@rfkill
bitcoiner, privacy enthusiast, nix user.
Not setting zaps until there is non-DNS based way to do it.
No relay list published yet.
Recent Notes
If you have strong opinions about #Mesh networking, please let me know.
I keep seeing things about #MeshCore and #Meshtastic and I am now thoroughly confused.
If I want to set up #LoRa messagingfor ...
As far as I'm aware, meshcore has better scaling potential but a more centralized routing model. The same devices can be flashed with the firmware for either, and they operate on the same frequency ranges, so it's easy to switch. The key is what people in your area are already using.
Wow this fitted the format great 😂
https://i.nostr.build/rgeqFiDnqlWRkrQ1.jpg
You can help people more by not taxing them to pay for bombs to be dropped abroad.
A cross-party group in the House of Lords has suggested an amendment to ban kids from using VPNs. If it gets the green light, providers would need to implement age verification.
https://npub14qwv5784s...
It's unfortunate that they keep saying "age verification" when they mean "identity verification".
Antonopoulos has long since become a shitcoiner; his opinion is worth between zero and nothing.
https://blossom.primal.net/a93e06031be252115fd173532a45309aae0000ed904e202e23b04519532e604b.jpg
Back in the day it was reasonable to think there would be SOME usecase for ethereum that wasn't:
* creating a shitcoin
* better off done with a database
* better off just using bitcoin
Turns out there wasn't.
* creating a shitcoin
* better off done with a database
* better off just using bitcoin
Turns out there wasn't.
When you only manage one computer, you can waste time on these things and play around with your Gentoo, Slackware, Arch Linux, and other crap.
When you manage more than 500 servers and thousands of c...
Yes personally I can't stand ubuntu for desktop use but I can see it's purpose as a widely used server system.
❤️2
The proposal seems to be:
* If a transaction contains illegal content, rather than relaying the transaction content, relay a ZKP which proves the transaction was valid without revealing the content of the transaction.
* This is TECHNICALLY a hard fork, because without the actual content of the transaction, the block shouldn't be considered valid. The definition of valid is expanded to include transactions for which a ZKP is provided.
* This doesn't necesarrily cause a split in the network. Nodes using the ZKP would see blocks from nodes NOT using the ZKP as valid. But nodes NOT using the ZKP might consider blocks not containing the original transaction. But presumably they could get the original transaction from another node.
* There is a censorship risk, since the ZKP only proves the transaction was valid, not that it actually contained illegal content. So if nodes running NOTS recieved a directive to replace a particular transaction with a ZKP, they would stop relaying it.
* Presumably it would only apply to OP_RETURN transactions.
* If a transaction contains illegal content, rather than relaying the transaction content, relay a ZKP which proves the transaction was valid without revealing the content of the transaction.
* This is TECHNICALLY a hard fork, because without the actual content of the transaction, the block shouldn't be considered valid. The definition of valid is expanded to include transactions for which a ZKP is provided.
* This doesn't necesarrily cause a split in the network. Nodes using the ZKP would see blocks from nodes NOT using the ZKP as valid. But nodes NOT using the ZKP might consider blocks not containing the original transaction. But presumably they could get the original transaction from another node.
* There is a censorship risk, since the ZKP only proves the transaction was valid, not that it actually contained illegal content. So if nodes running NOTS recieved a directive to replace a particular transaction with a ZKP, they would stop relaying it.
* Presumably it would only apply to OP_RETURN transactions.
