How To Make a Bitcoin Address With a TI-89 Calculator ...
Slashdot Items Tagged With 'bitcoin'
About 40 Percent of Bitcoin Is Held By 1,000 ... - Slashdot
'Bitcoin Could Cost Us Our Clean-Energy Future' - Slashdot
[ 🎶 Thinking Cap ] This post is framed around results of cypher-based queries for the number 1234 against my custom lexicon files built up over a year of phrase inputs (mostly gleaned from newspaper headlines and their 'quoted phrases', or stream of conciousness inspired by them). There are not very many, but the few there are appear to be instructive. I have used some repetition to aid those with trouble remembering numbers. Perhaps NSFW. (For the confused: see here, here and here) If you are brand new to this collection of scrolls, I recommend reading (as much as you can of) this before returning here, which will help to justify my particular focus below (the belt). Did you gnow A=1? There are 26 letters in the English-Latin Alphabet. The basic alphabetic gematria code acknowledges that A=1, B=2, C=3, ..., Z=26 (ie. ordinal gematria). In this basic alphabetic cypher (which is implied if I do not specify):
"Alphabetic Codes" = 123
... "Reveal The Code" = 123
... .. .. "To Reveal All" = 123
If you flip the numeric ordering about (ie. look in the mirror: treat 'Z' as 1, down to 'A' as 26), then...
This ("The ABC") is the name of the earliest alphabet primer textbooks for kids.
The first church primers paralleled the introduction of school textbooks known as “the ABC”
The Alphabet is a vessel for messages:
"Boat" = 123 primes (ie. an Ark ... an Archive ... built using a geometric Architecture of symbols)
If, instead of the basic alphabetic ordinal cyphers above, we use another cypher some call Agrippa's Key, and some call the 'jewish cipher', which is based on the ancient Hebrew and Greek gematria charts, and maps that scheme to the Latin Alphabet, we can ask a catch-phrase question (written more formally than usual)
What's in a name?
"What is in a name?" = 1234 jewish-latin-agrippa
Here we move beyond the three steps of ABC and arrive at the Door of Dalet. Behind it, if we have the write keys, we might discover...
ie. quantum-entanglement: you cannot give birth to your first alphabetic Son, a strong boy named Aleph, and deny he is '1'. You cannot have your second child, a beautiful maiden, Beth, and deny she is '2'. Animals on the ark 2 by 2. You cannot order the alphabet, and deny the letters have ordinal indexes (ie. numbers associated with them - significant others)
Obstetrics is the field of study concentrated on pregnancy, childbirth, and the postpartum period. As a medical specialty, obstetrics is combined with gynaecology under the discipline known as obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) which is a surgical field.
... ( "The Last Proof of Life After Death" = 911 primes )
I have a spell-matching feature that can cross-match multiple cypher results and return the 'closest frequency matches' of all the spells I've ever entered into my gematria tools. At the time of writing the lexicon file is half a megabyte in size (plain text) and contains 37,694 words and phrases. When I ask for the spellings that most closely match: "live forever", I get the following three results as top matches:
'white liquid', 'into the girl', and 'the dilution' (with 8+ cypher matches)
There are a lot of flowery symbolic or metaphorical phrases that it could have returned, but it seems the Heptapods are rather blunt. Again:
"Divine Feminine" = 911 jewish-latin-agrippa
... .. "Sexy Girl" = 911 jewish-latin-agrippa
From... Revelation 9:11 King James Version (KJV):
And they had a king  over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon  , but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
This is perhaps a dual - the Abaddon is both Father Beast (and Lord of the Harem, perhaps, given the plural 'them') and the Beastly Progeny (ie. King and Prince):
"Pregnant" = 333 jewish-latin-agrippa
"The Temple" = 333 jewish-latin-agrippa
... "A Baby" = 333 trigonal
The angelic little baby, retrieved from the bottomless pit, is the apple of mommy and daddy's eyes (even though it is very naughty, ruling over their lives for many years after his or her noxious retrieval from the Underworld).
Viva Las Vegas (ie. V.L.V ): 777 (ie. to win at slots):
"A Triple-Seven" = 1234 trigonal | 2,322 squares
The Boeing 777 is a premiere passenger aircraft. The Boeing 787 is called the Dreamliner (ie "The Call" = 787 squares ... of Morpheus) The Boeing 747 is Old Faithful, the Jumbo Jet of Time Air Force One is a 747
"Air Force" = 223 primes
"Winds" = 223 primes
"Goddess" = 223 primes
... "The Law" = 223 primes
... "Air Force" = 223 primes
"Winds" = 223 primes
"The Law" = "Goddess" = 223 primes
She steps on "The Scale" = 223 primes ... ...and hopes she is ...
"Weightless" = 1234 jewish-latin-agrippa
From an old Alphabet Primer:
... He that ne'er learns his ABC, ... For ever will a Blockhead be. ... But he that learns these Letters fair, ... Shall have a Coach to take the Air.
Enregisterment is often partially, rather than completely, true, sort of like an accent viewed through a funhouse mirror.
I was triggered to made this post due to various recent media 'events', this 'crazy' 'news item' the final straw that broke the gimel's black (I link to old reddit theme because it is objectively better ):
These are things we can imagine Alphabet Sages might desire to encode and honour - as much for a mnemonic purpose, as for teaching purposes, or for archiving [...] knowledge [...] or purely for the sake of esoterica itself (ie. wizard just likes math, or architecture, and thus honours math and arches, secretely in words using basic algebra and references to certain idioms and golden numbers. Wizard works for King, shows him tricks. King decrees new Bible edition, and new Dictionary version).
He found me to be of a tractable, inquiring, and fearless disposition. A dash of melancholy is lacking in me, else I would make all, who are inclined to blame the Comte de GABALIS for having concealed nothing from me, confess that I was a not unfit subject for the Occult Sciences. One cannot make great progress in them, it is true, without melancholy; but the little that I possess in no wise disheartened him. You have, he told me a hundred times, Saturn in an angle, in his own house, and retrograde; some day you cannot. fail to be as melancholy as a Sage ought to be; for the wisest of all men, as we learn in the Cabala, had like you Jupiter in the Ascendant, nevertheless so powerful was the influence of his Saturn, though far weaker than yours, that one cannot find proof of his having laughed a single time in all his life. The Amateurs must, therefore, find fault with my Saturn and not with the Comte de GABALIS, if I prefer to divulge their secrets rather than to practise them.
21 months ago, Gavin Andresen published "A Scalability Roadmap", including sections called: "Increasing transaction volume", "Bigger Block Road Map", and "The Future Looks Bright". *This* was the Bitcoin we signed up for. It's time for us to take Bitcoin back from the strangle-hold of Blockstream.
A Scalability Roadmap 06 October 2014 by Gavin Andresen https://web.archive.org/web/20150129023502/http://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap Increasing transaction volume I expect the initial block download problem to be mostly solved in the next relase or three of Bitcoin Core. The next scaling problem that needs to be tackled is the hardcoded 1-megabyte block size limit that means the network can suppor[t] only approximately 7-transactions-per-second. Any change to the core consensus code means risk, so why risk it? Why not just keep Bitcoin Core the way it is, and live with seven transactions per second? “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Back in 2010, after Bitcoin was mentioned on Slashdot for the first time and bitcoin prices started rising, Satoshi rolled out several quick-fix solutions to various denial-of-service attacks. One of those fixes was to drop the maximum block size from infinite to one megabyte (the practical limit before the change was 32 megabytes– the maximum size of a message in the p2p protocol). The intent has always been to raise that limit when transaction volume justified larger blocks. “Argument from Authority” is a logical fallacy, so “Because Satoshi Said So” isn’t a valid reason. However, staying true to the original vision of Bitcoin is very important. That vision is what inspires people to invest their time, energy, and wealth in this new, risky technology. I think the maximum block size must be increased for the same reason the limit of 21 million coins must NEVER be increased: because people were told that the system would scale up to handle lots of transactions, just as they were told that there will only ever be 21 million bitcoins. We aren’t at a crisis point yet; the number of transactions per day has been flat for the last year (except for a spike during the price bubble around the beginning of the year). It is possible there are an increasing number of “off-blockchain” transactions happening, but I don’t think that is what is going on, because USD to BTC exchange volume shows the same pattern of transaction volume over the last year. The general pattern for both price and transaction volume has been periods of relative stability, followed by bubbles of interest that drive both price and transaction volume rapidly up. Then a crash down to a new level, lower than the peak but higher than the previous stable level. My best guess is that we’ll run into the 1 megabyte block size limit during the next price bubble, and that is one of the reasons I’ve been spending time working on implementing floating transaction fees for Bitcoin Core. Most users would rather pay a few cents more in transaction fees rather than waiting hours or days (or never!) for their transactions to confirm because the network is running into the hard-coded blocksize limit. Bigger Block Road Map Matt Corallo has already implemented the first step to supporting larger blocks – faster relaying, to minimize the risk that a bigger block takes longer to propagate across the network than a smaller block. See the blog post I wrote in August for details. There is already consensus that something needs to change to support more than seven transactions per second. Agreeing on exactly how to accomplish that goal is where people start to disagree – there are lots of possible solutions. Here is my current favorite: Roll out a hard fork that increases the maximum block size, and implements a rule to increase that size over time, very similar to the rule that decreases the block reward over time. Choose the initial maximum size so that a “Bitcoin hobbyist” can easily participate as a full node on the network. By “Bitcoin hobbyist” I mean somebody with a current, reasonably fast computer and Internet connection, running an up-to-date version of Bitcoin Core and willing to dedicate half their CPU power and bandwidth to Bitcoin. And choose the increase to match the rate of growth of bandwidth over time: 50% per year for the last twenty years. Note that this is less than the approximately 60% per year growth in CPU power; bandwidth will be the limiting factor for transaction volume for the foreseeable future. I believe this is the “simplest thing that could possibly work.” It is simple to implement correctly and is very close to the rules operating on the network today. Imposing a maximum size that is in the reach of any ordinary person with a pretty good computer and an average broadband internet connection eliminates barriers to entry that might result in centralization of the network. Once the network allows larger-than-1-megabyte blocks, further network optimizations will be necessary. This is where Invertible Bloom Lookup Tables or (perhaps) other data synchronization algorithms will shine. The Future Looks Bright So some future Bitcoin enthusiast or professional sysadmin would download and run software that did the following to get up and running quickly:
Connect to peers, just as is done today.
Download headers for the best chain from its peers (tens of megabytes; will take at most a few minutes)
Download enough full blocks to handle and reasonable blockchain re-organization (a few hundred should be plenty, which will take perhaps an hour).
Ask a peer for the UTXO set, and check it against the commitment made in the blockchain.
From this point on, it is a fully-validating node. If disk space is scarce, it can delete old blocks from disk. How far does this lead? There is a clear path to scaling up the network to handle several thousand transactions per second (“Visa scale”). Getting there won’t be trivial, because writing solid, secure code takes time and because getting consensus is hard. Fortunately technological progress marches on, and Nielsen’s Law of Internet Bandwidth and Moore’s Law make scaling up easier as time passes. The map gets fuzzy if we start thinking about how to scale faster than the 50%-per-increase-in-bandwidth-per-year of Nielsen’s Law. Some complicated scheme to avoid broadcasting every transaction to every node is probably possible to implement and make secure enough. But 50% per year growth is really good. According to my rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, my above-average home Internet connection and above-average home computer could easily support 5,000 transactions per second today. That works out to 400 million transactions per day. Pretty good; every person in the US could make one Bitcoin transaction per day and I’d still be able to keep up. After 12 years of bandwidth growth that becomes 56 billion transactions per day on my home network connection — enough for every single person in the world to make five or six bitcoin transactions every single day. It is hard to imagine that not being enough; according the the Boston Federal Reserve, the average US consumer makes just over two payments per day. So even if everybody in the world switched entirely from cash to Bitcoin in twenty years, broadcasting every transaction to every fully-validating node won’t be a problem.
I came up with the following form to answer the common objections to big blocks. It's modelled on the standard form people on slashdot used against the endless half-brained spam solutions that people mentioned on there. I think it answers the common objections to big blocks.
Your argument that big blocks can't work is based on the following belief(s): ( ) Storage of big blocks is impossible ( ) Validating big blocks is impossible ( ) Networks can't transfer big blocks ( ) Bigger blocks cause centralization Your argument is flawed because: ( ) Disk is cheap and easily available ( ) CPU power is cheap and easily available ( ) Network bandwidth is cheap and easily available ( ) Miners only need a block header, they don't need to sync the entire blockchain to each miner ( ) The more adopters the system can let in, the more entities arise with a need to run full nodes. ( ) BTC and BCH compete for the same mining resources. How can one be centralised and the other not? Furthermore: ( ) Not all users need to run a full node ( ) Not all nodes need to store the entire blockchain ( ) Your calculations appear to be way off ( ) The belief that transaction fees must cost a significant proportion of a full node is flawed ( ) The belief that Blocksteam or the bitcoin core group has the best programmers is flawed ( ) There is no reason to believe that bigger blocks cause centralization ( ) Using 'avoiding centralization' as a reason whilst supporting a fully centralized development team is flawed ( ) Node count proves nothing ( ) It's your job to prove your arguments, see Russell's teapot ( ) CSW has nothing to do with this ( ) Roger Ver has nothing to do with this
Slashdot Items Tagged "bitcoin" Date / Time Story; Monday August 03, 2020 @11:03AM: A 17-Year-Old's Journey: Minecraft, SIM-Swapping Bitcoin Heists, Breaching Twitter : Wednesday March 27, 2019 @10:41PM: Online-Only Currency BitCoin Reaches Dollar Parity: Monday March 21, 2016 @08:49AM: Australia Promises To Remove Tax On Bitcoin, Support FinTech Innovation: Sunday March 20, 2016 @03:03PM ... If Slashdot ever posts "Bitcoin price stable for over six months, retailers flock to adopt new currency", then they'll be publishing a positive story about Bitcoin. "Bitcoin's value fluctuates by 1000% in a single month" is objectively terrible news for Bitcoin, even if it's great news for speculators who got in early. sarahnaomi writes: The power of Bitcoin is giving your dusty old TI-89 calculator a second chance of being useful.Matt Whitlock, who helped make one of the world's first Bitcoin ATMs, is at it again.In a video posted on to Vimeo, he showed how using the calculator once only used for high school geometry and a 12-sided die makes a secure address for your Bitcoin account. An air-to-air heat pump basically becomes an electric heater (the air is heated in the air handler using resistive elements) when the temps drop below 35-40 deg F. option8 ((Slashdot reader #16,509) writes: TL;DR: Mining Bitcoin on a 1MHz 8-bit processor will cost you more than the world's combined economies, and take roughly 256 trillion years. "But it could happen tomorrow. It's a lottery, after all," explains the blog post (describing this mad scientist as a hardware hacker and "self-taught maker", determined to mine bitcoin "in what must be the ...