell me what value lies in hiding consensus relevant decisions from older nodes. >This issue is called objectivity and is the primary advantage bitcoin's PoW protocol has over PoS. If you are going to throw that out the window you may as well just use PoS which has massive other advantages. It does not break objectivity. You cannot delegate the decision which ruleset you want to follow onto a machine. When you run a BCH node you objectively arrive at the BCH head same for BTC. >Bitcoin cash also doesn't fundamentally solve the scaling issue, just linearly scales the base layer at the expense of node bandwidth and storage requirements. Bitcoin cash will not scale beyond a few hundreds of tps Thank goodness BCH doesn't know that. 1400 tps have been proven to work already. BTC gave up before even trying now they are stuck with a failed L2 and custodians everywhere.
Bitcoin hard forked before. HF and SF are just two sides of the same coin. Segwit for example is widening of the rules and actually a HF, but because they had this dogma against HFs they hacked in the segwit part in such a way that it was a SF. By hiding the segwit part from older nodes. You tell me if it is a good idea to hide consensus relevant information from older nodes just to be able to say "see!!!!! older nodes confirm to our chain"
🤷♂️ That's not BCHs problem. Just because the majority does something doesn't mean it is right, at least not 100% of the time. The propaganda was massive at the time the small blockers took over. That sure had some repercussions further than just BTC. So far BCH has proven 256 times the throughput of BTC without any problems. And here is another pieces of propaganda: BCH is not against L2 scaling, BCH is against crippling L1 for L2 scaling. LN would work miles better BCH (But still be shit) All the other proposals like CTV or CAT are already implemented in a better, cleaner way on BCH, because HF. It's like everyone is still building phones with tiny screens when BCH already has multitouch. 🤷♂️
Well I just copied the reply to Eric, who's one of Taproot wizards on BTC, thought folks following BTC would be familiar with most of those abbreviations - CSFS = OP_CHECKSIGNATUREFROMSTACK - allows parsing things like oracle messages by Bitcoin Script - CTV = OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY - enables contracts to commit to contents of the TX without needing a signature, enables covenants and would allow building a much better L2 than LN, enables creating automated money switches, like you pay in 1 BTC to some contract and it uses contract logic to decide to which addresses it can go next - CAT = OP_CAT - concatenate 2 byte arrays, simple opcode but enables "hacky" way of TX introspection (BCH used to do it this way since '18, until we activated the full set of TX introspection opcodes - they allow contracts to "see" contents of the TX which executes them) - HF = Hard fork, hard forking network upgrade. Almost all blockchains upgrade this way, exceptions are BTC, LTC and a few others. - IBD = initial blockchain download, what nodes have to do when they first connect to a network
Who is your target audience? You're writing this as if we are already intimately familiar with ongoing discussions about CSFS, CTV, CAT, HF, and IBD are. I don't know what those are.
My understanding is there is decent evidence excluding Hal Finney as being satoshi. For example, Satoshi was posting comments at a time we can prove HF was running a race. There are a few other examples.
Correct, my bad. changes still need to have to do with consensus to be a HF or SF.
I’m probably completely wrong but looks like this was a $70M HF trying to play the game. Was this a leveraged bet or a game of roulette?
It’s almost like they completely disregarded what MSTR would do with the btc when the ETFs got approved… if people were dumping mstr to buy btc ETFs and btc was going up you’d want to long mstr not short it. Truely a regarded strategy by this HF
Yes, mostly from p2p cashers still in the BTC community that realized that they were lied to with LN and that it doesn't work. But the LN/ossify side won once. I don't hold my breath that any of these solution get enough support from the right people. And then they have to do it in a softfork which complicates things, because of their stupid "no HF" dogma.
> Then I'll find my purpose in and hopefully passion for life I hope you do, mate. GL and don't forget to HF
This is the HF part of HFSP. Let him enjoy it.
Tezos has a lot of good stuff in the governance area and I think for now it is the best of them all. However, if successful Chang HF should make Cardano to be on the same level if not better. On a side note don’t worry about ETH or BTC maxis shitting in the comments, it is common behaviour here.
BCH hardforked BTC softforked Bitcoin forked (HF and SF) before 2017 too. But it didn't result in a split because there was no disagreement on the rules and the old fork simply died.
Check back when it breaks ATH. Then let it pop another 10-20% because you know these HF gonna try and make u believe it is for real. Then sell and check back in a year to buy again!!
My comment above is of course total BS, because I don’t work in finance nor do I have any real education about how CB is required to act. But my instincts kick in and tell me that if something looks really risky, yet HF bros are doing it anyway… they got tricks up their sleeves for sure. No way they would expose themselves to such huge risk on an asset as volatile as Bit. Any moron can look at bit charts and say damn that moves *a lot guys* what are we gonna do about this? They have to have a means to slip the risk off on others, in my likely highly regarded opinion.
But if the HF guys have Coinbase by the balls all the folks holding on exchanges, or really ANY AND ALL of the coins in exchanges can be manipulated or locked down. Even further is that if you hold your own keys the off ramps are controlled. So… I dunno. You think Cb wouldn’t delete the sell button too?
Well if you want to build the whole persona of XMR to be "Lol drugs" then HF getting better value out of XMR.
> don’t we all agree that it’s just NS, WD, and HF We (not you) all agree that only trolls care about naming Satoshi
Are you completely blind or did you not realize the Blackrock Bitcoin ETF? This and all the following ETFs will pull more and more HF, banks, etc into Bitcoin. Long-term Bitcoin might become the worldwide accepted currency for all trades.
They certainly are. Even Ray Dalio who manages the largest HF.
did u just use “HF” for have fun? Lmao ok. Btw read this - enjoy being wrong! : ) https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2020/comp-pr2020-338.pdf
[https://addslice.com/?crew=GmjMj](https://addslice.com/?crew=GmjMj) [https://stacker.news/](https://stacker.news/) https://www.thndr.games/?referralCode=renatabajic&gameId=-MuvENjk6Hm4HF9KcAwD\~snake
so just to confirm you still cant provide any proof or examples. got it. HF being wrong, Ill always be around to point it out.
Haha HF represent! As a young fella at that point in life with absolutely nobody around me really into computers to teach me anything, I genuinely learned a lot from that website. Definitely not where a preteen should have been growing up but it was awesome.
Ah, a fellow hack forums user. 2009-2011 HF was wild.
A different much simpler theory. They’re simply idiots over there, and then the lying took over. Someone in charge of twitter communications thought the etfs were approved and went ahead and wrote about it, more likely even got a direct order to do so. Then his boss was like “but we forget to do A,B,C so don’t twit it yet” … “but boss, I’m already twitted it” … “so let’s say the account was compromised” and so on… In parallel the HF algos just did their thing. Went long, then sold or maybe even shorted. I doing think someone at the SEC is smart enough to spell pump and dump
Will be very interesting! When HF’s short the BTC-ETF and drop it’s stock price, but BTC goes up because it’s separate and on the blockchain, people are gonna freak out!
You really think that sophisticated institutional, PE, and HF investors can’t figure out, logistically and legally, how to get bitcoin exposure without a US ETF? Every big player who wants bitcoin exposure already has it.
ETFs are a tool of market manipulation. They provide a way of creating the underlying asset from thin air and help to HF trade it in the dark pools in order cease control of the price of the assets. So for BTC expect at least manipulation, price control, HFT fuckery and shorting.
There could be some initial rise due to the ETFs buying in some. Which they have likely done already to an extent. After that starts the manipulation period, ETF share creation, shorting, HF trading, meaning controlled price manipulation.
That is actually an EXCELLENT point. And you're right. Nonetheless, I would still like an answer to my question. As in, what if it becomes somehow clear, that such a change does need to be made on the actual base layer? Is it possible with a backward compatible SF, or is a HF necessary...or some other way. Just kind of looking for someone who's an expert on this.
No, so unless HF sells a stainless version, this would be a bad choice.
The only shims I've seen at HF are U shaped and not stainless.
Plenty threads here on how guessing 24 (I use 24) is basically impossible. And since I have printed the FULL biplist and randomised my words manually and automatically. Well. HF.
Please take the time to research before you spew. It’s one thing to read data and not understand it…it is another to be lazy and just share personal feelings. The liquidators staked their Sol. Look at all the content from Breakpoint. The dev community is vibrant. Firedancer is a beast. No real world investors? Why not check cap inflow from the last month. >when I see responses like yours I get bricked. You won’t know what hit you once you see what happens with Solana. I still hold more btc and ETH then Solana. I’m also glad to see an ETH classic maxi in chat. Someone with your conviction would never touch a hard forked chain. Good on you. //I will leave you with one breadcrumb trail. Perhaps you will maintain your outlook. Maybe someone else will look into this Autonomous Agents. Agent to Agent smart contracts. If OpenAI really reduces api calls by 20x then it will be cheap for anyone to train and deploy an agent. In the end agents to agent smart contracts will be the norm. For a system that has a Clockspeed that would make human time seem frozen….agents will optimize for speed. Think of this in a similar light to why HF trading exists. A chain will need to be very fast to host such a future. And to an agent a chain that has the throughput Firedancer promises would be the only option. It can fail or not work. But such a world is already here. Jimmy Apples is most likely legit. The only reason we don’t see autonomous agents is probably because OpenAI realizes what a deflationary shock it would be to the global economy.
Such a lazy theory to think that HF is SN just because he was around at the time. There's tons of anonymity in crypto, look at all the hacks that get away on a weekly basis, never to be identified.
Yeah, i dont know - ARK is first; but would they really just announce one knowing it's going to drive the buyers to that, making it the first and biggest by volume AND THEN approve blackrock LATER? if they approve it - remember they can still reject it with new and updated language that the HF's are already positioning to avoid - i think they'll approve everyone at the same time. if that happens.... watch out. - could also yeild a 'buy the rumor sell the news event' but if nothing else, it'll be something to entertain us for some time.
GME, AMC along with other companies they’ve shorted and manipulated price action on. KG is a first class POS whose HF is allowed to play by a different set of rules.
HF finding one for 5 EUR which is not hard remember.
>A lie. The DAO HF was decided by everyone. >Ether: 3964516.72178130761881221 https://web.archive.org/web/20161224091248/http://www.carbonvote.com/ That's 6%. >There is far more effort in developing a groundbreaking new protocol How is it groundbreaking when you're leeching off Bitcoin in every respect? From the ICO (Bitcoin used) to the infrastructure and technology that Bitcoin paved the way for? Smart contracts, L2, NFTS (under other names), and of course blockchain all originated on Bitcoin. Again, who's paying the BitTorrent people? A far more useful tech than Ethereum. >More arbitrary determination of what is right and wrong to support your anti-decentralization government shilling agenda. What a bloody stupid answer. The DAO was hacked. Ethereum was untouched. And yet Ethereum was censored. >Obviously ETH classic was not supported by a significant share of users, which validates my point. They followed Buterin, and the money rather than adhering to the principles of censorship resistance and no bailouts. "Decentralized" my eye. >Relative to today's ETH economy, it was extremely small. It makes no difference. Censorship is censorship. >I suggested you're secretly a fan of fascism. This is the stupidest thing you've said. You sound like Putin. Accusing others of fascism whilst invading sovereign nations. Ethereum is an overrated centralized shitcoin. I hope it's clear from that where I stand.
>Wrong. For example, the bigwigs were the ones who decided on the DAO HF. And only 6% of holders voted in favour of it. A lie. The DAO HF was decided by everyone. Anyone who opposed it remained on Ethereum Classic. The coin vote was just one of many non-binding signaling methods used to gauge the Ethereum stakeholder set's preferences, and even with that, the vast majority of coins were acquired via an open crowdsale or by mining, and not from a premine allocation. >There's no effort in that. If they had mined it or even bought it and held it for years then, yes, they deserve the returns. There is far more effort in developing a groundbreaking new protocol than in running a hashing algorithm with their GPU, or buying coins. >There was nothing wrong with Ethereum per se in this case. More arbitrary determination of what is right and wrong to support your anti-decentralization government shilling agenda. >So uncontroversial that ETH classic was spun out of it. It was very controversial. Obviously those who hung around didn't care. Obviously ETH classic was not supported by a significant share of users, which validates my point. >There was $150 million in the DAO alone. It was the biggest crowdfunder in history at that point. Relative to today's ETH economy, it was extremely small. >None of that makes it OK. A smart contract should be autonomous. If you can change things, especially for controversial reasons, what's the point? The point is that wouldn't be repeated. I'm willing to forgive the world's first smart contract platform stumbling in its first couple years after launch. It was effectively a beta release. The Ethereum of today is nothing like it and would never hard fork to reverse a smart contract hack. >>Nice cover story. It's always the same: some new account LARPing as a "Bitcoiner", while aggressively denouncing the leading blockchain and privacy project, in perfect alignment with the worst mass-surveillance shills in Washington, D.C., like Elizabeth Warren. >This suggests that I'm secretly an ETH fan trolling or something. Why would I do that? I suggested you're secretly a fan of fascism.
>Ethereum doesn't have governance by stake vote, so people who received a portion of the premine set no policy. What they received is validation capital, and whether it is stake in PoS, or ASICs in PoW, validation capital has no role in governance. Wrong. For example, the bigwigs were the ones who decided on the DAO HF. And only 6% of holders voted in favour of it. >The people who received a small minority of the premine are primarily developers who created Ethereum, and thus the people who put the most effort in acquiring ETH. There's no effort in that. If they had mined it or even bought it and held it for years then, yes, they deserve the returns. The devs can buy ETH - and help its economy as well as themselves. It's because of this mindset that we have 20,000 shitcoins. Who's paying the bittorrent people? >i. Ethereum had just launched. There was a sense of everything being in beta. There was nothing wrong with Ethereum per se in this case. >ii. The Ethereum stakeholder set was very small, so obtaining consensus for such a controversial hard fork was much easier to accomplish than it would be today. So uncontroversial that ETH classic was spun out of it. It was very controversial. Obviously those who hung around didn't care. >iii. The economy on Ethereum was very small, so There was $150 million in the DAO alone. It was the biggest crowdfunder in history at that point. >a) a hard fork was far less disruptive than it would be today. b) an undermining of Ethereum's commitment to neutrality/immutability jeapardized far fewer decentralized application projects than it would today. iv. smart contracts were completely new, so there was a sense that people could be forgiven for their mistakes. None of that makes it OK. A smart contract should be autonomous. If you can change things, especially for controversial reasons, what's the point? >Nice cover story. It's always the same: some new account LARPing as a "Bitcoiner", while aggressively denouncing the leading blockchain and privacy project, in perfect alignment with the worst mass-surveillance shills in Washington, D.C., like Elizabeth Warren. This suggests that I'm secretly an ETH fan trolling or something. Why would I do that? You just can't take criticism.
The Ultimate Manifestation of Crypto Will Become Apparent When We Become a Star Exploring Species. 🌕 https://youtu.be/ztrG20lZRvA?si=7O8dK6HF_DzL-SEp
> I really dont care about you and dont have the time to answer them all. > See it as your victory, I dont care. > I have seen these questions over and over and I know its in the report. GL and HF. Wow. It's not in the report. It's amazing you won't even go and look, the report is only a few pages long. It's astonishing you will post things here that are verifiably not true and when I tell you they are untrue, you go "Well I don't have time to actually look" How about you answer one question. Just one. It's the most important question that ANYONE who invests in Algo should want to know. - Who are the owners/shareholders of Inc?
I really dont care about you and dont have the time to answer them all. See it as your victory, I dont care. I have seen these questions over and over and I know its in the report. GL and HF.
Wow EVM yokels really have a 1 track mind. HF getting robbed by DeFi hacks.
BNB exploiter loan position: https://debank.com/profile/0x489a8756c18c0b8b24ec2a2b9ff3d4d447f79bec/ **Still $90m of loan to clear at a precipitous 1.03 health factor.** BNB liquidator wallet: https://debank.com/profile/0x56306851238d7aee9fac8cdd6877e92f83d5924c/ Only has 30m USDT recently added from a binance hot wallet. - there’s some speculation about whether binance is using user funds to finance this liquidation since it came from a withdrawal hot wallet. They had earlier already spent 60m USDT which has all be used to prevent the position from liquidating each time it fell to 1 HF. TLDR: 90m of loans to go, only 30m left in the liquidator wallet and BNB price continues to fall threatening possible liquidation.
She is against transparency of the market. Running for big HF...
NEVER speak about your crypto! If you really must speak about crypto only do it generically and never show how much you know and never admit to touching any coins yourself. Keep the discussion completely hypothetical or avoid the topic at all costs. BEST case scenario, you get a gay bear season and you lose your shitcoins. Now everyone will know you as a loser who lost his fortune on some crazy fictitious money and you will become the laughing stock of everyone around you. WORST case scenario, you get a solid bull run. BTC and all crypto go up to the moon and everybody knows! they start talking in the media, the news, even your cab driver is now aware about Dogecoin. Guess what! now you have 2 scenarios. a.) either the G-man finds out that you were talking about crypto and comes looking for your fortunes from the bull run to split the profits. or b.) someone else remembers you were talking about crypto and you get f-king kidnapped and tortured to give up your private keys. Unfortunately even though you might think a and b sound extremely wild and rare. You would be amazed how often these 2 things happen to people who don't know how to shut up about crypto! GL HF!
I think it already exists - its just bitcoin addresses need to be upgraded before QC becomes available to someone - before they secretly create a list of public to private key mappings. I think the public key is only revealed if you use the same address twice, I heard. Not an expert in crypto so I dont understand this. But I think addresses right now are still vulnerable > Four million Bitcoin BTC, is vulnerable to an attack by a quantum computer due to owners using unhashed public keys or reusing BTC addresses. The quantum computer would have to be powerful enough to decipher the private key from the unhashed public address. If the private key is successfully deciphered, the malicious actor can steal a user’s funds straight from their wallets. [https://cointelegraph.com/news/why-quantum-computing-isn-t-a-threat-to-crypto-yet](https://cointelegraph.com/news/why-quantum-computing-isn-t-a-threat-to-crypto-yet) Still thats a lot of bitcoin. Then how safe is the hash of the public key going to be safe for against more adv QC? So right now this the only credible threat to bitcoin. I think it could be done in a SF, but you would need a HF when QC becomes available to protect lost coins ect
Does anyone here think that the big HF folks understand that BTC was created to destroy them?
1. Acquire control of substantial hash power through corporate miners. 2. Acquire control of substantial Bitcoin through financial partners and ETF. 3. Create financial instruments and derivatives that allow for retirement accounts, pension funds, and traditional finance to buy in. 4. Pump price. Create frenzy. Encourage recklessness by the market. 5. Bust price. Pull the bottom out. 6. Blackrocks corporate Media partners and pundits blame Bitcoin for the economic and retirement crises. Post blow off 7. Blackrock and their corporate partners agree to run a regulatory compliant chain. All exchanges and miners in U.S, Canada, and EU must comply. 8. Blackrock HF happens. All the companies they own must comply and recognize new chain as the Legitimate Bitcoin. The economic gravity plus hash power equates to more than 51% of network. 11. Legacy chain suppressed, attacked, and outlawed in all types of ways. The bank cartel is successfully killing crypto they're about to turn BTC into another paper scam
It's not impossible. You simply compress transactions off-chain and than submit them in batches periodically. Then you generate a proof that the transactions did indeed occur offchain, and then L1 provides finality. But this isn't possible on Bitcoin without a HF.
"This week should see the first transactions formed with Libdogecoin, transmitted 150 miles via HF Radio in Colorado to the Regional Hub which will submit the transaction to the Dogecoin testnet via Starlink satellite." https://foundation.dogecoin.com/blog/2022-04-11-shanty/
RadioDoge focuses on using cheap and reliable Radio technology (HF/LoRaWAN)...
The idea that Blackrock might HF Bitcoin to a PoS network was pretty cute.
May dip lower, may not. Congratulations to anyone dipping your toes in… as good a time as any. HF
I didn’t have the time to read it earlier. Would have been easier if you just could answer directly. But you’re more prompt to share ad hominems than any knowledge. So yeah another useless discussion GL HF
It didn't really last bull run because had a contentious HF right before the bull run. Lost some momentum because of that, but price still went from $80 to $1600. Pretty big gains.
The beauty is that they can change the code and HF it any time they want. Those who prefer something else can secede non-violently and peruse w/ever they'd like.