@pico4
Relays (3)
- wss://relay.damus.io/ – read & write
- wss://relay.primal.net/ – read & write
- wss://nos.lol/ – read & write
Recent Notes
The SEC just sent a new proposal to the White House with amendments to custody rules that would clarify the framework for how crypto assets are custodied.
https://blossom.primal.net/a9b4c444d013994b40...
Get ready guys. The "self custody is dangerous, only bank custody allowed" move is getting closer each year.
🤙1
People that say that BIP-110 should stay on the Bitcoin Core chain and try to solve the problem without forking are following the same logic as those that tell us to fix the government by voting. We cannot follow their rules, no one in power is going to give you a system to overrule their power.
Running a stale node, but it is what it is. I am not going to host arbitrary data in my personal computer. I am not running Core, like I would not host a no-login FTP server, no matter what the protocol consensus says.
I did not expect much, as there was only 2% signaling from months before. Crazy to see how bitcoin is losing against on-chain exploits.
I did not expect much, as there was only 2% signaling from months before. Crazy to see how bitcoin is losing against on-chain exploits.
2
A bit paradoxical: If the policy can be easily changed by individuals with no effect on the network... Core v30 was unnecessary. An arbitrary change of the node configuration with no real effect on the network. Anyone who wanted a bigger OP_RETURN could just have configured it themselves without needing to modify the defaults.
I still don't see a reason why having a 100 times bigger OP_RETURN is necessary for any monetary transaction. There is no single reason having a 100 times bigger transaction while moving the same money is useful in the protocol. Any way of making a transaction bigger than it should necessarily be is an exploit in a monetary protocol.
Protocol changes, although extreme, are necessary as no one can predict vulnerabilities in decades of a protocol running. The bitcoin legacy chain itself is just the result of many forks and protocol adjustments.
I still don't see a reason why having a 100 times bigger OP_RETURN is necessary for any monetary transaction. There is no single reason having a 100 times bigger transaction while moving the same money is useful in the protocol. Any way of making a transaction bigger than it should necessarily be is an exploit in a monetary protocol.
Protocol changes, although extreme, are necessary as no one can predict vulnerabilities in decades of a protocol running. The bitcoin legacy chain itself is just the result of many forks and protocol adjustments.
Bitcoin is hard to change. That's a feature not a bug. Adding new rules by fiat and the cover of good intentions just doesn’t work.
If you want to see bitcoin used as money, use the damn thing as...
Last year OP_RETURN was uncapped in months, with no real consensus. Bitcoin has been attacked.
1
This Fight Ain't Over Yet (BIP-110)
https://blossom.primal.net/6809288d327e4a90563af09121e0a75659c2665817eecd00c926c72c73784ab2.mp4
I honestly dont think pools like foundry will swith at this point. 20 blocks in, with already some blocks mined by them, it would be a waste of computing. And it's less and less possible as time passes and more blocks get added. It would be possible for a pool that has not mined on the longest chain yet. Lots of fees to get in a chain that does not seem to have as much miner competition.
Bad month for btc overall
Comienza el forkkk
Sending some zaps before the fork starts
"We learnt the lesson, we shilled coldcard and it's shiny cypherpunk features while the killer bug went unnoticed, we put all our eggs in the same basket...
...anyway BUY SEEDSIGNER seedsigner SECURE seedsigner DIY YAY"
...anyway BUY SEEDSIGNER seedsigner SECURE seedsigner DIY YAY"
If only the security issues you consider valid are taken into account, then yeah, only wallets you want to be will be secure. The thing is: there is no "fair" security failure. Any failure can take away your coins.
A cable connected wallet that properly blocks unauthorised data transmission should work as fine as an air-gapped one, as we would only change the medium of transmission. Your PC would only see an unsigned transacion then a signed one. Keys would not leave your hw wallet.
A cable connected wallet that properly blocks unauthorised data transmission should work as fine as an air-gapped one, as we would only change the medium of transmission. Your PC would only see an unsigned transacion then a signed one. Keys would not leave your hw wallet.