Gracious Interests

Welcome to the official account of Gracious Interests! Daily updates on #cryptocurrency Daily images with #cryptocurrency basics Investing tips. Analysis of coins And much more! Check out our course to support us! gum.co/UltimateCrypto…

Kind reminder. Adam Back is pro-spam because he earns a living with it. I'll repeat that again in plain English: - @adam3us , a Bitcoin "legend" who created hashcash (which is anti-email spam), earns his living by allowing people to spam the Bitcoin network. Verified here:

Been reading a bit through these proposals made by @defenwycke . Stumbled upon it in the dev. mailing list. It is a workable proposal on policy level. Basically it defines carried data in a transaction and allows more precise filtering on policy level. Interesting read.

"But spam doesn't affect the Bitcoin network". It does. It is a curve of increased friction to securing the network.

To be fair, @nvk has a point. The Cat is a retroactive technical solution which goes against Bitcoin philosophy. Which, despite my comments made, I am not a full-on backer of the proposal. My focus remains on BIP 110 (formerly BIP444) to prevent new spam to occur. It would be nice to see the spam/scam getting their due for their greed...but I do not find it weighs up to breaking ideals and morals which made Bitcoin as it is. The spam is a scar. It is part of Bitcoin history sadly enough.

Does, in Bitcoin / Crypto , greed & fear indicator of "extreme greed" always translate to bullish market? ----------- While there might be a correlation, it is not exclusive. “Extreme Greed” CAN occur during a bearish market. The “Greed&Fear” indicator is more of an indicator to market sentiment. I.e. it translates the overall market “demand” and is very susceptible to context. “Extreme greed” can both refer to people being “greedy” for Bitcoin (i.e. high demand for $BTC) or people being “greedy” for profit (i.e. cashing out). Context is important. During bearish cycles can “extreme greed” occur as well. This can happen with Crypto who crossover into a lower trading bound unexpectedly whereby the majority of the market sees opportunity to buy-in at extremely low prizes. This will result in a sudden price-surge as available liquidity dries up due to sudden high demand. The indicator can show a sudden lapse from “Extreme Fear” to “Extreme Greed” on very short notice. It is for this reason that the “Greed&Fear” indicator isn’t used as a serious ratio when doing technical analysis. Other factors play-in as well. “Greed&Fear” only indicate at what the current sentiment is but says nothing of importance on a fundamental or technical level.

@RealKeithWeiner So all the - Bitcoin futures - Bitcoin ETF's - Exchanges - Strategic reserves - bussinesses Are not a sign of adoption? Granted that I am not a fan of most of them, it still is a clear signal that TradFi is adopting it.

A look into the mind of a typical shitcoiner. "I don't believe in all those NFT's.... but I might regret making money scamming people". That's why The Cat and BIP-110 are needes. Moral integrity to Bitcoin as hardest digital money ever.

You may be against all the various Bitcoin options, ETF's, strategic reserves and treasure companies... But they all disprove @RealKeithWeiner 's statement no adoption is occurring. TradFi is getting into it.

Honest nodes establish policy and relay information based on their established policy rules. They don't exclude others. The data relayed has a certainty to be accepted, validated and verified by the entire network. Dishonest nodes force themselves into a closed relaying system. The data they relay will only be accepted through force by "a tolerant minority" which does the validation and verification.

"Tokenized" is the same root as how fiat money was established. You get a (digital) "claim" but not the actual asset. Just an IOU with a need for trust. Bitcoin fixes this by being the actual asset verifiable through work and secured through ownership. No trust needed.

The spam which started in 2023, and continues to this date plague the Bitcoin network, is already causing problems in regards to upcycling of (CPU) hardware to built cheap and effective nodes. Some of my old DIY Bitcoin nodes are seeing frequent outages due to intensive CPU usage as soon as synchronization occurs with the network. Always near the same block range (those mined in 2023). Frequent restarts after cool-down are needed (3-4 restarts to date in the last 3 days of syncing). Currently "updating" these to Bitcoin Knots V28.1.knots20250305. Opted to download the entire chain from 0 to monitor the effects of spam on synchronization with "older" refurbished and dedicated hardware. This is a hidden and undershined argument in regards to network growth and security (and negative effect of spam on Bitcoin node running). Things need to be lightweight and low-tech to see more mainstream adoption. It is problematic to see a 10 year old CPU that can run most modern browser and mobile games get overheated and shutdown in trying to sync with a simple monetary network... almost struggling to get up to date.

An undershined effect in the Bitcoin (client) node wars is the effect of spam on upcycling hardware. The spam effect makes syncing harder for "older" hardware which hinders adoption in low-tech environments. A deterrent for Bitcoin as global decentralized currency x.com/Dimi_h/status/…

In regards to node wars and spam on Bitcoin.. This is the kind of slop you don't want on Bitcoin. Bruised (journalist) ego's leaving tags because they've been proven wrong. The pro-spam camp are just children throwing hissyfits.

Bitcoin has no security budget issue. Otherwise we'd not be seeing new hashrate ATH.

Miners follow policy as established by nodes. The BIP 444 to push filters at consensus level is to kick out all the preferential peering by "tolerant minorities" (as backed by Core-apologists) and let Bitcoin function as intended: as a currency.

@LukeDashjr 's BIP444 breakdown - as well as offering rebuttals -------------- What does BIP444 do? -- -- -- -- As the title of the BIP444 mentions = Reduced Data Temporary Softfork. It is a temporary softfork aiming to limit the size of data fields at the consensus level. Basically the opposite as what Core V30 introduced when they removed the limits on the OP_RETURN function. The difference here is that BIP444 will be re-introducing the limits (temporarily) for OP_RETURN as well as limit the possibility to store data in other functions. Those other functions being mainly related to exploits that Ordinals abuse since early 2023. The introduced limits will effectively halt the creation of Ordinals. What limits does BIP444 introduce? -- -- -- -- This is taken directly from the BIP444 proposal: - New output scriptPubKeys exceeding 34 bytes are invalid, unless the first opcode is OP_RETURN, in which case up to 83 bytes are valid. - OP_PUSHDATA* with payloads larger than 256 bytes are invalid, except for the redeemScript push in BIP16 scriptSigs. - Spending undefined witness (or Tapleaf) versions (ie, not Witness v0/BIP 141 nor Taproot/BIP 341) is invalid. - Witness stacks with a Taproot annex are invalid. - Taproot control blocks larger than 257 bytes (a merkle tree with 128 script leaves) are invalid. - Tapscripts including OP_SUCCESS* opcodes anywhere (even unexecuted) are invalid. - Tapscripts executing the OP_IF or OP_NOTIF instruction (regardless of result) are invalid. --> When reading through the proposed limits, we immediately notice that the limits are directly imposed on functions barely used and whose current established limits were either too high or unused. Noticeable is that the imposed limits on actively used functions are in line with genuine monetary use and the prevention of pushing data. We even see a push for OP_RETURN use (which Core V30 proponents pushed to mitigate abuse) while setting the limit again to 83Bytes. In the follow-up tweet, I'll be debunking and giving nuance to some made counter-arguments. BIP444 proposal link: github.com/dathonohm/bips…

If confirmed real, it may be correctly assumed a significant portion of Core "domination" is compromised. Even worse, it implies Bitcoin is less decentralized than thought. As a pleb, it is that mich more important to start running your own Bitcoin node. Privately at home.

In Bitcoin, we are used to say "blockchain technology". The whitepaper mentions it as "timestamp server". The term blockchain is a result of simplification of the technical description. It's accurate.. but not precise.

Despite what some influencers say. Bitcoin WAS MOVED. There is no proof it was sold. My guess? Funds moving from an old (one of the first) exchanges in a reorganization.

Hailed as a step in mainstream adoption of Bitcoin in Belgium. Bitcoin trading is not the same as buying and withdrawing it into self-custody. The latter is true adoption. The first is gambling.