On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation
b10c.me
b10c.me
Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad about that - it's made me tons of money on the short side. I'm just saying, it's bad money.
[edit] more importantly, the yen may have dropped 38 basis points against the dollar, however that doesn't necessarily represent a drop in domestic purchasing power at all. Just foreign purchasing power. This change makes imports into Japan more expensive and exports of Japanese products denominated in dollars more affordable to foreign buyers. You're measuring apples vs oranges in that comparison.
So yes, "real currencies" can and do fluctuate significantly in terms of exchange rates. It simply makes no sense to contextualize exchange rate fluctuations as "annualized inflation".
Bitcoin's purchasing power fell equivalently the world over and so inflation is a more useful benchmark to compare the loss in purchasing power than foreign exchange is.
When people point out Bitcoin's volatility, I wonder how else this could be accomplished on a decentralized and voluntary basis.
Which isn't to say that BTC will achieve that, of course. But unless it does, how could it possibly have a stable value in between? It's either worth $0 or ~$1-10mm per Bitcoin, and the market is having a vigorous argument about which.
The reason is simple: if you have the treasury mint a $1T coin and give it to me, then I throw it in a vault, and do not spend it then prices do not change. As such, the Austrian model is obviously incomplete as it does not take into account what happens to that supply.
You can see this play out in the macro. Since 1980 the M2 supply has increased 12X but prices are about 3X higher.
This system remains at equilibrium because supply went up, and velocity went down leading to neutral price action.
It analogizes this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT
As your access to supply increases, your demand for more monetary units decreases. As your demand for monetary units falls below your demand for other goods and services you want in life, you spend some of it.
This is how markets function, right? This is why bubbles pop for example, eventually holders of an asset reach a price where they want to take some off the table.
"Everyone has a price."
Money in a vault has zero velocity, money being spent dozens of times a day has a very high velocity, most situations lie between, we need a meaningful way of discussing this that "monetary supply" does not capture.
There is a common idea that high monetary velocity (GDP divided by broad money supply) is needed for inflation. However, the data show that this is not the case.I'm curious, what's your definition of "hard money"? It's clear that your idea of "hard money" is very different than the parent's.
"No the context I'm used to is the only possible answer"
This combined with your mention of fear and pumping, it seems you have a heavy bias against cryptocurrencies so it's not worthwhile to continue this discussion with you.
I've followed the space very closely for 6ish years now, and I've made a lot of money on crypto both long and short, and I engage with a lot of folks both online and in real life who are both pro- and anti- crypto.
However, fundamentally, I'm with Jackson Palmer.
My contribution to the gradient of behaviors on that network was one where the Bitcoin asset was only used to cover transaction fees for the actual money being traded.
The whole "merchant adoption" thing was always a squirrel to me. When merchants will accept stable value assets more readily, or use those stable value assets for settlement, just like the US regulator greenlighted a few months ago.
[edit] Direct fees are lower than they used to be, and the energy cost is about now up to about $100-120 per transaction. While that's being socialized across block reward for now, when that ends, it will have to be born directly by customers or see the network become less secure.
That's true, total transaction revenue will need to go up. That doesn't mean per-transaction revenue needs to go up though.
Put another way, transaction volume needs to scale before inflation gets too low.
Good thing they decided to never scale transaction volume.
Regarding energy, if thats your battle then work on that aspect, there are some influencers aiming to convince miners to create a more energy efficient version of transaction propagation, settled on the Bitcoin network.
Again? Did some sort of protocol fork break colored coins or the omni network?
I’m looking forward to this all being standardized and wallets surfacing it after they agree on the protocols.
Assuming compatibility is required softforks generally reduce complexity because they relax the requirement for synchronization between participants.
A softfork is like internet access over phone-lines. If you pick up the line, participants that aren't on the latest code will often hear a bunch of garbage that they can't make sense of. Someone might even send them money but they won't be able to make sense of it or accept it since it's now encapsulated.
From an overall network perspective, this may be a worse state of affairs vs. just making everyone upgrade (hard-fork).
If compatibility with their signatures is dropped those funds will be irreparably and irrecoverably destroyed.
So, for example, BCash deployed an earlier version of our schnorr signature spec (from before the taproot part was finished) in a "hardfork" but preventing destroying funds meant that they had to keep the ECDSA support around (duo to presigned transactions, hardware security modules, etc.) -- so they didn't escape any complexity in that change, they introduced a disruptive flag-day which introduced its own extra complexity.
> often hear a bunch of garbage that they can't make sense of
The changes are compatible so you know those extra fields are stuff "from the future" which you don't understand and know you can ignore.
> but they won't be able to make sense of it or accept
The recipient of funds always specifies their own rules, you'll never specify rules that you don't understand so there isn't any issue with not being able to accept it.
Even with a soft fork, everyone still needs to update their nodes to maintain consensus. BIP100 signalling would have fixed everything and avoided so much drama.
Also known as... backwards compatibility.
>Even with a soft fork, everyone still needs to update their nodes to maintain consensus
Not really. If you decide to not upgrade your node you're not going to get kicked off the network. Your node won't be enforcing the new rules (which is bad), but you're probably not going to lose money due to herd immunity and/or game theory. Specifically, your client will blindly accept taproot transactions (without checking for them) if they make it into a block. An evil miner could possibly use this to send you fraudulent transfers, however:
1. you need to somehow amass the hashpower necessary to generate such a block. this is non-trivial given the network difficulty
2. the block would be considered invalid by the rest of the network, so you'll be forfeiting the regular block reward of ~6.25 BTC
3. other miners won't build on top of this block, so it will take forever to get to 6 confirms
4. in addition to the above, your fork will get overtaken by the legitimate chain and will be ignored
5. if it turns out that your victim did upgrade his wallet software, you just spent a bunch of resources for nothing.
Or the mining reward.
The bitcoin transaction format has numerous points of intentional forward compatibility: Fields, flags, bits, etc. which intentionally have no effect at this time but which could be further restricted in the future in order to create functionality. Examples include future transaction version numbers and future script version numbers.
Use of these forward compatibility features is "non-standard" which means that unmodified software will not relay, mine, or display-while-unconfirmed transactions which use them. But if they happen to show up inside blocks, they'll be accepted.
This protects these fields for future use. Otherwise, some software would start randomly setting them (e.g. due to programming mistakes or confusion) and then these systems would catch fire when later the fields were given a defined meaning.
This article is about output with version 1 instead of version 0. Currently v1 is defined to have no effect. At block 709632 (in November roughly) that will change and v1 will have a meaning defined by BIP-341 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawi...).
I don't think this is correct. Miners (are supposed to) validate all transactions in all blocks.
What do you mean by "validate" here? All nodes check for validity, in the sense that the transaction is properly authorized.
Most multisignature behaviors still aren't exposed, its kind of weird. But looking for to taproot making multisignature addresses indistinguishable from other addresses.
There's the general empty space that people shove all sorts of things into. From plain text metadata to encoded messages to derivatives trades.
Even vitalik has mentioned that this attitude was one of the things that turned him away from bitcoin (along with refusal to evolve features) and launch ethereum.
In the mean time, a lot of people still tinker at their own volition, read technical books, or now learn about blockchain structures in universities, leading to a continual new set of people using blockchains differently or at their fundamental level.
The what now?