Bitcoin trading may be decentralised, but the power of major governments around the world cannot be ignored. Binance has millions of users around the world and I am sure their customer support gets overloaded with questions every day; that’s why they cannot answer promptly. 2816 adds support for testing on the signet network (see signet description in the news section above). Transactions are placed into a queue to be validated by miners within the network. If you are offering liquidity as a service this is bad. With standard lightning fees, you only get paid when liquidity is used. You don’t get paid when it is NOT being used. The idea was to implement a monthly service fee that requires the user to pay a fixed amount if the channel isn’t being used. The problem this company has is they offer an inbound liquidity service, but it is common after a user purchases liquidity, the channel goes unused. The user purchasing liquidity can make the choice to pay the liquidity fee, or not to pay it. So it’s sort of a recurring payment for liquidity as a service, at least that is how I’m thinking about it currently.
Seems worth looking into, at least. Granted, I’ve only really been looking at chia lisp for a bit over a week, nationofresponsibledrinkers.com but it really seems to me like a case where it might be worth putting that philosophy into practice. One approach is to just define a new version of the language via the tapleaf version, defining new opcodes however we like. Of course, “defun” and “if” aren’t listed as opcodes above; instead you have a compiler that gives you nice macros like defun and translates them into correct uses of the “a” opcode, etc. As I understand it, those sort of macros and translations are pretty well understood across lisp-like languages, and, of course, they’re already implemented for chia lisp. Pretty much all the opcodes in the first section are directly from chia lisp, while all the rest are to complete the “bitcoin” functionality. Crypto futures are contracts that express the value of a specific cryptocurrency (underlying asset). There is an opportunity to make a real difference with web based cryptocurrency mining.
Cryptocurrency markets experienced a slight increase in trading on Friday due to positive weekly unemployment data in the US. Of note is that the supposed “problem at scale” of LISP is, as I understand it, due precisely to its code and data being homoiconic to each other. And while I’ve never really coded in lisp at all, my understanding is that its biggest problems are all about doing things efficiently at large scales — but script’s problem space is for very small scale things, so there’s at least reason to hope that any problems lisp might have won’t actually show up for this use case. There are various forms of these digital “currencies,” and while Bitcoin’s prices are soaring, there may be some others your want to buy into. Market depth represents the open buy and sell orders for an asset within a certain price range; the deeper the market, the more stable the price is. One of the things people sometimes claim about bitcoin as an asset, is that it’s got both the advantage of having been first to market, but also that if some altcoin comes along with great new ideas, then those ideas can just be incorporated into bitcoin too, so bitcoin can preserve it’s lead even from innovators.
For example, rather than the streaming-sha256 approach in Elements, where you could write: “a” SHA256INITIALIZE “b” SHA256UPDATE “c” SHA256UPDATE “d” SHA256FINALIZE to get the sha256 of “abcd” without having to CAT them first (important if they’d potentially overflow the 520B stack item limit), in chia lisp you write: (sha256 “a” “b” “c” “d”) which still has the benefit of streaming the inputs into the function, but only adds a single opcode, doesn’t involve representing the internal sha256 midstate on the stack, and generally seems easier to understand, at least to me. In the future, I may continue with more analysis on the source code of the very first version of Bitcoin. This all, of course, remains only speculation – to actually attribute an identity to Satoshi would require more effort on the part of the community, sourcing as much information as possible from any, and every, conversation. Within the Bitcoin community, there are some studies that refute or confirm the link between a person and Satoshi; however, these studies analyze a rather restrictive dataset and a somewhat limited number of people. Both those essentially give you a lisp-like language — lisp is obviously all about lists, and a binary tree is just made of things or pairs of things, and pairs of things are just another way of saying “car” and “cdr”.