Bitcoin Dev

15 December 2024 20:43

Oh, ok, so no soft forks or anything like that right ?

Bitcoin Dev

15 December 2024 20:37

https://x.com/bitcoinerrorlog/status/1867597672363806995?s=52&t=RwbB_VIX1lITvP4UkOKizg

Bitcoin Dev

15 December 2024 19:36

you need to link these things, don't expect people read what you did

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:16

Thats side effect of decentralization

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:13

mayority listens to the small group

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:09

Isn’t security better with slower transaction and smaller block size ?

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:05

i think its fair to say that bitcoin has some people that are keeping it on one trajectory, and its fair to say that other trajectories exist. What doesn't make sense is sugesting his trajectory is better.

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:04

he did a lot of interviews, and is very angry with core to the point of teaming up with outright scammers (craig wright)

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:03

No the one he did with Carlson

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:00

Did anyone watched the Roger Ver interview? For clarification, I always believed and still believe that security is more important than scalability, and some of his statements about Bitcoin really bothered me, can someone shed some light on it or share thoughts on it ?
Thanks

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 16:52

Summary

Against the attacks envisioned at SHARCS ’09:
1. Classical Hardware Attacks: SHA-256 is secure, as brute-forcing it is computationally infeasible, even with specialized hardware.
2. Quantum Threats: SHA-256 is weakened (effective security of 2^{128} ) but remains practically secure until large-scale quantum computers are built.
3. Algorithmic Vulnerabilities: No structural weaknesses in SHA-256 were identified at SHARCS ’09, and none are known today.

GPT says

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 16:40

https://www.hyperelliptic.org/tanja/SHARCS/record2.pdf#page=113

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 16:05

no, it just means they can't even, they get stuck with 21, even children are better at it for now

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 16:00

(other numers are special, and don't count because crypto algos avoid them)

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 15:58

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records#Comparison_to_efforts_by_individuals

Bitcoin Dev

15 December 2024 20:42

its up to the wallets really

Bitcoin Dev

15 December 2024 20:07

I suspect this is referring to the BIP that proposes renaming satoshis to bitcoins. I think that's a tall order due to how difficult it would be to coordinate and the mass confusion that would result.

Bitcoin Dev

15 December 2024 06:50

Sorry if I am off topic, but I don’t think I am.
I just read Carvalho tweet. Any thought on his new bip proposal ?

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:15

in any way, forks showed there was no added value in his vision

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:12

Yeah that was a huge mistake

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:07

I agree and I was under the impression that the majority made the choice not a small group, that’s why I don’t understand what is he talking about

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:04

Tracking transactions

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:03

Where he states that Bitcoin has been highjacked

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 17:02

https://youtu.be/JMcS3IQdCGA?si=hf69O7DGOARtMJz1

U mean this one

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 16:53

So it say for future proof its way proper to use sha512

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 16:41

they say we have faster classical ones

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 16:28

So sha256 is quantum-proof PQC

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 16:04

Interesting, max supply is 21 million, idk any correlation about 21 numbers

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 15:58

here you can watch the records, quantum is still stuck at 21 from 2012

Bitcoin Dev

11 December 2024 15:56

at least no universal quantum algo was proposed for it yet