Post 9md64Y9ewQEsAtB4q0 by lukedashjr@bitcoinhackers.org
(DIR) More posts by lukedashjr@bitcoinhackers.org
(DIR) Post #9mcDsCQc5lQFUMBet6 by stevenroose@x0f.org
2019-09-05T08:13:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
#TheEconomist reported:> If every Westerner held in #Libra an amount equal to one-tenth of their bank deposits today, the new currency outstanding would be worth over $2trn.That means Westerners have $20trn in bank deposits. Does that mean that if just all Westerners adopted #Bitcoin 100%, there would be only 0.000001 BTC or one "bit" per person? That is only 100 satoshis, the smallest unit. 100 units per person is not very good.Perhaps we should start thinking about a softfork to fix this.
(DIR) Post #9mcDsChz3BJiMEJWxk by harding@hash.social
2019-09-05T14:47:47.600014Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stevenroose I can't follow your math. I have 21 million BTC (roughly, at max) times 100 million base units per BTC divided by 100 base units (1 BIP176 "bit") per person equals a population of 21 trillion westerners. I'm not a demographics geek, but that seems a bit high to me. :-)
(DIR) Post #9mcMiaVUc1WwrJxdsO by kennetmattfolk@mastodon.cloud
2019-09-05T08:44:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stevenroose Dumb question, couldn't bitcoin be altered to allow for a bigger coin pool, without a fork?
(DIR) Post #9mcMibHLk5oNFkLrTE by waxwing@x0f.org
2019-09-05T10:00:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kennetmattfolk @stevenroose Smaller granularity (e.g. amounts measured on-chain in millisatoshis or smaller) is definitely possible although not trivial). It would be a hard fork if done naively, but I'd guess a soft fork could be done with tricks(?).Bigger coin pool meaning more bitcoins isn't going to happen.
(DIR) Post #9mcMibbCYHguFJdiPg by stevenroose@x0f.org
2019-09-05T12:12:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@waxwingI agree increasing the supply is not going to happen. But even smaller granularity seems very hard to implement as a softfork. At least without an extension-blocks kinda trick where lower-granularity coins don't show up in older clients. I guess if we're ever gonna have some extension-block-like protocol, we could solve all kinds of other problems.@kennetmattfolk
(DIR) Post #9mcMic1QykftYfufIm by harding@hash.social
2019-09-05T16:26:44.361430Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stevenroose @kennetmattfolk @waxwing It seems easy to me: a new segwit version has the signature sign the high-precision amount and that amount is added as a new field to the relayed transaction. A shim for non-upgraded clients puts the truncated amount in the legacy nAmount field. If legacy clients spend one of those txes, they truncate the amount (paying it to fees). As long as we soft fork before nanobits gain significant value, clients paying a tiny extra to fees is no big deal.
(DIR) Post #9md64WDU9E6wAAx6WW by waxwing@x0f.org
2019-09-05T15:36:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stevenroose @kennetmattfolk Exactly. It's the old 'you can do anything with a soft fork' argument, not entirely true, but ... nearly. But I think the spirit of the question was more, whether it's possible at all, rather than hard or soft.
(DIR) Post #9md64WVZ40ZZ4FPXhg by FreePietje@x0f.org
2019-09-05T16:25:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lukedashjr Didn't you say something relevant to this a while ago on Twitter?@waxwing @stevenroose @kennetmattfolk
(DIR) Post #9md64Wp3tWAW2iX75s by stevenroose@x0f.org
2019-09-05T16:39:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@FreePietje @lukedashjr @waxwing @kennetmattfolk (is Luke active here?)
(DIR) Post #9md64X4exWe4p5pZPE by lukedashjr@bitcoinhackers.org
2019-09-05T17:44:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stevenroose @FreePietje @waxwing @kennetmattfolk somewhat... seems quiet here though
(DIR) Post #9md64XO9n2F1nYx8nQ by stevenroose@x0f.org
2019-09-05T22:12:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lukedashjr @stevenroose @FreePietje @waxwing @kennetmattfolk You can cross-post your posts and use a client like Twidere that let's you browse the Fediverse and Twitter combined :)
(DIR) Post #9md64XcKwJaGVXaStk by lukedashjr@bitcoinhackers.org
2019-09-05T22:31:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stevenroose @FreePietje @waxwing @kennetmattfolk Is it open source? Does it try to limit users (eg, by blocking Gab)?
(DIR) Post #9md64Xv7oSc3RoNTBQ by stevenroose@x0f.org
2019-09-05T23:04:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lukedashjr Twidere is open-source. Even though after some years of active development the guy seems to have taken a break a few months back. I don't think it blocks Gab. But being federated and blocking Gab is still better than being a walled garden, isn't it?
(DIR) Post #9md64Y9ewQEsAtB4q0 by lukedashjr@bitcoinhackers.org
2019-09-06T00:08:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stevenroose I don't see how it's not a walled garden in itself...In any case, servers can block federation with whoever they want, and users can choose what servers they use - but for an app to block the user from using a server is too far.
(DIR) Post #9md64YN88L0wqfTppo by htimsxela@bitcoinhackers.org
2019-09-06T00:55:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lukedashjr @stevenroose I agree, but had to think about it for a second. My rationalization:When choosing an instance to have a profile on, the user must consider their privacy, data handling, etc. You will have to consider who will have access to your data, and who's data you will have access to. (ie, blocking policy)Choosing an app feels more like selecting a tool to engage with your choice of instance. Additional blocking considerations feels excessive: that decision was already made.