Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since April 19, 2015 (2,216 days old)
Karma Posts: 5,248 Comments: 116,883 Combined: 122,131
Active in

I thought it would be useful to share this comment from Amaury, It is his view on changing the DAA, replying to me on how to fix it. There are definitively DAA that would perform better on the issue of oscillations. There are no doubts about this. One obvious issue is how well they hold in the face of absurd timestamps. Right there, you lose most of the traditional low pass filter techniques. For instance, a solution that perform better in the face of oscillations is to use exponential decays instead of a moving average. But this solution start producing absurd results in the face of negative timestamps, which definitively happens. So making it viable require to add some mechanism to ensure timestamps are somewhat accurate. Because for all consensus rules, the blockchain itself is the clock, that means it needs to live in the pre/post consensus world - so we are already facing something way bigger than changing the DAA. In addition to that rule, you'd need a consensus rule to prevent negative times between block, but the block headers only have 32 bits to grind, which is very small for ASICs, so in practice, ASICs also grind the lowers bits of the timestamp, which means they will produce negative times once in a while. So, how many ASICs does this break? Does it break them at the hardware level or a firmware update can fix it? These questions are left unanswered, and to be frank, the fact I have to raise them is a red flag to begin with. Another source of concern is selfish mining. Some DAA allow a selfish miner to mine in such a way that gamma pretty much equals 1 (the worst possible case). Today gamma is very close to zero in practice. Do we want to change this? Once again, pre/post consensus can help bringing gamma down even in the face of a vulnerable DAA, but once again, we are talking about something much bigger. The exponential decay solution also has this problem. In addition, the problem statement is very poorly stated. What is the problem? Is it the DAA? Is it switch miners? Is it irregular block times? You might argue that these are the same problems because all of these are causes/consequences of each others, but this is VERY IMPORTANT to actually define the problem you want to solve. Let me go over some ideas as to why. For instance, if we insist that irregular block times are the problem, then we might want to explore the idea of using a real time difficulty adjustment, such as and use preconsensus to adjust differences due to local clock drift. This solution fixes irregular block time, but will not remove switch miners, in fact, it leverages switch miners to make block time more regular. Why not? But see how if you define the problem as being switch miners, then this is not a viable solution. This can work in combination with the current DAA. Great, so what if we define switch miners as the problem? Well in this case, we have options such as bounded mining: . This is a solution that incentivize steady miners, at the expense of switch miners. It would also reduce oscillations, but this time by removing switch miners rather than leveraging them to make block time more regular as in the first options. As you can see, your problem statement dramatically changes the class of solutions you can leverage and these classes are way larger than simply changing the DAA. It is therefore important to not only compare DAA to each others, but to actually define the problem that is being solved and compare a solution such as changing the DAA to the entire class of solutions, including alternatives to change the DAA. To use an analogy, imagine you are an engineer working on a sport car, and you want to increase its acceleration. You have various solutions: - You can use a bigger engine. But your car will now be heavier, which may affect handling. It will also make the car more expensive. - You can use wider tires to increase adherence to the road. This will increase acceleration, but limit top speed. - You can change the engine and aerodynamic configuration of the car. This will also affect handling, fuel efficiency, durability of the engine, probability of breakage, etc... - You can strap rockets on the car. All these solutions are well and good, but present different trade-offs. How do you decide which one you want? Well, if your problem is stated this way, your really cannot. Because your problem isn't acceleration, really, it is getting the best lap time possible. Now you have a metric to judge the different tradeoffs against. For instance, if you pick a solution that decrease fuel efficiency, then you will need to stop refueling more often, and/or will have to put more fuel in the car, making it heavier. You will also use budget for fuel that you could be spending on something else. All this can be measured and compared to pick the best solution. If you decide that you want more acceleration, you cannot. But once you've cross that gap to actually define your problem, you note that new classes of solution appears. For instance, you could decide to change the car in such a way that it now has better handling. You don't need to slow down as much in curves, and therefore don't need to accelerate as much after curves, reducing your acceleration problem without ever changing the acceleration of the car. An engineer who keep beating the "we need a bigger engine" drum without going through the process I described would quickly find him/herself out of a job. Because at the end of the day, the role of an engineer isn't to produce a bigger engine, but to solve problems. And the first step toward solving a problem is knowing what problem you are trying to solve. To loop this back to DAA discussion, this means you can safely dismiss any discussion that: - Do not formulate a clear problem statement and compare proposed solution to the whole class of solutions. This includes bounded mining and RTT. - Ignore the tradeoffs made by the given solution - such as selfish mining or extra constraint on timestamps - possibly breaking ASICs.

posted by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on April 14, 2020 14:07:31

The topic of cryptocurrencies name confusion come back regularly. It is often presented as a proof that Bitcoin Cash is trying to mislead newbie and steal the “Bitcoin” brand. While I agree currencies sharing similar name can be confusing, the situation is not new and in reality extremely common. It is actually relatively rare to have a currency with unique, non-shared name. Any peoples with only a bit of knowledge should know this situation exist and be prepared for it when trading currencies whatever it is crypto or regular FIAT. If anything crypto have shown so far a remarkable consistency. (Somewhat surprising as crypto are open source project while FIAT currencies are state enforced) Here I collect some examples, the list is pretty exhaustive fell free to let me know if you have other examples I will add them to the list. **Dollars:** US Dollars USD Australian Dollar AUD New Zealand NZD Barbadian dollars BBD Bermudian dollars BMD Brunian dollars BND Bahamian dollars BSD Belizean dollars BZD Canadian dollars CAD Finjian dollars FJD Taiwan new dollars TWD **Pounds:** Britsh pounds GBP Egyptian pounds EGP Falkland island pounds FKP Guerney pounds GGP Gibraltar pounds GIP Isle of man pounds IMP Jersey pounds JEP Lebanese pounds LBP Sudanese pounds SDG Saint Helenian pounds SHP Syrian pounds SYP **Pesos:** Argentinian Pesos ARS Chilan Pesos CLP Combian Pesos COP Cuban Pesos CUC Dominican Pesos DOP Mexican Pesos MXP Philipine Pesos PHP Uruguayan Pesos UYU **Rubles:** Belaruzian rubles BYN Russian rubles RUB **Krona:** Nowegian Krona NOK Swedish Krona SEK Danish Krona DKK Icelandic Krona ISK Croatian Krona HRK Czeck Krona CZK **Francs:** French francs (dead) Swiss francs CHF Francs CFA XOF Burudian francs BIF Congolese francs CDF Djibutian francs DJF Guinean francs GNF Comorian francs KMF Rwanda francs RWF **Dinars:** Bahraini BHD Algerian DZD Iraqi IQD Jordanian JOD Kuwaiti KWD Lybian LYD Serbian RSD Tunisian TND **Shillings:** Kenyan shillings KES Somali shillings SOS Tanzanian shillings TZD Ugandan shillings UGX **Rupee:** Indian rupees INR Sri lankan rupees LKR Mauritian rupees MUR Nepalese rupees NPR Pakistan rupees PKR Seychellois rupees SCR Indonesian rupiahs IPR Please link this post next time you encounter this argument again. I think there is no need wasting energy debating such points. It is a normal characteristics of currencies and while possibly annoying it has to be accepted (and is simply unavoidable).

posted by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on August 18, 2019 04:48:09

I would like to post this comment and let anyone make his own mind on how likely it is that CSW and Satoshi are the same person: ____ The full thread, for the lulz: >A note. Many like to treat me like Casandra. Well, here is your warning to ignore at your peril. We will win this fast, or we will win this slow, but, we will win this. Others would like this to be "nicer", I would prefer a lesson. I want to have people understand Bitcoin. >If it means we spend a year or more slowly bleeding every satoshi of value one by one from the ABC chain, we will. Without exception. If ABC stays on SHA256d and does not add replay protection, we will hound it. >Not until it is weak, not until it is unlisted on every miner and major and home level exchange globally, but until the last CPU running it anywhere globally burns out If this means chasing a lone dev with a CPU to burn that last vestige of hope, and you think I will not... >Then, you do not know me! But, you will learn. This is not vengeance. It is a lesson. And I intend to burn it into the hearts and souls of all the socialists in ABC so their great grand children do not forget it! Have a nice day The thing that strikes me straight away is how much he sounds like Satoshi Nakamto /s : >I wish you wouldn’t keep talking about me as a mysterious shadowy figure, the press just turns that into a pirate currency angle. Maybe instead make it about the open source project and give more credit to your dev contributors; it helps motivate them.

posted by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on November 7, 2018 03:31:37

There has been some comment Stating that Segwit increase capacity 1.7x but blocksize 4x was a lie. Some testnet block are used in support, segwit blocks reached 8000tx and 3.7MB. Well this is partially true. Segwit block reached **8800tx** that absolutely true: But the blocksize is **1.7MB.** Now let’s look at the **3.7MB** block: It doesn't containt 8800tx but **400tx!** Why? Because 8800tx is about the maximun a segwit block can containt without going beyond 4MB WU. (and that about 1.7x what it is possible to fit in a legacy block) **Some random calculations to help everyone understand the weight calculation algo:** You will see Blocksize and block weight can vary greatly. Not surprisingly the most critical factor is the witness data size. -------------------------------------------- * Blocksize: **2500kb** * Number of tx: **12500** * Tx average size: **200b** * Basetx: 60b * Witness size per tx: 140b * Ratio witness: 0,7 * Total weight: **4750000** Block not valid * b per unit of weight:0,5263 -------------------------------------------- * Blocksize: **4000kb** * Number of tx: **8000** * Tx average size: **500b** * Basetx: 150b * Witness size per tx: 350b * Ratio witness: 0,7 * Total weight: **7600000** Block not valid * b per unit of weight:0,5263 -------------------------------------------- * Blocksize: **2400kb** * Number of tx: **2000** * Tx average size: **1200b** * Basetx: 240b * Witness size per tx: 960b * Ratio witness: 0,8 * Total weight: **3840000** Block under 4MB WU * b per unit of weight:0,6250 -------------------------------------------- * Blocksize: **3040kb** * Number of tx: **8000** * Tx average size: **380b** * Basetx: 114b * Witness size per tx: 266b * Ratio witness: 0,7 * Total weight: **5776000** Block not valid * b per unit of weight:0,5263 -------------------------------------------- * Blocksize: **1500kb** * Number of tx: **600** * Tx average size: **2500b** * Basetx: 250b * Witness size per tx: 2250b * Ratio witness: 0,9 * Total weight: **1950000** Block under 4MB WU * b per unit of weight:0,7692 -------------------------------------------- * Blocksize: **2400kb** * Number of tx: **600** * Tx average size: **4000b** * Basetx: 400b * Witness size per tx: 3600b * Ratio witness: 0,9 * Total weight: **3120000** Block under 4MB WU * b per unit of weight:0,7692 -------------------------------------------- * Blocksize: **3000kb** * Number of tx: **600** * Tx average size: **5000b** * Basetx: 500b * Witness size per tx: 4500b * Ratio witness: 0,9 * Total weight: **3900000** Block under 4MB WU * b per unit of weight:0,7692 -------------------------------------------- * Blocksize: **1760kb** * Number of tx: **8800** * Tx average size: **200b** * Basetx: 60b * Witness size per tx: 140b * Ratio witness: 0,7 * Total weight: **3344000** Block under 4MB WU * b per unit of weight:0,5263 Edit: format hate me

posted by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on July 17, 2017 12:04:46

>> How on earth is segwit + 2mb not for the users? >Segwit2x has the x in it because it isn't "+2" but times 2 . It is a 8MB limit HF and a reckless and rushed one at that with a 2-3 month deployment with untested code. >Nodes need to validate under adversarial conditions. Segwit2x is a 8MB limit HF. Use this calculator to see what type of bandwidth impact 8MB blocks have on nodes-- > /u/bitusher Ironically the same that used testnet to show that segwit can lead to 3.7MB to support segwit (beyond 1.7 sewgit allow larger transactions not **more** transactions such block don't bring capacity) now say that x2 is an 8MB block increase... If we get that 2MB block increase after segwit activation this is over we will never get any other block size increase.. the FUD army will be keep scaring everyone with the segwit multiplier effect.. *(And that not wrong block can achieved 8MB after 2x)* **At least they are admitting segwit impact scaling onchain heavily..** Edit: and another one: Somehow now the arguments reversed again, not week ago small blocker kept saying segwit a great scaling improvement..

posted by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on June 20, 2017 20:53:12 Interesting read. Some extract: >While the cryptocurrency community’s attention was focused on the Bitcoin scaling debate, **a mysterious new Litecoin developer, shaolinfry,** appeared on the scene. Shaolinfry appears to be deeply familiar with Segwit, and in a short amount of time helped the rest of the LTC development team to finish writing their Segwit implementation. Once he had secured the title of “Litecoin developer,” **he switched his focus to Bitcoin, proposing the “user activated soft fork” (UASF).** After launching his campaign for UASF on Bitcoin, he did the same for Litecoin and piggybacked on the reputation of Charlie Lee to push for the UASF there, too. >I don’t want to guess at the true identity of shaolinfry, but it is very clear that the dispute among Bitcoin developers has spilled over into other cryptocurrencies. This has caused me to start thinking even more deeply about the question: How can a decentralized digital currency resolve development conflicts? So shaolinfry was only a new litecoin Dev, only worked on segwit implementation and immediately when finished proposed UASF on Bitcoin.. *Well if he is on BS payroll that would make a lot of sense, can't wait for a leak from a dragonden chatlog..* :) >Because communication was happening, the community did manage to clear up some other current conflicts: discussing the “fire the miners” rhetoric, Charlie Lee promised that **unless the network is under 51% attack, he will not consider changing the proof-of-work algorithm.** After extending an invitation, Charlie Lee has agreed to travel to China in June to discuss Segwit implementation with the members of the Roundtable. Too bad the level of semantics gymnastic is so high in the community that one can argue that anything is a 51% attack now.. >On April 4th, **Charlie Lee published a statement promising that if Litecoin blocks begin to fill up, the developers will support a hard fork to increase the block size limit,** removing barriers from both sides of the argument supporting these changes. I deeply wish that Bitcoin Core would make a similar statement, or write code to this effect. Doing so would allow both sides to come to an agreement and put an end to years of debate. I still cannot understand why Core is unwilling to do this. That I didn’t know, It make Litecoin more interesting to me even if it is only words and many have changed their mind drastically in past… I would not rely on it so much. >It *(UASF)* has nothing to do with the users, and should be called “DASF” — developer activated soft fork. True. I think the term UASF is very misleading too. >Another negative effect of the DASF is that the “users” are defined by developer preference. It becomes trivial to say those who support the developers are users, and those who disagree with the developers are not users of this currency. If you support Segwit, you are a user. But if you prefer increasing the block size, then you don’t count as a user. If this becomes the case, **all that is necessary to control Bitcoin (or any other currency) is to simply hold influence over the development team.** >On April 11th, another terrible thing happened. The pools not yet supporting Segwit (Antpool, LTC1BTC, and BW) all suffered DDoS attacks. After sustaining an entire night’s DDoS attack, the next day BW began voting for Segwit. This left me astonished. **If Segwit is successfully activated on Litecoin through the use of coercion and attacks, then Litecoin will forever be a pillar of disgrace, making protocol decisions through PoD (proof of DDoS).** I strongly agree with those points here.. Emphasis mine.

posted by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on April 20, 2017 04:46:30

>**Abstract.** A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. **The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.** UASF is directly against Bitcoin fundamentals. **Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.** It is nowhere writen economic nodes get to decide which chain is the valid, doing so is creating an altcoin. I hope exchanges will take proper disposition to identify clearly Bitcoin UASF tokens from Bitcoin, those ARE two distinct cryptocurrencies.

posted by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on March 30, 2017 05:11:15

> This issue is addressed by anchor channels: From the article: [...] Anchor output-based channels take away the up-front guesswork of determining what the proper on-chain fees will be, as they allow a node to dynamically increase the fee of a pending commitment transaction using Child Pays for Parent (CPFP). [...] safer and more reliable channel type as they allow for fee bumping the commitment transaction in the event a channel is force closed. You are still stuck with the problem of unpredictable fee. Fee can raise to punishing rate by the time you need your justice transactions.. sure you will be able to pay higher fees but what if it is disproportionate compared to the fraud?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 12, 2021 10:10:20

> Sure LN is not perfect and still being developed, decentralization is hard. 18 months?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 12, 2021 10:06:37

Well if your technology has the potential disrupt and improve the live of billions of peoples.. it will be supported by billionaire at some point.. Even if it doesn’t the formidable growth will create them. This is unavoidable.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 11, 2021 21:14:30

> if you understand what that means you should be rocked to your core Fungibility advantages are sadly Missunderstood by most..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/Monero on May 11, 2021 21:10:00

> but it have fees(Nano has none) Monero fees are negligible. Plus note that Nano use PoW as a transaction fee (what a wierd idea).

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/Monero on May 11, 2021 21:08:27

Sorry but Nano is a mess: -Very bad coin distribution. (Equivalent to an 100% premine) -Bad coin distribution on a coin using stake for consensus. (Consensus likely centralized) -bad privacy (account based, not UTXO) -feeless transactions (create SPAM problems, remove usage price signal, who pay for the network growth and security?) -PoW for transactions fee. -no smart contract -PoS related problems (subjective view of history: what is the longest chain? And nothing at stake problem) -consensus mechanism unproven (unclear how it solve the double spend problems) Link on why coin distribution matters: [](

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/Monero on May 11, 2021 21:05:39

> algorithmic stablecoins do not have fiat backing. I don’t understand how they can work without backing.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/Monero on May 11, 2021 20:59:38

> Then where does it get it’s value? Tether supposedly had/has $1 backing each. Without backing it is not stable. I don’t know for algorithmic stable coin but on BCH they have developed a smart contract that tracks a price oracle and stabilize the price by “selling” the volatility to a counterpart willing to speculate with leverage. Ex: Bob want to stabilize $10 worth of BCH for a week, Alive is interested in speculation and take a smart contract with Bob (and another one creating a leverage 3:1) where Alice collect form Bob (and another one) volatility. If price increases to $12 then Alice collect the volatility $6 ($2 time the leverage). So damned smart.. using greed to create a trustless stable coin!!

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/Monero on May 11, 2021 20:59:05

This is not how crypto market cap works..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 11, 2021 18:37:10

> Imagine being able to make an investment rise 15% because of a tweet. He must be making so much from this But still totally negligible compared to his net worth..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 11, 2021 18:35:38

If I am not wrong Germany and Portugal is zero tax

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/CryptoCurrency on May 11, 2021 18:22:32

The fear is setting in, ETH is as close as ever. What will be the narrative when a PoW will get close again?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 11, 2021 15:31:34

That was a good move:) Well done

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 11, 2021 15:29:03

> Wanting to create a system that escapes the control of vested interest groups, only to get pushed into the hands of billionaire memesters and manipulators. Well BTC didn’t escape that either.. At least it debunked the whole “people buy BTC because decentralization” narrative.. Peoples buy what goes up, We are far, far from the time fundamentals will matter to markets.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 11, 2021 15:25:38

This.. you would think it is not hard to understand that you can spend and use your crypto and still keep your holding constant if you re-buy. (I usually re-buy a bit more everytime) But then I guess with a very high fees chain it might no be economical to re-buy regularly on exchange.. You end up with another onchain transaction so get another ouput in your wallet + a change outputs making you next transaction more expensive (assuming you start from fully consolidated).. Funny that I explained that back in 2017 but somehow it was immediately dismissed.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 11, 2021 15:19:58

I certainly enjoyed the much more positive vides in the last few months (even before price push) /u/chaintip

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 11, 2021 01:43:17

Yeah only in this sub you tips, chaintips even! /u/chaintip

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 11, 2021 01:41:05

Great I thought the project was abandoned?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/OpenBazaar on May 10, 2021 17:24:21

> It took less than 10 minutes. How lucky

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 15:25:47

This is fine

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 15:19:33

> And in that time BCH went from being worth 6% of BTC’s value to 2.5%! I think that might actually have been a fair value for BCH we you see all the trouble BCH went through. It is arguably the most attacked blockchain ever.. and survived everything. Absolutely battle tested. Now the development team seem much more healthy, protocol progresses kepp coming and there doesn’t seem to be anymore drama ahead anymore. IMO now if stability continues BCH is likely highly undervalued. Hopefully the market realizes that and market cap will value correct.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 15:18:27

> Rapidly on its way to 0% dominance — right where it belongs! It cannot get there fast enough, BTC is a liability one the whole cryptocurrency community

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 15:11:40

> About time! The US pot industry is a great use case for BCH. My thought too, I am surprised they didn’t accepted BCH long ago..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 15:07:53

> For example, say btc fees are X. It costs X to send $5 or $5m. Same for bch. Those are the rules for default transactions, there is no hard coded minimum for BCH (same for BTC but because of limited capacity fee has exploded)

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 15:06:27

> Why don’t more people use BCH? Or is that what we’ve been seeing happen in the past few weeks with its explosion in growth? There has been only little exposure to coin building to be p2pecash over the last few years. Sadly the community was more interested in quick return on investment than usability. Hopefully that will change

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 15:04:45

BCH block limit is not limited to 32MB.. the BCH block limit is a config parameter that can be modified by miner.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 04:06:20

Warning: consolidating have major privacy implications.. Next time your will spend your coin the receiver will know how much you hold. I recommend people to be careful with consolidating.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:54:12

> Well, there’s just a little problem with that when you get up to house-sized amounts. Get tax advice, get an appointment with your bank, get your KYC requirements needed to increase your limit on Kraken and then sell. Don’t try to ne creative or smart about it, follow the law.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:49:44

Cardano doesn’t have smart contract? I thought that was the whole point of it.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:46:20

Have fun! /u/chaintip

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:44:08

> No thanks. I’ve acquired too much wealth over the years to mess with the IRS over peanuts You should use, it make crypto tx reporting easy.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:43:22

Sad what happened to your country, hopefully the situation will improve sometime.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:39:44

> It’s interesting how often that conversation circles back to “look at what BCH is doing” Make sense if we are talking abo tx fees...

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:38:10

> Fixes all problems immediately if I remember the gist of /u/nullc ‘s arguments for it. And spectacularly underperform.. it was predicted to allow for 2.2MB equivalent capacity and BTC barely get 1.4MB equivalent two years later..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:37:12

> What harm does Segwit do? Huge increase in complexity, make the coin harder to scale onchain.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:35:08

No fee is no necessary a good thing

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:33:30

Not really, 99+% of user will never notice the difference..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:29:14

> I don’t think you need any optimizations with sub cent fees. We do, and a lot had been done already: CTOR, schnorr.. etc. BCH aim to scale

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 10, 2021 03:28:11

Banned after providing a link of an interview where Gmax saying that he first dismissed Bitcoin because he thou decentralised crypto was not possible.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 9, 2021 12:05:56

Isn’t some of those ritual decorations?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/mildlyinfuriating on May 9, 2021 07:58:36

I doubt it is doable.. even Tether must have a spread.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 9, 2021 07:56:25

> Bitcoin Performance in its first decade (NO alt or traditional stock in existence has performed like BTC in the same timeframe): ​ Historically? Tulips did..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 9, 2021 07:54:26

> Exactly.This guy is so full of sh1t that its amazing.The BTC whitepaper speaks of peer to peer and getting rid of the middle man (the banks). He is shockingly ignorant in his posts and hasnt done ANY real research.He doesnt even acknowledge that XRP was originally created to cater TOWARDS banks almost exclusively , yet he wants to bring up Bitcoin, when, ANYONE can buy it and it wasnt created with a focus on banks, again, like XRP was. Hes just trying to find reasons to complain about Bitcoin even if its a lie. People like this are poison and you can CLEARLY see right through his bullsh1t. Well BTC is not much threat to banks with its $20+ transactions fees and 5 transactions per second max capacity...

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 9, 2021 07:52:46

> In the last post she said BTC was the biggest source of funds so I’m not sure why she has any obligation to do what you request. Well if you receive donations you kinda have an obligation of transparency..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 9, 2021 07:49:16

> This sub is for all Bitcoin talk, not just BCH. But thank you for confirming that r/btc is a BCash Echo a chamber. u/cryptochecker Please read the FAQ

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 9, 2021 07:48:27

This guy is hilariously bad at making any predictions.. not as bad as Tone Vays but close:)

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 9, 2021 07:42:31

> That’s right I forgot how conveniently illiterate you are, that you need things read to you like a mentally deficient child. How LE get notified of suspicious activity?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 15:23:58

Ok I feel like I need to explain. Bob pay Alice a million $ worth of BCH. Alice wait 6 confirmations but hey! big drama a 8 block reorg just stroke the network!! Bob transactions return to the mempool and get confirmed in the next block.. no big deal. Reorg are not such a big deal, it hurt miner big time bit the disruption for user is minimal.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 15:23:04

> You keep going in circles, your neurosis is obvious. This is defined by BSA reporting responsibilies which include filing SARs. WHICH IS ALSO IN THE ENFORCEMENT GUIDE YOU DID NOT READ Seriously anyone that actually read the pdf can see your willful idiocy. Your just some stubborn mentality defective necrotic. Keep proving this to be so, you’re doing everone else a favor. Ok so please explain me step by step how LE go about find thief and start their investigation.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 15:17:05

Have a try: /u/chaintip :)

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 15:15:00

> That doesn’t make it decentralized by default. It is, BCH has no central server. It is a decentralized architecture, whatever the transactions per second processed by the network.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 10:28:50

This, I don’t see why the vaccines cannot be given on a volontary basis and why it is controversial.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/GoldandBlack on May 8, 2021 10:25:17

> Centralized networks are more efficient-cheap-fast which is why you see that the binance chain now outperforms ETH in transaction count and cost. BCH used the same architecture as BTC.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 09:41:02

My bad, so if I am not wrong BTC is not supporting schnorr signatures aggression yet? Taproot is rather underwhelming then.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 09:37:35

> So your saying that exchanges «  know » when someone steals a cell phone and manages to access the electrum wallet on it? They just telepathically know? You are stup id. No, they are required to report any suspicious activity.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 09:35:55

> Bitcoin Core didn’t implement signature aggregation. Neither BCH. Isn’t Taproot about signatures aggregation?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 06:46:18

> The Schnorr signatures on BCH are from Core. Schnorr is not own by Core.. And the even BCH implementation is completely different as BTC don’t use HF.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 06:45:14

> Whatever.. the bch daily txs dropped from 300k to 100k since they did that. Sure, It might climb up beyond BTC again, BCH doesn’t have arbitrary low capacity limit. And ETH leave BTC in the dust, with 3x the volume for a year+

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 06:42:50

> This was never argued, they must provide your kyc information plus your crypto holdings as part of LE investigations [IRS]. They are obviously subject to warrants. IF YOU READ THE ENFORCEMENT GUIDE YOU WOULD NOT EVEN BE MAKING THIS QUESTION YOU STUPID ILLITERATE. I never denied that part as I said many times:) My question: Lease explain: Now once the stolen coin enter the exchange, how LE get informed about it?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 06:39:45

Well the worst thing it is was likely legal.. The way we do tax nowadays is deeply broken.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/pics on May 8, 2021 05:43:33

> Why? Energy use is a huge concern. 100% premine is the definition of a scam

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:38:00

> Look up the post from this week stating they started batching. They batch tip per user, meaning once your tip account goes above a threshold your get automatic payout. This is different from the Bitcoin term « transactions batching » were you pay many users with a single transaction.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:37:01

> You provided proof that exchange/LE will go after user that break KYC requirements. Wrong, did you even read it? Most investigations are done by LE only as they do not solely rely on information from exchanges. And where is your proof that exchange doesn’t give information to LE? > But no proof of even some evidence that exchange will not or cannot do blockchain analysis on customer fund. This is your claim, which you provided no proof of. All the investigative information I provided backs my claim this is only done by LE. And who do you think inform LE that a customer has suspicious actually? > So my question: are you saying that it is safe to send dirty coin, coin went through mixing services to an exchange as lingn as you comply with KYC? You never define what dirty even is, idiot. Ok let’s say known coin form an exit scam. Are you saying it is safe to send it to an exchange as long as I complied with KYC?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:33:50

> Bitcoin is the fastest tech to $1T ever. But yeah I’m sure it’s totally not useful since you can’t see the use case. Market is not utility. I understand why you are confused with BTC.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:29:37

> Yep, no censorship here. Instead, they call it. Curated comments. This sub remove scam comment, They have open log so moderator can be kept on check

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:28:43

No worries man, enjoy:)

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:27:36

Ok that what I understood, overall very minor improvement for the average user.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/Monero on May 8, 2021 04:27:04

Congratulations man! /u/chaintip

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:24:49

> Like it or not, one of the governing rules of the Bitcoin network is that block size is limited. And this has been a recent change completely disrupting the fundamental nature of Bitcoin. We are still waiting for them to produce a white paper for what they are trying to achieve.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:23:28

> Maxi’s answer to this is «  yo’’re not rich enough to use bitcoin ». Yet node as to be as cheap as possible to run otherwise the project dies... BTC logic..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:16:49

> Most of the top ten are premined and the majority held by their dev teams. Would be interesting to build a crypto ranking website that eliminates all premine and corporate coin..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:13:27

> How does it compare to nano? Nano is 100% premine.. it is a major red flag.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:12:22

Hahaa good one! /u/chaintip

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:07:03

> Give nano a try. 0 fees and way faster than bch Zero fees is actually a bad thing. And yeah 100% premine..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:04:36

> There is good reason why fast tx times are bad for overall security. There will never be full trust. High friction and high cost is a deliberate choice of BTC. Now after 6 conf it is not practical to reverse BCH blocks, even with our low hash rate.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 8, 2021 04:02:12

Finally a bit of clear information on taproot. Basically it is signature aggregation.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/Monero on May 8, 2021 03:54:16

Nigeria and colombia.. I didn’t know:) How cool to see!

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 12:48:47

> We’re at the beginning of an alt season now. BTC dominance will probably dip into the 20s this time. This would be truly a day to celebrate, crypto as a whole will be much healthy once it will have gotten rid of BTC dominance (It is only market dominance, mostly symbolic I know)

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 12:47:36

> There were 90% transactions. And the second they started batching the BCH daily txs dropped by over 50% - Sure does that make my statement wrong in any way? ( doesn’t do batching, they just raised the minimum tip payout)

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 12:45:33

> I am still waiting for your proof that is safe to send dirty/mixed coin to exchange I already provided offical documentation and cases to support my claims. The fact that you are ignoring this shows you are either a mental defective or stupid. You provided proof that exchange/LE will go after user that break KYC requirements. But no proof of even some evidence that exchange will not or cannot do blockchain analysis on customer fund. So my question: are you saying that it is safe to send dirty coin, coin went through mixing services to an exchange as lingn as you comply with KYC? What are your evidence supporting that?

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 12:44:17

As a fan of Bitcoin for a long long time, the the mast few years has been very painful to me.. I am only glad a few are still for Bitcoin as it was originally intended and we have BCH. Is was hard, we had fight on a scale no other crypto have seen, social attacks, full frontal hash war, major community controversies but we are still here and we seem to have reach some level of stability with much more level-headed devs.. A huge amount of work has been done, big progress made on the protocol. I believe the future look bright now:) Hopefully BCH will get some adoption and the crypto**currency** revolution can start:) Welcome! /u/chaintip

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 12:40:06

> Hi everyone, long term hodler here. I have never spent my btc except to send a little bit to a friend who wanted in, and the fees where really high!! I mean, I paid like 8 euros for 400 euro transaction. Facepalm

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 10:26:49

> No, im replying to your question with “Moron”. By doing so admit exchange run blockchain analysis. > This is just more proof of why your an idiot. I am still waiting for your proof that is safe to send dirty/mixed coin to exchange. Insults are not an argument.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 06:46:28

> BCH competes in hash power. Mortal enemies BCH doesn’t care, difficulty readjust in less than a day form any disruption. BTC is at risk, it is self inflected.. they themselves decided HF are impossible. It is BTC problem, not ours.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 06:44:45

> The dollar is a ponzi. The dollar is useful

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 06:41:44

> ETH? Yeah. BcH? Not really. BCH did, for a solid three months processed more tx than BTC. > Centralized networks are more efficient-cheap-fast, easy to attract people. This is not related to decentralization, BCH and BTC have similar architecture. Only one has capacity limitations.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 06:40:07

> What do you think this “proofs” is? The proof is that another transaction sending BCH toward another address exist. This is a peoof of that, not a timestamp that is propagated throughout the network. You cannot trust time stamp, they can be easily faked.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 06:38:42

> Wat? That’s right. Hmmm roger had nothing to do with the dev tax..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 06:36:25

Profitability always adjust so mining on BCH shows be same BTC profitability most of the time. And mining BCH you benefits form very small transactions fees so you can take your rewards payout regularly without loosing your profit to network fees.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 04:25:40

> It’s crazy to me how altcoiners hate btc so much. If it weren’t for Bitcoin there wouldn’t be a Bitcoin cash, Bitcoin Cash existed because BTC project turn away from its fundamentals. BTC is now a threat to crypto adoption, in many aspects resembles a Ponzi scheme. BCH should not be glad for BTC: We are trying to save Bitcoin as it was originally designed. If BTC stay as Bitcoin was envisioned crypto we would likely be in the first stage of mainstream adoption.. instead of being that “get rich quick scheme” It is not tribalism if you knew the history and reasons why BCH was launched.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 04:22:43

Oula.. 43.5 as of now..

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 04:16:08

Last time the BTC dominance was so low it was at the end of a major alt-season.. It seems to me altcoin still have some upside potential and the BTC dominance can go lower.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 04:13:44

> So yeah spend and replace is a smartest thing to do. Yes you can both use and HOLD at the same time.

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 04:11:54

> It really is undervalued. BCH was trading at 10% of Bitcoin’s price two years ago, and it’s only gotten better since then. It’s a $6000 coin right now, as far as I’m concerned. I would say we had a lot of instabilities so maybe the price reflected that. Dev seems to go on a very healthy direction since ABC is out, if the market recognizes that there will be a lot of upside potential indeed!

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 04:10:17

> EVERYBODY wants to get on the ₿itcoin train is what I see. Yet more people take the ETH and BCH train...

Commented by /u/Ant-n in /r/btc on May 6, 2021 04:07:25