Usually such updates are only for those that are experiencing the issues. If you are not experiencing any issues, and there are no critical security bugs, you can take some time to update.

I don't see that wallet or website listed on https://www.getmonero.org/downloads/, and because of that I would be very careful. In any case, you should consider that you lose many of the benefits by not using a full wallet. You don't need a browser wallet for Monero.

I've said it here. With or without this issue, someday somewhere an equilibrium must be met. Even without this issue, the hashrate can't go up forever like this. A stagnation of the rewards for some time would actually push the companies towards more efficiency improvements.

It can be, but this is not hyperbole. We are not talking about $0.1 in fees when I am using the valuable and scarce block space, we are talking about percentages of the total coin for simply holding Bitcoin. It is something else entirely. Just because we call both fees, that does not make them the same.

You said your given percentage is arbitrary. If I understood your proposal correctly, you always generate extra satoshis for miners while old coins accrue "burn debt" which is only paid when they are used? Just change the description to achieve the same process, and you will see how it looks and acts exactly like confiscation. Instead of the burn happening when I spend the coin, the protocol takes them automatically away at the same rate. How is this any different? Because I am the one doing the spending and it is not automatic?

Tax me for using it, but also tax me for not using it? I am not saying that fees should not be paid, I am saying that your proposal is unfair. Actually holding Bitcoin like this is more beneficial to everyone else as well as it helps support and increase the value of their Bitcoin.  Simply because of that I should not have to pay more than others, we don't even have to consider any additional arguments to support it. Find a fair solution, one that is not ungrateful towards long holders.

Yes, I am against any such proposal. It is just reinventing inflation and giving it new names.

I am less against such a proposal, but as long as it is fair. It is even ridiculous to propose to punish me for my strong belief in Bitcoin. Proportional amount from every UTXO makes much more sense than anything related to coin age.

As I said, there is no problem right now. There is only speculation that it may become a problem, but nobody really knows. If they pretend that they do, they are just another snake oil salesman. While we observe what happens, we can use the time to discuss proposals and not rush into anything radical.

I managed, but I shut it down already. At least it will do for the purpose of writing the guide on how to do it. I think ThunderHub is good if you run it locally, but I am not so sure about a publicly exposed server. There were many vulnerability warnings during the installation process and there are often major successful attacks on node modules. I do like it a lot though, very nice interface and the test helped me prepare a guide for it. As I previously said, the order of the instructions and the assumptions that come with it are terrible. However, here I am more concerned with a compromise of my system to keep it running without some serious security practices.

https://ibb.co/1fqDpDLC

Fair, but when it comes specifically to units I am very against introducing anything. There is already too many being used, and most users have no idea what they mean. That being said, I don't see why I should pay more than someone else because I am a good little holder. For me, you are confiscating part of my holdings by forcing me to pay more over others. Whether it is done by actually taking them away or forcing me to pay a huge fee to use it, is again just semantics.

Is there any difference in practice if you take away 5% of coins from each address that has unmoved coins from 2010, or if you mak them pay a 5% fee to move them? No.

You can follow the discussion on the pull request but also in the email lists. That is much better than reading articles by under qualified writers that are posing as Bitcoin journalists.

NO, this is one of the worst possible proposals in practice. Think about it. You have two paths here. I will use 1M confiscation to keep the example simple.

• Option 1: Increase the limit by 1M to 22M and slowly issue this. Total supply changes right now, circulating supply changes as these get issued.
• Option 2: Do not increase the limit, but confiscated 1M of old coins. Total supply stays the same, circulating supply changes as these get reissued.

In practice, option 2 is much worse than option 1. While traditionally the limit is defined by the total supply, in practice what matters is circulating supply. Think about it. If for some weird technical reason you had to increase the total supply by a factor of 100x, but 0% of these coins entered circulation, what changes in practice? Nothing. There would be bad PR for sure, but the limit of 21M circulating coins would remain the same. In the option that you talk about, option 2: you get both an increase in circulating supply and a precedent of confiscation. It attacks two of the most important points of Bitcoin. Please note that I am not advocating for a supply increase, I am merely saying that between two such options that the latter is much worse in practice.

More complexity and more units is not desirable. Anyhow, if I understood you correctly your proposal will punish the best holders for simply holding. This is a terrible incentive.

Replace one type of confiscation with another? How do you know that my coins are lost, because I am not using them actively? 

There are simpler ways to approach this, not necessarily the best ways of course. You can introduce a primary flat miner fee, and retain the variable fee from the fee market on top of it. For example, a flat fee of 100 satoshi as of today would be $0.11. At 3000 transactions per block, that is an extra 300 000 sats. Over a year using current prices that is an extra $17M for miners. No burn, no demurrage, no confiscation, no supply increase. 

Where we stand today, this is not even yet a problem let alone one that requires immediate intention. Most of this speculation is coming from altcoin advocates who want to prove POW and Bitcoin's fair economics wrong, and prove POS, token-printing and selling as correct.  Do fees need to always stay high? No. Does the hashrate have to always increase? Also no.

This is not the whole reason, there were many others that were in consideration. Most notably it was the impact on the decentralization and the cost to run nodes. The Bitcoin blockchain is pretty huge, and were there no reasonable limits we would turn into another Solana.

This is not possible. Nobody can create anything "official" Bitcoin. Who would do it, and why would it be considered official?

Thanks for the mention.  I would like to add for Windows users that you can already follow the guide by creating a virtual machine and installing Ubuntu in it. You can use Oracle VirtualBox which is free, and creating a virtual machine is much easier than it is to set up a lightning node. You only need a couple of minutes really, there are plenty of videos on YouTube that show how to set one up. I think that it is a good idea to do this, because you can get some Linux practice at the same time.

I've made some updates and installation instructions for all 3 main software is available. Now I have also added instructions to open a channel with LND as I was trying to do that for the first time as well. LND works fine for me, and now I want to try Thunderhub with it. I can only say that the official docs are abysmal. One of the worst things I have ever seen as a guide. Those located here https://docs.thunderhub.io/setup.

It just says you need this and that, and that is it. Deal with it yourself. 

LND instructions added, opening a channel was easy.

I don't think he is necessarily talking about today. As currently the mempool is empty for some time, previously it was full for many months all the time. I remember all the fuss about ordinals, and then runes and so on during the last year. I'm not sure whether it will come back as the wider market of these things suffered massive losses after this period of activity and spam.

Anyway the point stands that there is no reason to do everything on chain.

If only all major services always paid attention to this. 

Bump. LND is next and coming soon. I've been a bit busy. 

Open source chips would be a good thing, but I think at the current state of things we are unlikely to see devices with such any time soon. The problem primarily lies in the trade off between usability and security. One example that I can think of is that multisignature wallets aren't used nearly enough. Multisig must be most standardized, with cross-device compatibility and good UI. Having security that is obscure and hard to use by the average person is pointless.

In that sense, you can imagine a 2 out of 3 multi-signature setup that uses 3 different hardware devices by 3 different manufacturers who use 3 different chips. It is extremely unlikely that an hack would happen in this scenario, especially not one that was not exposed before a second hardware device is compromised. Why? Given how hard this is, a successful compromise of 1 brand would likely be executed before a second one would occur.  Clearly the usability of such a setup is terrible compared to something fast as a browser extension. However, for long-term cold storage does it really matter if you need 5 minutes to create a transaction knowing how much security you have?

When it comes to your small or every day wallet, I think you should use it with the expectation that you can be hacked because there are so many ways for this to happen. Unless of course, your daily wallet is also a hardware wallet. Then that is a different story.

Money taken from naive retail is often funding these spam transactions. There is just no end to the number of new suckers, and therefore this cycle will continue forever I think. You just have to also remember that the percentage of people that have been involved in cryptocurrency at all is still very low. So the stream will go on..

Miners profiting through raking up the fees, sure. But a lot of the stuff comes from third entities.

Exactly. It is very similar to how the government spends money since it is not theirs, they don't really care. Any rational economic participant would strive to minimize costs that will occur. On that note, I wonder if big exchanges are doing enough consolidation right now? Fees have not been this low in a long time I recon.

This is wrong. If the wallet resets itself it won't automatically generate a new seed and set itself up.

It should be noted that in this case the hardware security is lost, and it is recommended to create a new wallet in Trezor afterwards with a seed that was not used in any other wallet.

Under the assumption that the friend didn't do anything wrong and is trying to hide it, this is the most common answer to these issues. The derivation path that is currently being viewed is different from the one that is previously used. The coins can not disappear just because the wallet isn't showing them.

This topic has been discussed too many times.

You can waste away your whole life with such people and you may not get anywhere. Instead, you should focus on open-minded people only. Stubborn people actually often know that they are wrong, they just refuse to admit it because they are cowards and weaklings.

At least we get to have some fun at the expense of haters.

As to not understanding a part of the guide, for these kinds of things it is best to follow the steps and then see where you actually get stuck. Once you do, you can post about it here and I'll try to help you. Take your time, when you are more available try it. I would rate this kind of setup as high difficulty, and likely less than 1% of users will ever manage to complete something like this.

It is still worth trying though.  I have learned a great deal by trying to do this and writing it. 

Thanks for the input. Feel free to report it if you want, maybe a moderator will move it. I wasn't so sure myself, but I decided to post it here for the time being. The nature of lightning network setups is that it can not be much simpler than this, otherwise you are always sacrificing something. For example, I could provide a script file that simply chains all the commands together and simplifies a bit the process. But how does a beginner verify that the script file does not include malicious commands? Sure, there is some kind of trust system here so seniors can aid in this process. But if we encourage beginners to use premade script files from strangers online, they will end up doing it at other places where such system does not exist. Eventually this will lead to a negative outcome.

The guide for Windows should be much simpler, but that will require a some time and assistance from other users.