Search Posts

Post

Topic

Board Development & Technical Discussion

Re: Bitcoin Core encryption questions

BattleDog

on 09/09/2025, 11:59:06 UTC

Quote from: apogio on Today at 10:36:47 AM

Quote from: BattleDog on Today at 09:43:21 AM

5) Paper/descriptors backup
Core already lets you export the descriptor set (including privkeys) via RPC:

listdescriptors true --> JSON of descriptors with xprv.

dumpwallet <file> --> legacy: all keys + metadata in text.

You can take that JSON/text offline and GPG-encrypt it. Printing a QR is your choice (be mindful of QR size; you'll likely split across multiple QRs). Core doesn't do the QR/encryption for you in the GUI; you'd script this yourself on an air-gapped machine.

Use a long, unique wallet passphrase; Core's KDF has an iteration count but passphrase quality dominates. Make multiple offline backups (wallet.dat and/or listdescriptors true) in separate locations.

If you want extra protection at rest, put the backup inside an encrypted container or GPG it--in addition to Core's native encryption. Test your restore procedure once, then seal the backups.

The above setup gives you: usable day-to-day wallet (locked), plus verifiable offline backups with defense-in-depth.

I think we both described the same process for step (5). What I am actually asking is whether there is a good, recommended by Core's developers, in order to back up the wallet.dat in a physical medium, rather than a digital one. But, writing an XPRV isn't the optimal way, because it lacks encryption. So, I am wondering if they do it, if they recommend it and if they endorse it in general as a concept.

There isn't an "official paper-backup format" for Bitcoin Core and the project doesn't endorse one.
Core only guarantees an encrypted wallet.dat file (your day-to-day wallet), and the ability to export the key material in plaintext if you ask for it (listdescriptors true, or legacy dumpwallet).

Once you export keys/descriptors they are not encrypted by design. Core intentionally doesn't invent a special "paper-encryption" scheme or mnemonic. If you want a physical backup you have to add the protection yourself.

Core devs generally recommend encrypting the wallet (encryptwallet), then keep multiple offline copies of the encrypted wallet.dat in different places (USB/offline disk, etc.).

On top of that, keep a verifiable text backup of descriptors (listdescriptors true) offline and protect it yourself (e.g., GPG-encrypt and print the ASCII-armored text; or split with Shamir/SSKR if you like). Test a restore once, then seal the backups.

So the practical, supported path is: keep the encrypted wallet.dat (digital) + store the passphrase and an offline, operator-protected descriptor dump (physical if you wish). There is no Core-endorsed "paper wallet.dat" because any exported key material is necessarily plaintext and must be protected by you.

Hope this solves your issue.

Post

Topic

Board Trading Discussion

Re: Finestel: API-Trading SaaS for Crypto & FX Asset Managers & Pro Traders

BattleDog

on 09/09/2025, 10:15:26 UTC

Interesting pitch. On paper Finstel looks like another "pro stack" bundling a trade copier, multi-exchange terminal, copy/social features and white-label apps. That can be useful for desks that live inside API rate limits all day and don't want to duct-tape 6 dashboards together. A few things I'd want to see before trusting it with real flow:

You say non-custodial via API -- good -- but do you support IP allow-lists, key scopes, per-role API segregation and read-only by default? What is your blast radius if a bot token is compromised?
"Sub-0.5s order execution" across Binance/OKX/Bybit is highly path/exchange dependent.

Copy-trading and branded social Platforms are regulatory minefields in many jurisdictions. What is your stance on licensing and registrations and how do you prevent things like slippage games?

Do you have 3rd-party security review, pen-test summary, SOC2/ISO 27001 roadmap? Supply-chain controls for your bots and web extensions?

Performance-based is attractive, but in my opinion fee drag kills edge. Clear, capped pricing is better for pros.

If you can publish hard numbers (latency histograms, exchange uptime, failure modes) and a security whitepaper, you'll get more serious teams to kick the tires. Until then, I'd treat it as promising but "trust, then verify" -- start read-only, paper trade, then canary with tiny size.

Post

Topic

Board Economics

Merits 1 from 1 user

Re: Help PHilippines: billions wasted on flood projects

BattleDog

on 09/09/2025, 10:03:16 UTC

⭐ Merited by iv4n (1)

30% skim --> 100% floods.

You won't fix this with another ribbon-cutting; you fix it with sunlight.

No cash. All payments traceable, in escrow, released by milestones. Publish the BOQ, contractor, change orders, and GPS-tagged progress photos on a public dashboard (even a simple chain-backed log). Engineer + COA + community rep sign before funds move. Random third-party audits and whistleblower protection.

Blockchain won't build levees, but it can make stealing in the dark a lot harder. Sunlight is cheaper than sandbags.

Post

Topic

Board Mining

Re: Whatsminer H616 CB6V10 Firmware

BattleDog

on 09/09/2025, 09:50:21 UTC

82–84 C on Whatsminers is normal. MicroBT's fan curve targets ~83–85 C on the hashboards. Fans won't ramp hard until a board goes past that target or the inlet temp rises. If your hashrate isn't throttling and the chips stay < 90 C, nothing is "wrong". You can test by forcing a fixed fan speed with WhatsMinerTool (Set Fans --> e.g. 90%) to see temps drop.

Very Important: Don't flash random images. Control-board images are hardware-specific (H616 + CB6V10) and the wrong file can brick the controller. If the public download page only shows 20250321, newer builds like 20250701/03 are usually beta/region-gated and only provided by MicroBT support.

You might want to try these steps:

In the miner UI check both fan RPMs are detected and connectors are seated (after a board swap it's easy to mis-seat a fan).
"Restore/Factory" the miner once to clear any mismatched settings after the controller replacement.
Use WhatsMinerTool to try fixed fan for a few minutes; if temps respond, your cooling is fine and the normal curve is just aiming for ~85 C.
If you still want a newer firmware, open a ticket on support.microbt.com with the miner S/N, model (H616), controller HW (CB6V10), and current FW. They'll give you the correct package or push it OTA.

Your temps sound within spec. Only get firmware directly from MicroBT, and only the image matched to H616-CB6V10.

Post

Topic

Board Development & Technical Discussion

Merits 1 from 1 user

Re: Bitcoin Core encryption questions

BattleDog

on 09/09/2025, 09:43:21 UTC

⭐ Merited by apogio (1)

I always appreciate it when others take encryption seriously and want to learn more.

1) "Core encrypts wallet.dat with AES-256, right?"
Core encrypts the key material, not the whole file. Each private key/seed is encrypted with a random master key using AES-256-CBC. The master key is encrypted with your passphrase via EVP_BytesToKey(SHA-512 + salt + iterations). Metadata (labels, txs, watch-only, etc.) stays readable so the wallet can load while locked.

2) If I GPG-encrypt wallet.dat externally…
Correct: you'll encrypt the entire file and Core can't open it until you decrypt it first. Native encryption lets Core load/receive/watch while keeping spends locked.

3) Should I "double-encrypt"?
For backups, yes--keeping a copy of the Core-encrypted wallet.dat additionally wrapped in GPG/VeraCrypt/LUKS is fine. Just keep at least one copy you know you can restore (test a restore!), and don't overwrite the only good backup with a failed re-encryption.

4) BIP-38?
Core does not support BIP-38 (and never did). If you export WIF keys you'd need an external tool to BIP-38 them. Recommended path today is descriptor/seed backups, not BIP-38.

5) Paper/descriptors backup
Core already lets you export the descriptor set (including privkeys) via RPC:

listdescriptors true --> JSON of descriptors with xprv.

dumpwallet <file> --> legacy: all keys + metadata in text.

You can take that JSON/text offline and GPG-encrypt it. Printing a QR is your choice (be mindful of QR size; you'll likely split across multiple QRs). Core doesn't do the QR/encryption for you in the GUI; you'd script this yourself on an air-gapped machine.

Use a long, unique wallet passphrase; Core's KDF has an iteration count but passphrase quality dominates. Make multiple offline backups (wallet.dat and/or listdescriptors true) in separate locations.

If you want extra protection at rest, put the backup inside an encrypted container or GPG it--in addition to Core's native encryption. Test your restore procedure once, then seal the backups.

The above setup gives you: usable day-to-day wallet (locked), plus verifiable offline backups with defense-in-depth.

Post

Topic

Board Bitcoin Discussion

Merits 10 from 1 user

Re: 50к bitcoins from 2011

BattleDog

on 09/09/2025, 09:38:18 UTC

⭐ Merited by vapourminer (10)

Quote from: pashkasan on July 04, 2025, 02:00:04 PM

2025-07-04 03:44:23.118 12tLs9c9RsALt4ockxa1hB4iTCTSmxj2me (https://btcparser.com/?a=12tLs9c9RsALt4ockxa1hB4iTCTSmxj2me) created 02.04.2011 🔥 -10000.01141274 block:903916
2025-07-04 04:19:15.687 1KbrSKrT3GeEruTuuYYUSQ35JwKbrAWJYm (https://btcparser.com/?a=1KbrSKrT3GeEruTuuYYUSQ35JwKbrAWJYm) created 02.04.2011 🔥 -10000.01691126 block:903921
2025-07-04 12:40:02.389 1P1iThxBH542Gmk1kZNXyji4E4iwpvSbrt (https://btcparser.com/?a=1P1iThxBH542Gmk1kZNXyji4E4iwpvSbrt) created 04.05.2011 🔥 -10000.01287044 block:903967
2025-07-04 13:10:03.794 1CPaziTqeEixPoSFtJxu74uDGbpEAotZom (https://btcparser.com/?a=1CPaziTqeEixPoSFtJxu74uDGbpEAotZom) created 04.05.2011 🔥 -10000.01038616 block:903974
2025-07-04 13:37:03.534 14YK4mzJGo5NKkNnmVJeuEAQftLt795Gec (https://btcparser.com/?a=14YK4mzJGo5NKkNnmVJeuEAQftLt795Gec) created 04.05.2011 🔥 -10000.03579381 block:903975
data from telegram https://t.me/BTCparser1

The "OP_RETURN messages" you're seeing aren't magic signals from the old keys. They're almost certainly spam/dust txs sent to the same legacy addresses by third parties (often "recovery-service" advertisers) once block explorers or bots flag those 2011 UTXOs as interesting.

Anyone can send a tiny output to an address and include an OP_RETURN with some text. They do not need the private key of the 2011 coins to do this.

Explorers usually show all activity on an address on one page, so those spam txs look like they're "related" or "before the move". They're not; they're just separate transactions touching the address.

These OP_RETURNs don't affect spendability and don't "unlock" anything. They're just on-chain graffiti/ads ("key recovery", contact TG, etc.), a pattern we see whenever old/large UTXOs start moving.

If the keys had been sold OTC, the buyer would ask for a signed message or a small peel-test, not random OP_RETURN notes from other wallets.

So the sequence "OP_RETURN notes first, big 10k BTC spends later" is simply bots spamming the address once it hit watchlists. The real spends are the four large outputs in blocks ~9039xx that actually move the 2011 coins; the OP_RETURN txs are unrelated noise.

Post

Topic

Board Bitcoin Discussion

Re: Blockchain use

BattleDog

on 09/09/2025, 09:36:22 UTC

Blockchain can improve accountability if it's public, independently verifiable, and anchored.

Otherwise it's just buzzwords. If they do want an easy win, start with the current budget system + daily hash commitments to Bitcoin--cheap, auditable, and hard to fake.

Post was edited

1 day ago (view)

Post

Topic

Board Wallet software

Merits 9 from 4 users

Re: Ledger CTO warns of a potential mass attack taking place

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 21:45:17 UTC

⭐ Merited by vapourminer (4) ,fillippone (3) ,nc50lc (1) ,Z-tight (1)

Seems like your usual NPM supply-chain pop -- a maintainer account gets hijacked, a popular package ships a poisoned minor version, front-ends pull it and the JS swaps addresses / injects malicious approvals. We've seen variants before (event-stream, Ledger ConnectKit, etc.). Whether Ledger's tweet has marketing spin or not, the class of risk is real.

Hardware wallets help if you actually read the screen. For Bitcoin, confirm every output/address and amount on the device; For EVM, confirm to, value, chainId and especially approvals (unlimited approve() is how most drains start).

If you use a browser/extension wallet, assume the page can lie. Avoid copy/paste; use an address book or a QR / known contact. Do small test sends. Never type a seed anywhere except your hardware device during setup. If a web page asks for it then close the tab.
Check and revoke suspicious token approvals (e.g., revoke.cash) after using unfamiliar dapps.

For devs, freeze builds now: lockfile + exact versions, no auto-updates. Roll back any package released in the suspicious window until there's a clean advisory.
Verify checksums / provenance (npm --integrity, npm ci, Sigstore if you have it). Don't ship from latest.

A HW wallet won't save you from approving a malicious contract if you click through. "Clear signing" only helps if you read it.It can't stop drains from an already-granted allowance; that's on you to revoke.

Treat this like any other NPM blast radius -- freeze, verify, and verify on the device before you sign, somewhat decent opsec.

Post

Topic

Board Development & Technical Discussion

Merits 1 from 1 user

Re: Pre bitcoin 0.4 encryption

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 16:11:47 UTC

⭐ Merited by vapourminer (1)

A few facts that should clear this up and save you some rabbit holes:

Pre-0.4.0 Core had no wallet encryption. Bitcoin Core 0.3.x stored private keys in Berkeley DB as key/wkey (unencrypted). "Encryption" only appears in 0.4.0.

Core 0.4+ encryption (wallet.dat) works the following way:

-- A random 32-byte master key is generated.
-- Your passphrase is run through EVP_BytesToKey(SHA-512) with an 8-byte salt and a stored, wallet-specific nDeriveIterations (chosen to take ~250ms on your machine when you encrypted). These three values live in the mkey record: vchSalt, nDeriveMethod (0=SHA-512), nDeriveIterations, and vchCryptedKey (the master key encrypted with AES-256-CBC).
-- Each private key is then stored as ckey = AES-256-CBC(master_key, IV) of the secret, where IV = first 16 bytes of DoubleSHA256(pubkey).
-- If you see key entries, they're unencrypted; ckey means encrypted; mkey must be present for encrypted wallets.

So, Core doesn't encrypt each key with your passphrase directly; it encrypts a master key with your passphrase, and uses that master key to encrypt each private key.

bitcoinj (0.5 era) is not the same scheme, bitcoinj's default KeyCrypterScrypt uses scrypt (N=16384, r=8, p=1) to derive an AES-256 key, and (by default) encrypts each key with AES using a random IV per key. Different KDF, different layout, different metadata. Don't mix the two.

You can inspect your files quickly by dumping the Berkeley DB and looking for records: mkey (has salt+iterations), ckey (encrypted privkeys), key (plain). Tools you can use: bitcoin-wallet -wallet=<path> -dump on modern Core; or pywallet/simple BDB dumper if you're working offline. Do not post the file.

Now, about your Python attempt, brute-forcing AES on ckey with guesses about fixed IV/format will fail unless you first decrypt the master key using the exact SHA-512 KDF params from mkey.
For bitcoinj wallets, use scrypt with the wallet's salt, then try AES with the per-entry IV. Different code path entirely.

If you want, you can paste (in text) the mkey fields (salt hex + nDeriveIterations + nDeriveMethod) and a single ckey+pubkey pair from a test wallet (no funds) and then I can help you sketch the decryption steps so your script checks the right boxes.

Post

Topic

Board Altcoin Discussion

Re: Thoughts on L2 Projects?

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 15:42:15 UTC

L2s are starting to look like cloud providers: lots of logos, same three questions decide everything.

A true Layer2 posts data to a secure DA layer and has working fraud/validity proofs. Sidechains and validiums ride the marketing but not the same trust model.
A single multisig with a kill switch is fine for an alpha, not for your savings. Roadmap to shared sequencing, PBS/MEV policy, and permissionless provers are the moat, not a token ticker.
Cheap gas is usually a subsidy. When the grant runway ends, does the chain still make sense? Look at fee revenue vs incentives, not campaign airdrops.

On "engagement L2s": tasks and points spike vanity metrics, not retention. Health looks like this: 30-day retained unique signers, organic contract deployments, and fee payer diversity. If a token accrues nothing from throughput (most L2 tokens do not yet), it is just a raffle ticket on future governance.

Post

Topic

Board Altcoin Discussion

Re: Top Altcoins for 2025

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 15:18:50 UTC

Quote from: MainIbem on August 31, 2025, 08:04:36 PM

Quote from: Gozie51 on August 29, 2025, 06:25:18 PM

Quote from: dorami001 on December 15, 2024, 11:03:23 PM

5. Dogecoin (DOGE)
Forecasted range: $0.31 to $1.44

The original meme coin, Dogecoin, has had its fair share of ups and downs. However, as it gets integrated into more platforms and sees renewed interest, 2025 could be a big year for the coin.

Why it’s genius: Inspired by Elon Musk’s dog, Floki taps into meme power while offering projects that could increase its value.

Which meme coin are you most hyped about?

Dogecoin has had an outstanding performance in the past around two years ago despite being regarded as memecoin. If it gets to $1 , it won't be as a surprise because of the personality behind it. Although since Elon musk became part of the Trump administration as D.O.G.E. chief, he has not really given attention to doge. But I believe he would soon do those crazy hype for doge as we know.

Apart from the fact that the project owner is a popular billionaire working with the current US Administration, DOGE is one coin I figured out had lots of potential and so far it's beat my expectations cause it's one of those memecoins that's done well in the past years and since it offers real world usage to purchase Elon Musk’s Tesla vehicles and other products accepted by various merchants across the globe, I believe that DOGE would continue to survive in the market for years to come, before 5 years time we could see it reach $1 or beyond.

Elon Musk is not the project owner of DOGE though.

Post

Topic

Board Development & Technical Discussion

Re: Automatically resetted testnet

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 13:07:25 UTC

"Auto-reset by coinbase/message" is a consensus footgun. You'll create partitions the first time a miner accidentally (or maliciously) trips the trigger.

If you want clean slates without drama, I would advise to use tools we already have. Signet for predictable, restartable public nets. Rotating the -signetchallenge is a reset with zero PoW guessing and no ambiguity. Ship a couple public signets (stable, fast) and rotate on a schedule.

If you really want a new PoW testnet, do a straight Testnet4: new genesis, magic bytes, seeds, and nMinimumChainWork. Don't make resets automatic; flip via new releases. Keep mainnet-like params (10-min target, 2016-block retarget). Consider dropping the "special min difficulty" rule -- that's what made testnet3 weird.

For local throwaway work, regtest/signet-with-own-key beats any auto-reset logic.

Post

Topic

Board Politics & Society

Re: Donald Trump Summarily Executes 11 People Without a Trial

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 09:27:00 UTC

Since they were designated as a foreign terrorist organization, then he's legally allowed to execute them without a trial. This was also a power-move by Trump & the US to show the severe consequences that await drug cartels as they continue their activity introducing drugs to the US.

Bottom line: Is it ethical? That's arguable and I won't get into that. Legal? Seems like it.

Post

Topic

Board Politics & Society

Re: Help me understand the August jobs report

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 09:20:10 UTC

Think of the jobs report as iceberg math. Payrolls are net hires minus quits/layoffs. Every month around 6M get hired and around 6M leave, +22k is just the cherry on top. Headlines about layoffs are just one slice, the hires rarely make news.

There are two instruments playing: the establishment survey (payrolls) and the household survey (employment/unemployment). These can disagree in any single month. Seasonals and revisions also matter -- August gets revised later; teachers, students, and temp work make the filters twitchy.

Population growth means you need ~150–200k a month just to tread water. I'd say +22k feels weak, not mysterious.

Post

Topic

Board Bitcoin Technical Support

Re: What is the DAA's Clock/Calendar?

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 09:08:13 UTC

The DAA's "clock" is the chain's own block timestamps, with guardrails.

The period is every 2016 blocks (not "every two weeks"). TargetTimespan = 2016 * 600 = 1 209 600 seconds.
The clock source is header nTime values. Nodes don't ask NTP; they trust headers but bound them:

A new block's time must be greater than the MedianTimePast of the previous 11 blocks and also it must not be too far in the future (about +2 hours drift limit).

The retarget math is as follows:

actualTimespan = time(last) – time(first) over the 2016-block window
Clamp to [TargetTimespan/4, TargetTimespan*4]
new_target = old_target * actualTimespan / TargetTimespan

Then it converts target to compact "bits".

Therefore, the "two weeks" is just the nominal target; the real period can be shorter or longer, depending on how miners stamped the last 2016 blocks. The DAA doesn't assume the next 2016 blocks will match the last 2016 -- it's a feedback controller: if hashrate went up, actualTimespan shrinks and diff rises; if hashrate fell, diff drops. Individual block intervals vary wildly because proof-of-work is a Poisson process; the DAA smooths that only every 2016 blocks.

If you want to visualize it, print for a given height:

Code:

time(h) – time(h-2016)

and you'll see why some adjustments are "early" or "late" vs the calendar.

Post

Topic

Board Economics

Re: What pushes the wealthy?

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 08:55:20 UTC

Quote from: Coin_info on Today at 06:04:58 AM

This is meant to be an interactive discussion, I like to hear how you think on the very simple question of the factor that keeps the wealthy looking for more ways to make more money.

The wealthy are relentless in their pursuit for money, they are intentional about it, you read and hear regularly on the news about a new business or company that a known wealthy man around you is setting up, they are always up to something new, seeking more ways to increase their source of income. So I was thinking, what really pushes these people?

Could it be competition? Like competition among their fellow wealthy men, one trying to be wealthier than the other, but I heard that there is no competition at the top.

Is it fear of getting poor again? That could be a really good reason to want to keep working to get more money.

Is it just discipline? like they are already used to the habit of seeking methods to increase their income, the kind of discipline that got them wealthy and so they do not know how to relax after one successful business has been set up.

Could it be the expenses and lifestyle? like in trying to keep up with the bills they have that are big like maintenance cost for their PJ's and Yatch etc, they need to get more money to maintain the lifestyle.

What other reason could there be?

Money is the scoreboard, not the game. What pushes the wealthy, in my experience:

-- Scorekeeping: once basic needs are done, the goal shifts to beating yesterday's number or a rival's chart. The target keeps moving.
-- Control and autonomy: building things buys the ability to say no. That chase is addictive.
-- Problem addiction: some folks just like hard puzzles. Companies are infinite boss levels.

I advised a founder who swore he'd stop at 10M. At 10M he said 25M. At 25M he said one more product cycle. It was never the cash; it was the next release and the team depending on him.

Post was deleted

1 day ago (view)

Post

Topic

Board Economics

Re: What pushes the wealthy?

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 08:41:59 UTC

Quote from: Coin_info on Today at 06:04:58 AM

Money is the scoreboard, not the game. What pushes the wealthy, in my experience:

-- Scorekeeping: once basic needs are done, the goal shifts to beating yesterday’s number or a rival’s chart. The target keeps moving.
-- Control and autonomy: building things buys the ability to say no. That chase is addictive.
-- Problem addiction: some folks just like hard puzzles. Companies are infinite boss levels.

I advised a founder who swore he’d stop at 10M. At 10M he said 25M. At 25M he said one more product cycle. It was never the cash; it was the next release and the team depending on him.

Post

Topic

Board Bitcoin Discussion

Re: Jack Dorsey's frindly takeover against bitcoin

BattleDog

on 08/09/2025, 08:28:28 UTC

Quote from: alani123 on September 04, 2025, 11:55:38 AM

Quote from: BattleDog on September 04, 2025, 10:04:54 AM

Quote from: alani123 on September 03, 2025, 09:34:46 AM

Jack Dorsey has become extravagantly rich from his run with Twitter.
This is a well known fact as Jack himself tends to publicize about his funding grants to various organizations.

In the last few years, his organization initially founded to support bitcoin core development monetarily, spiral.xyz, has become the most major source of funding for bitcoin developers and related events.

The majority of the developers pushing updates for bitcoin core are now directly funded by Jack Dorsey through Spiral.

More recently, some of these Dorsey funded developers openly declared they'll now be running bitcoin development as a lobby. Founding an invite-only bitcoin core developer group by the name of coredev.tech. They even have the nerve to openly announce that invitations are only extended to ideologically aligned developers.

Here's where it gets nasty though:

The upcoming bitcoin core update, so called "Core 30", has already merged some changes that directly benefit Jack Dorsey's corporations.
For one, Square already entered big in the mining game in 2021 by investing 5 million USD:
https://decrypt.co/72930/square-teams-with-blockstream-for-solar-powered-bitcoin-mining-farm

Jack Dorsey has also invested in chip manufacturing and claims to want to fundamentally change bitcoin:
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/jack-dorseys-block-inc-reveals-potential-upgrade-on-industry-standard-bitcoin-mining-rigs/

Well, what better way to instate your own will on an open source project than to directly place your favorite people on top of it?

Jack's vision of bitcoin seems to be full of off-chain transactions. Where he'll be a major player of permissioned "bitcoin payments" through his company. Obviously bitcoin's blockchain is the only way to create truly immutable transactions taking advantage of bitcoin's decentralized infrastructure. But sadly, this can't be monetized. But if the only viable way to transact BTC becomes through permissioned layer 2s like the ones Dorsey is trying to promote, they would have successfully managed to monetize bitcoin for just existing.

Jack was hopeful of also dominating chip manufacturing and even tried to cozy up with the Trump administration touting "American made chips". Thankfully the Trump admin hasn't bought into this fraud (yet).

What could be done from now to prevent this?
If you're a miner ask your pool if they're going to support Core 30. If there's no response, switch to a pool that clearly won't support this craziness.
If you run a node, you can symbolically run bitcoin Knots as an alternative. Mining is what makes a difference so keep in mind that node running is just symbolic.

Funding is not governance. Bitcoin Core changes land only after public review, test coverage, and multiple ACKs from independent reviewers. Maintainers cannot merge consensus changes unilaterally, and miners cannot change your node's rules. If a proposal would alter consensus, it is visible months in advance and dies without broad agreement.

Did you see this public review process being able to protect bitcoin?
The changes were merged and are about to go live. Every miner will probably run core 30 without hesitation.

Now these core devs supporting these changes even started a lobby to develop and make suggestions behind closed doors.

Soon there will be 0 ability by the public to have any say.

What part of bitcoin's development process seems to be public anymore? It's just open source. Not a public process at all. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I hear you, but "Core 30 merged, game over" isn't how Bitcoin works.
A version bump is not a rule change. Releases ship lots of policy/RPC/GUI fixes. Consensus changes require a BIP, months of public review, and an explicit activation mechanism. If you think v30 alters consensus, point to the BIP or PR that flips a rule and we can read it line by line.

"Closed-door lobby" can't merge code. Private workshops happen; the code, tests, and review are on public repos and mailing lists. Maintainers can't slip in a consensus change without everyone seeing it.

You still have a say: run the client you trust, set your own policy, and review. Also, nodes are not symbolic, invalid blocks are ignored no matter who mines them.

Post

Topic

Board Economics

Re: Economic risks of Integrating Bitcoin into a Nation's Official Reserve

BattleDog

on 04/09/2025, 11:30:51 UTC

Treat this like reserve engineering, not ideology. A nation can hold BTC, but only if the rules are boring and explicit.

Bitcoin adds Sanction-resistant bearer reserve with 24/7 settlement and no custodian risk if you run your own keys. And diversifier with upside optionality. Correlates to global liquidity cycles, not to any one country.

Main risks would be price, -80% drawdowns happen. You must survive that without selling. Liquidity, depth is thinner than FX or USTs; government-sized clips will move the market if you market buy/sell.

How a sober treasury would do it:

Cap BTC at a small strategic slice (think low single digits of reserves). Do not use it for short-term liquidity coverage. DCA over long windows, OTC/RFQ with multiple counterparties, TWAP/VWAP execution, and silent settlement. Consider sovereign mining to earn flow without market impact.
Pre-arranged lines with several OTC desks and miners; know your 1-day and 5-day sale capacity under stress. Never rely on a single venue or stablecoin rail.

If you must meet fiat liabilities on schedule, pair holdings with listed futures for hedging during narrow windows. Unwind when obligations are met.
Native multi-sig, keys split across jurisdictions and agencies, HSMs, quorum policies, air-gapped signing, disaster recovery drills, and audited procedures. No lending, no rehypothecation, no yield games.

Bitcoin could help as a strategic reserve alongside gold and FX, not instead of them or as an energy policy lever, monetize stranded power via mining to accumulate without FX outflows.
A settlement option for specific bilateral trades where the counterparty prefers BTC would also be an option.

Post was edited

5 days ago (view)

Post

Topic

Board Mining

Merits 1 from 1 user

Re: Mining Hash and Xchanges

BattleDog

on 04/09/2025, 10:41:49 UTC

⭐ Merited by stwenhao (1)

Buying 51% is not a Costco run. Hashrate is hardware + cheap power + logistics. Exchanges have cash, but wafers and PSUs have lead times and siting takes months. Pooling other people's hashrate is easier, but then you are herding independent miners who can leave in a day.

What 51% can and cannot do:

Cannot change the rules or steal coins. Invalid blocks get orphaned by nodes.

- Can censor (leave out some tx), and with a true majority they can do it indefinitely while they keep that majority.
- Can double-spend targets by privately mining and reorging, mainly to defraud counterparties like exchanges. Mitigation is more confs and risk controls.
- Economics bite hard: visible censorship or reorgs nuke revenue and reputation; miners and users route around the attacker.

The real risk today -- Power over block templates lives at pools. A few large pools under the same policy pressure could soft-censor. That does not require 51%; it just slows some transactions and annoys everyone.

What helps in practice

Miners: prefer pools that commit to neutral templates and adopt Stratum v2 with job negotiation so miners, not pools, pick transactions. Be ready to switch pools.
Users/merchants: self-custody, run your own node, and choose sensible confirmation policies for incoming funds. Big payments get more confs.
Devs/operators: diversify funding, monitor pool shares, and keep pushing open standards that reduce single chokepoints.

Is this already unfolding? Exchanges dabble in mining and some run pools. That is a long way from coordinating a profitable majority attack. The more realistic failure mode is policy-driven filtering by a handful of pools, which market pressure has reversed before.