dylkil

I read your whole comment expecting you to get to the evidence where bitfinex and the miner are associated...

Its a great way for miners to launder money. Bitfinex pays the fee and it turns up on the miners balance sheet, where does bitfinex gain?

This is funding for developer tools for building decentralised services

>If you will hard fork every time it's convenient

Creating a hard fork isnt easy as you make it out to be

They wouldn't like their neighbors knowing their shopping history, the principle should be the same.

Crypto is more than currency at this stage, you argument solely applies to bitcoin.

>I understand that you're joking here but the amount of good the dollar does so clearly surpasses the harm

This is the problem with your view of crypto, you fail to see the good

There are plenty of ways to convert to cash anon

Most miners join pools. A single asic will never mine a block, so miners pool hashpower together and you get paid out your share of the hashpower.

Why is hacker news so salty about cryptocurrency

Anyone can buy an asic and turn it on to start mining. The mined coin stays anon as long as the miner has good opsec.

So this is just going to apply to exchanges operating inside the EU right? This will only make bitcoin transfers to and from custodians more traceable.

it failed my first test of returning stackoverflow for a code error

https://search.brave.com/search?q=null+pointer+exception

lightning network is a broken mess. It baffles me that so many people still pump resources into after all these years.

>since any cap you set it to will also be arbitrary

Unless you done quantitative analysis into the most appropriate blocksize. But that will never happen at this stage.

>problem with the bch people was that they were reckless and dishonest

Anything relevant you would like to share to back up this claim?

this is exactly what bitcoin cash is

the liquid network is owned by blockstream and they get the fees for transactions on it.

block propagation was the main reason for being opposed to a block size increase, storage costs were debunked time and time again as being irrelevant.

You'll get many different responses to this question depending on who you ask. If you want to read into further i recommend you read the great scaling debate[1]. Its pretty long but does a fantastic job of summarizing the history.

In short the most popular reason for not having a block size increase (to allow many low fee transactions) was that it would increase the cost of running a full node, in turn centralising the network. More transactions would mean nodes would need a bigger hard drive and a better cpu to process the transactions. The small block camp wanted people to be able to run nodes on a raspberry pi. This theory is misguided in my opinion though, they chose to sacrifice cheap transactions to keep node running costs cheap.

[1]https://medium.com/hackernoon/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-deba...

this was the debate circa 2014/2015. Should the bitcoin network consist of many low fee transactions or few high fee transactions. Right now the incentive for miners to secure the network is produced with the block reward, but when the block reward runs out this incentive will be from fees alone. In order to provide miners with the same revenue as today when the block reward runs out, the average fee per tx will need to be close to $200. If you increase the block size to 100mb and use block compression tech like xthinner to make blocks essentially 1mb (like today), then the average fee needed is only $2.

its a pity bitcoin devs are so opposed to changing the protocol. So much research has been done showing the feasibility of increasing bitcoins throughput. Xthinner for instance is capable of compressing bitcoin blocks by up to 99% using bloom filters [1]. Much of this research was conducted on the bitcoin fork, bitcoin cash, by people ostracized from the bitcoin community for wanting to explore these ideas.

[1]https://reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bas60b/by_the_power_of_cto...

are you being serious

wasnt it obvious to some people back then who the real companies were, and all it took was everyone else catching up to speed to understand who the real companies were?

every cycle has a new "trick", e.g. in 2017 ICO's to tokenise everything, in 2020/2021 IDO's, yield farming and NFTs.

yes hes a bitcoin maximalist. Everything but bitcoin is bad according to him.

here you go: https://etherscan.io/address/0x7a250d5630b4cf539739df2c5dacb...

I think they are confused about what a smart contract is

What do you think smart contracts are?

Do you not think permissionless money systems are valuable?

Whether the law to enforce consequences exists or not, smart contracts will still provide value. Some of those contracts will be exploited, and the law will not help in 99% of cases.