Have you reviewed any of the proposals to do exactly that? https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/quantum-resistance/
7,326 karma · joined December 7, 2017
Have you reviewed any of the proposals to do exactly that? https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/quantum-resistance/
> Passengers who trigger the alarm at the scanners or magnetometers, however, will be required to take their shoes off for additional screening, according to the memo.
Author: jack <no@no.no>
He used a bogus `user.email` git config value, which GitHub matched to the nothankyou1 account.https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/te...
Here's a 2010 Satoshi post in a thread about transaction fees stating "we should always allow at least some free transactions": https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/thre...
If you had said "2 dollars" instead of "2 cents", we would be in complete agreement. All I'm saying is that mandatory transaction fees were not baked in at 2 cents.
> That was true when bitcoin was 2 cents
I largely agree with you, but to nitpick: when bitcoin was 2 cents, blockspace was free, and miners regularly accepted zero-fee transactions into blocks. Today, you're not getting a transaction into a block without paying at least a couple hundred sats. Your statement is true today, but it wasn't like this until April-May 2012 when Satoshi Dice started filling blocks up. See Fig 3 on page 9 of <https://maltemoeser.de/paper/transaction-fees.pdf> or look through some early blocks.
Why should this be the goal?
I'm sure miners would love to see their revenue never decrease, but this isn't a problem for users or for the security of the network. Block reward does not need to remain at or above current levels forever; it just needs to remain predictable from block to block. Difficulty adjustment works both up and down, even if we've only seen it go up so far. The 51% risk is overblown - the network is significantly overprotected right now, and we could stand to lose a few orders of magnitude without jeopardizing security/availability. Plus, it might even placate the energy consumption doomsayers.
As GP notes, empty blocks are now common, which is in fact a bigger risk in a low-subsidy environment. Maybe we should instead reduce minrelaytxfee to 0.1 sat/vB to incentivize full blocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address#Unicast_vs._multic...
The focus on Bitcoin appears to be synthesis on Decrypt's part - it's not mentioned once in the paper.
> According to Padgett and government records reviewed by NBC News, government contracts (some of which are still current) involving TeleMessage go back years, predating the current Trump administration. One current contract that mentions TeleMessage allocated $2.1 million from the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA for “TELEMESSAGE MOBILE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE ARCHIVING,” beginning in February 2023, with an August 2025 end date.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/photo-appears-shows-mi...
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_70FA3123F00000028...
s/an existing/a latent predisposition for a/How is this compatible with Bluesky's internal cultural vision of "The company is a future adversary"[1][2][3]? With Twitter, we've seen what happens with the bluecheck feature when there's a corporate power struggle.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35012757 [2]: https://bsky.app/profile/pfrazee.com/post/3jypidwokmu2m [3]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/04/14/blueskys-quest...
https://news.ycombinator.com/pool (specifically, this post can be found on page 8: https://news.ycombinator.com/pool?next=43673425)