A place for cultivating high-quality, open and serious discussions about Bitcoin.
Your best source for ideas, discussions, and debate regarding technical, economic, business and political developments about the world's first and best cryptocurrency - Bitcoin.
A place for cultivating high-quality, open and serious discussions about Bitcoin.
Your best source for ideas, discussions, and debate regarding technical, economic, business and political developments about the world's first and best cryptocurrency - Bitcoin.
If it's your first time here, please take a quick look through our rules and guidelines, and then dive in. Anyone is also free to view our Public Moderation Log.
(See our posting guide for etiquette.)
All posted material must be related to Bitcoin, directly or indirectly.
No editorialized titles. Please keep the titles of your links and posts as close to neutral observation as you can. Editorialized titles will be removed or edited at the moderators' discretion. And no titles in all caps.
No memes, puns, or jokes posts. The aim of this community is to offer value and insight, and memes and jokes do neither. And as it stands, this type of content is more than well provided for in the other Bitcoin subreddits.
No trivial milestones, minor news updates, or price speculation. We encourage sources or posts that involve considerable information and background. A twitter status is not likely to pass this filter, although we may make exceptions for official announcements regarding particularly significant events.
Self-posts are allowed and encouraged, especially if posing a hypothesis or asking an in-depth question, but please provide necessary details or links within the text. Low-effort or vague posts will be removed at the mod's discretion. Simple or beginner questions will be removed, and you will be pointed toward r/BitcoinBeginners. One is expected to have at least an intermediate level understanding of bitcoin in order to post here.
All link-posts must include a submission statement. This is at least several sentences entered as a comment immediately after creating the thread. It should introduce the topic and serve as a starting point for discussion. (This does not apply to text-only threads.)
If you are asking for help or just want to post a noob question, do not create a new thread. Just ask in a comment in our stickied bi-weekly "Ask r/BitcoinDiscussion" threads.
Posts about alt-coins are considered acceptable if and only if they contain developments that are particularly relevant to Bitcoin. If you're not sure, then this probably isn't the place for it. Try r/CryptoCurrency instead.
No attacks aimed at individuals. You are free to criticize specific actions or ideas by people, but this is not a place for "calling out" what you perceive as negative people in the space.
Don't repeat stuff just to point out how stupid it is. If something doesn't make sense or is a particular bad idea, then don't pass it along. Focus on stuff worth discussing!
This is an English subreddit. If you post a link to something in a different language, you must include a comment with a detailed English summary (or better yet, a full translation).
I have experience with building on top of Ethereum and I want to learn how to build on top of bitcoin. I have searched on Google regarding it, but the only thing I get is tutorials on how to be rich with it. anyone who can provide any good resource or a roadmap to do it. (related to Bitcoin lightning network preferable)
So I'm completely new to the cryptocurrency scene and after reading online resources for days I still can't wrap my head around it. So I get that it's decentralised, so does that mean every single device that uses bitcoin has the entire set of ledgers ever created? Wouldn't that be hugely inefficient and impractical? How are updates rolled out? If >50% of bitcoin users just decide not to adopt a new update, does it just fail? And back to the topic of hosting every single ledger in every device that uses bitcoin, even if the blockchains are insurmountably small and even a million blockchains would somehow be as large as a small image file, what about ordinal NFTs, the bitcoin equivalent of the ethereum NFT, how are they going to be hosted? Sorry if I seem incredibly dumb for asking this, I just suck at learning new things I guess.
We all now know that Ledger has a way of extracting our private keys from our hard wallets, im sure any hard wallet can do the same just by changing the code, how dumb have we been to trust ledger when the entire crypto market is supposed to be trustless.
I am looking for alternatives instead of ledger and I've come across trezor and they say its open source, etc, but what stops the gov or someone in power from forcing trezor to change the code and they can immediately extract our seeds and take our crypto? Yes its open source, but to change the code and extract our keys and take our crypto can all happen a lot quicker than anyone noticing a change in the source code. There has to be a better way to truly store our crypto without any trust from anyone.
How did satoshi or any of the early bitcoin miners store their bitcoin, what did they do, did satoshi give any hints on how to store our bitcoin?
Planning to go cold storage next payday. I was more or less sold on the BitBox2 until I just learnt about Blockstream Jade which comes at half the price. Why would Bitbox (or other wallet options) be preferable to Blockstream Jade?
[Hodlin since 2020, pre-intermediate level btc knowledge, looking for first hardware device to learn with, planning to sit on my hodlings for at least 5 years, planning to DCA for the next 5 years or until I'm so far in the green that I dont want to lower my average cost any further, confused that Blockstream Jade doesn't have a secure element but still seems highly regarded in terms of security]
At the moment I'm writing this I was checking mempool.space and for my surprise (yeah I'm kinda new to this) there just TWO blocks in the mempool, and less than 1.000 incoming transactions. Actually I'm used to see a lot of transactions. Someone know if this happens due to the upcoming increase in the difficulty in 4 hours or this is just something usual on Bitcoin?
Okay I don't know if I'm going to make sense when writing this because I don't know the exact question. But basically, how do you send/receive bitcoin without any of the countless wallet options there are now.
What if I wanted to sign transactions with my private key without using a wallet? Is it even possible?
Hi, this is a question that has been on my mind for a while. Cross-Input Signature Aggregation has been something that Bitcoin will likely eventually get. It'll allow you to only provide one signature for a transaction (instead of one per input), making large coinjoins (or even exchanges consolidating UTXOs) significantly cheaper.
But reading about it, it seems that it would require introducing a new output type, as it will be incompatible with the current P2TR output.
The issue I see is that first of, this would introduce a new output type (compromises privacy). Should Taproot have been perhaps delayed until CISA? That way the incentive for upgrading to Taproot would be greater too (huge fee reductions, switching from legacy->Taproot-CISA would probably have yielded 70-90% fee reduction for exchanges and other users with large amount of UTXOs), which would be a win for privacy since Taproot addresses can be multisig, or script addresses, or just a simple singlesig, so more users using it would lead to more privacy for everybody.
I just finished listening to TIP's episode BTC104, and they brought up how there is speculation on the price of Bitcoin hitting $5mil or more if the globe fully adopts it as a main currency. Assuming the math adds up, I just don't understand how we will get there, specifically because of the few BTC addresses that hold crazy amounts of BTC (the whales).
If many of the governments of the world sign up for putting BTC on their balance sheets, they must realize that with world adoption, they are pumping up these whales' balances to astronomically high values. Like, in the magnitude of quadrillions of dollars in value. That seems like a strong disincentive, if not a deal-breaker, for BTC world adoption. Can anyone fill me in on what the big brains are thinking here?
One class of protocols that I mention in the appendices of http://bitcoinrollups.org are what I call “validia chains”. Validia chains share similarities with both sidechains and validity rollups, with interesting tradeoffs.
I wrote a blog post comparing these different protocols here: https://lightco.in/2022/11/03/validia-chains/
I'd be interested in getting feedback from folks about the possibility of adding support for validia chains to bitcoin, either as higher layers built on rollups, or even as a standalone L2 alternative to rollups.
Today I am publishing "Validity Rollups on Bitcoin", a report I wrote during my participation in the Human Rights Foundation's ZK-Rollup Research Fellowship.
Here's the preface:
Ever since Satoshi Nakamoto first publicly announced bitcoin, its supporters, critics, and skeptics alike have questioned how the protocol would scale as usage increases over time. This question is more important than ever today, as blocks are increasingly full or close to full of transactions. So-called "Layer 2" (L2) protocols such as the Lightning Network have been deployed to take some transaction volume "offchain" but even Lightning needs to use some bitcoin block space. It's clear that as bitcoin is adopted by more and more of the world's population (human and machine alike!) more block space will be needed. Another thread of inquiry concerns whether bitcoin's limited scripting capabilities help or hinder its value as electronic cash. Researchers and inventors have shown that the electronic cash transactions first made possible by bitcoin could be given new form by improving transaction privacy, supporting new types of smart contracts, and even creating entirely new blockchain-based assets.
One of the results of the decade-plus research into scaling and expanding the capabilities of blockchains such as bitcoin is the invention of the validity rollup. Given the observed benefits that validity rollups have for the blockchains that have already implemented them, attention now turns to the question of whether they would be beneficial for bitcoin and existing bitcoin L2 protocols such as Lightning, too. We explore this question by examining validity rollups from several angles, including their history, how they work on a technical level, how they could be built on bitcoin, and what the benefits, costs, and risks of building them on bitcoin might be. We conclude that validity rollups have the potential to improve the scalability, privacy, and programmability of bitcoin without sacrificing bitcoin's core values or functionality as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Given the "trustless" nature of validity rollups as cryptographically-secured extensions of their parent chain, and given bitcoin's status as the most secure settlement layer, one could even say these protocols are a perfect match for one another.
You can find the full report here:
This sounds super cool. Basically sounds like a way to reduce initial block download and sync to 0. Since blockchain storage, UTXO set memory usage, and IBD bandwidth are the biggest througput bottlenecks, this project could be a huge step towards being able to safely increase the block size by potentially 5X-10X.
If the rule is heaviest (most zeros in all of hashes) and not simply longest chain of blocks, doesn't that allow the chain to be reorged from an earlier block with "mega-difficulty" blocks; causing nodes to follow a chain with a lower total block height?
For example, imagine I had a supercomputer (just a thought experiment) more powerful than the entire BTC network and able to compute the entire chain in 1 hour. If I then started mining a 100-long chain that is heavier than the entire 742,818 blocks of BTC on top of block 2, will BTC nodes now jump over to the 103-long chain because it is heavier? Will they all start mining on a "latest block" with a timestamp of "2009-01-11 10:31" ?
If everyone decides to follow a minority chain, it will eventually become the longest (most CPU), so what is the point? Aren't we just following ourselves? What's so special then about Proof of Work then? Can't we just follow ourselves without wasting energy?
Bitcoin uses elliptic curve encryption to produce public keys.
Due to this, addresses for which the public key is known will be very easily cracked using quantum computing anywhere in the next 5 - 50 years.
Solutions to this problem are partial and/or would anyways have a devastating impact on Bitcoin liquidity, price, and potentially to its supremacy as cryptocurrency of choice.
This is true because even if a new encryption mechanism such as XMSS was introduced, and all users moved their funds newly generated quantum resistant addresses, an enormous amount of coins would be left behind, waiting to be unlocked by a quantum attacker.
Even if a hard fork took place to arbitrarily ban addresses that were not migrated on time, this would seriously interfere with the perception of Bitcoin being an immutable store of value.
Transactions are transparently stored on the blockchain.
Since transaction history can be exactly reconstructed, coins coming from tainted transactions remain tainted forever. Transactions can be marked as illicit by any powerful enough external entity (individuals, companies, governments).
Since the concept of "illicit" varies from society to society, not always matching with your idea of good and bad, this characteristic allows external interference to alter the value of specific units of account with respect to other ones.
As an example, Hitler would have been glad to identify "tainted" bitcoins coming from Jews or political enemies, excluding them from commercial activity by law, and punishing anyone who transacted with them.
While some degree of privacy can be optionally obtained using mixers, coinjoin, and other methods, this is far very from ideal. Partial obscurity is never enough (how much partial? how much of the surrounding information would be enough to raise the curtain of uncertainty?)
Ironically, coinjoined transactions can mix untainted coins with tainted ones, so that a user may input a good coin and receive a bad one, and vice versa. Since coinjoin transactions can be identified observing the blockchain, third parties may also refuse to accept sats coming from mixers tout court, just to be safe with regulations (good regulations or hitlerian regulations, doesn't matter).
Hence, 1 btc does not equal 1 btc.
Wether or not this is a good thing remains out of the scope. What I want to say is bitcoin is very weakly fungible. Definitely less fungible than Monero, but also less than gold!
With the drama over CTV, I have seen several people talk about covenants as if they're a frivolous experimental feature that probably very few people need. I very much disagree, and to expand on that I want to focus on the use case I believe is most important for covenants: wallet vaults.
Today's best-in-class self-custody mechanism is always some kind of multisig wallet setup. Companies like Casa and Unchained Capital have their own systems to help people self-custody with multisig, and I have my own ideas. But multisig wallets are significantly more difficult to set up and manage than a single-key wallet. Transactions require signing with multiple devices, which may be separated by significant distance. Additional considerations are needed, like storing and backing up the wallet configuration in addition to the multiple seeds necessary.
So what are the benefits of wallet vaults over multisig wallets? A wallet vault can approach the ease of use of a hot wallet, while at the same time having better properties than a normal multisig wallet in many important ways.
The sole downside of a wallet vault over normal multisig is that you need something watching the blockchain for transactions from your vault, so that you have time to create a recovery transaction and sign it with your other seeds / signing devices. This is somewhat similar to the concept of a lightning watchtower, except that if a thief tries to steal your funds, you generally have to manually create and sign a recovery transaction. However, this doesn't place much additional burden on the end user.
So bitcoin in a wallet vault can easily be both harder to lose and harder to steal, while at the same time being easier to use. Wallet vaults are not just a frivolous experimental toy, but are well understood to be an enormous advancement in self-custody. They could help more people self-custody, help people keep a larger fraction of their bitcoin in cold wallets, and generally make holding and using bitcoin substantially safer and easier.
And this is only one of the important improvements covenants enable. So please, if you think that covenants aren't important, please read more about wallet vaults.
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY enables wallet vaults, and as simple as OP_CTV is, it has numerous important use cases like wallet vaults. While there are other ideas floating around that enable covenants, none have been actually developed other than CTV.
This is a proposal to the bitcoin community/developers/miners/users outlining arguments that new releases of bitcoin implementations with changes to the consensus rules (soft and/or potential hard fork) should follow a regular release cycle that is no shorter than 4 years, with the next change no sooner than 2024. A convention for a software release schedule for non-consensus rules already exists (every 6-7 months), however, no schedule or a loose de facto agreement exists for changes to consensus rules exists, and I believe there are several improvements this makes and several problems it prevents by making changes to consensus rules only at a regular intervals.
In an ideal world, the consensus rules of bitcoin are immutable. The immutability of the code and especially the consensus rules is a core principle of bitcoins value proposition. However, as research advances and user demand evolves, some changes are inevitable and make genuine improvements to the protocol. Nevertheless, by making changes to consensus rules only at predictable intervals it improves the immutability principle and reduces the appearance that soft fork proposals can just be demanded to be reviewed or implemented at any time.
With the appearance that soft fork proposals can just be demanded to be reviewed or implemented at any time, it has increasingly become evident that this is an attack surface for bitcoin, even if the proposed changes are claimed to be minimal and harmless. Empirically, in the past, what seemed to be an urgent soft or hard fork proposals at the time and caused a great deal of damaging consternation, were in hindsight often non-urgent changes that could have easily waited longer or didn't need to be made at all. The consternation soft fork proposals cause and the potential room for soft fork proposers to seemingly bamboozle the community into a soft or hard fork, can be severely reduced or avoided by achieving a de facto agreement on a regular review and release schedule for changes to the consensus rules at regular 4 year time intervals. A regular release schedule can be thought of a fail-safe mechanism, to not bamboozle the community into unnecessary soft forks.
Furthermore, the irregularity and frequency with which soft forks are proposed are causing the community/developers/miners/users to be pressured to needing to spend time and review ad hoc a myriad of soft fork proposals, which is disruptive. On the other hand, proposers of soft forks are frustrated with the lack of review. The frustrations on both sides of the issue of this irregular, ad hoc process for soft fork proposals are understandable.
By working on soft fork proposals where there is a de facto agreement about a time line the community will evaluate, compare, contrast and prioritise various soft fork proposals, this agreement aims to give the proposer of a soft fork and the community more clarity on when to determine whether there is consensus to go ahead with a soft fork proposal (or not) at the end of every four year cycle. The focused attention could also result in selection and formulation of fundamentally better proposals, than in a process where the evaluation is at irregular and unpredictable time intervals. There are a handful of soft fork proposals out there now, and I believe it is very unclear to many in the community how these proposals compare, contrast and can be prioritised.
Four years is somewhat of an arbitrary length, however with bitcoin now 13 years old, empirically, there is scant evidence for the argument that bitcoin consensus proposals needs to have a quicker turnover than four years for implementing soft fork proposals to respond 'critical' hypotheticals that have kept creating false senses of urgency . On the contrary, historical evidence suggests that conservative and careful consideration to compare, contrast and prioritisation of proposals, bolsters bitcoins value proposition. I am inclined to to think that rough consensus already exists on this or is close to it, yet there is still a contingency of people that is not aware of this or see it fundamentally different and find themselves frustrated with the 'slow' development. Knowing that this rough consensus already exists, people that fundamentally believe and advocate for fast development of consensus rules in bitcoin, should consider that bitcoin is not the right project for them.
While developers can understand proposals fairly quickly and 'technical consensus' can be achieved relatively quick, 4 years is good time for users and miners to understand proposals as well and to establish if rough consensus has precipitated (or not) amongst users. In reality, the evaluation of proposals is a feedback system between developers and miners/users. Miners/users generally will follow the technical consensus, and a four year time frame gives time to raise concerns and feed it back to the developers, and this time frame respects the principle that ultimately the users have final control. When the time frame is shorter, users are too easily be left out of the process and it will appear that control is gravitated to developers (and miners). It is reminded that for the technically uncontroversial Taproot proposal, at the time of activation, only have 50-60% nodes had upgraded. This demonstrates that ample time is needed for users to activate (or resist).
In summary, the benefits of a regular 4 year release schedule for changes to the consensus code are:
I would like to know thoughts on this proposal. I may have overlooked some other pro and cons that I should have considered. If this is of value, I may post it to the bitcoin dev mailing list.
I used one for the first time last night. Which will also be my LAST time, considering how much it over charges...I couldn't get a solid connection on my phone in order to deposit directly into an existing wallet, and had to create a new wallet via the ATM.
I can NOT figure out a way to access the BTC I bought?! I feel like it should be obvious. But I haven't been able to find a way to get it into my other wallet(s)?
Any help is greatly appreciated 🙏
So I started reading the manga (Japanese comic) called "Liar Game" and got hooked. A little spoiler is that the games are all designed so that the main evil corporation called LGT stand to make huge profits should players are rational and greedy.
There is a site that simulates the games in this manga. This got me thinking, what if we do something similar, but replace the LGT with a vault that acts as a source of funding for Bitcoin development? Maybe the games can help increase the block space demand too.
I just got hit by an idea that I think might improve POW (and no, it's not switching to POS). The main criticism Bitcoin gets (from the MSM, governments, normies, etc) is that its POW mechanism is just wasteful and unnecessary and that it is a threat to the environment.
We all have heard this, we've seen how it can impact not just the price (Elon's tweets) but also the hash-rate (China ban). I am of the hopeful opinion that it actually incentivizes renewable adoption, as it gets cheaper, and that it is incredible useful at capturing energy from sources that would otherwise go to waste.
I am a firm believer in POW because it is just intuitive in how it grounds the network to the real world making it not only accessible to anyone that wants to participate in it's mining, but also incredible secure (in the sense that you would have to recreate all the work done in order to break it, and that's just not really possible due to how expensive it would be).
Nonetheless, I think we can tweak the POW mechanism by making the following change:
- Instead of just having miners compete against each other by solving cryptographic puzzles, why not replace what they are competing about with something that can also generate value?
An example that comes to my mind, that I think aligns with the descentralization goals of Bitcoin, is to support the TOR network. So instead of having miners compete to find the target hash, what if we had miners compete to see who can help relay transactions in TOR the most? We would then help expand the security and descentralization of the TOR network while at the same time keeping Bitcoin's POW grounded to reality.
Please let me know what you think.
Picture from White paper: https://ibb.co/ZgRvBLT
Ownership is not the same as control. Money that can only be controlled, but not owned, has little value. Law and order holds back the hierarchy of power by defining rights to force and protection. Without it, the strong simply steal from the weak.
There has to be a mechanism for the recovery of lost or stolen bitcoins and the seizure of money tied to crimes. Bitcoin will never grow to any mainstream adoption without such a mechanism of Legal Ownership.
Thankfully, the White paper is clear as day - bitcoins are ownable and the blockchain tracks the chain of ownership.
Miners and Exchanges exist in nation-states and are not above the law. All nations have laws regarding ownership. If they receive a court order to move control of bitcoins to new keys they will have to comply or risk being shut down.
International cooperation between nations with respect to law does occur. Court orders can be obtained in multiple jurisdictions. The vast majority of the worlds population do not believe in anarchy and enjoy the fact that law grants them ownership and protection. Any fork moving away from this will not only be of lower hash power (mining pools can also receive court orders) and not accepted on many exchanges, It will also be going against the rules of the White paper which states Bitcoin has ownership.
Bitcoin is not above law. Nothing is. Satoshi Nakamotos' own words in the White paper will be used by courts to justify their power to move coins.
A short guide on Bitcoin Mixing and How to tail Malicious Bitcoin Transactions on Dark Web.
PS: Please remove the post if it violates any rules, noob here!
I was thinking about how interesting it is that so little nodes exist for these projects... I think btc has about 12k last I checked and doge is at around 1800... I didn't look into eth or any other main ones yet but my question is what if all these nodes went down? Would transactions fail? One of the main things I would think should be a priority for these open nodes would be giving the node holders some type of incentive to keep them up. Kinda like a rewards program or airdrop.
Does anyone here use Bitcoin or other forms of crypto to accept as forms of payment for their goods / services? How did you go about it?
I think we all know the potential benefits of bitcoin being adopted by a country like transparency and having money that doesn’t lose value overtime but what are the potential issues of a country adopting Bitcoin and having it integrated into the economy?
Here are a few:
We've seen El Salvador making big steps in adopting BTC but in their case, they didn't even have their own currency and so I think it makes sense for them to introduce BTC into the system, but for other countries with their own national currency they would be shooting themselves in the foot introducing a high superior currency that could destabilize their economy. That's why China bans BTC so that they can defend their incoming E-yuan.
I do think mass adoption of bitcoin is happening regardless because of the open-source bitcoin software and more open-source exchange software will make it easier and easier over time to spread bitcoin markets everywhere regardless of a ban... but what are the negative effects?
What do you guys think? Can hyper-bitcoinization coexist with a weak national currency?