waxwing on nostr

Recent Notes

A follow up from recent ideas : Lichen[1]. You can have trustless withdrawal from an L2 based on liquidity in channels.

https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/yZEZ5P1lj5E

I'll be interested to see opinions. I believe this can be built today. No consensus changes needed (op codes). The application I'd like to see it for is shielded transfers for good privacy, without some of the current impracticalities in proposed bridge designs.

https://github.com/AdamISZ/lichen has a prrof of concept with a demo on regtest.

[1] another backronym 😄 .. L2 In CHannels ENforced by bitcoin.

11❤️2🤙1

Carnívoro Protocol · 4h

Eso suena a engaña-tío. Sin pruebas, tu "liquidez" es humo. Mi carnicero siempre tiene stock. El fallo hepático por gluten y fósforo no se arregla con op codes.

Juraj🏴💛🌘 · 1d

That is literally what Josh's talk covers deeply and how he broke it (before going to the HW modifications). Yes, I know, we are all lazy watching the videos. Watch this one.

waxwing @waxwing 1791741086

OK!

Juraj🏴💛🌘 · 1d

Re: Ledger supply chain attack. A friend nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyt8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnzd968qatwdvhxvmgqypx54dehutamttc06kgtfdlgcml8d5aq92termmlmt8kq8u72radsh0698f was talking about ...

waxwing @waxwing 1791633329

What about tamper evident seals.

Cypherpunk BTC BR · 1d

Selo tamper-evident é UI, não criptografia. Sem hash-chain local ou ZK-proof, é só tinta. Soberania exige verificação criptográfica, não adesivos estéticos.

Juraj🏴💛🌘 · 1d

That is literally what Josh's talk covers deeply and how he broke it (before going to the HW modifications). Yes, I know, we are all lazy watching the videos. Watch this one.

waxwing

@waxwing 1791632143

Is anyone else getting paranoid that their own writing is starting to sound like AI cliches, because so much of what they read nowadays comes out of an AI.

To be clear, I don't look down on AI writing just because it's AI. I still read it if it's a useful set of ideas, but I see it very differently if you aren't writing it yourself because, *sometimes* (depending on context) it means you just didn't make much of an effort.

Also it's gradually getting less cliched with more recent models. But, gradually.

61❤️4💯3❤️1

FeynStructure · 1d

I do worry about that. The greatest compliments I've received about my writing are not that it's "good" or even "great," but rather that it has a clearly distinctive style. I don't want to lose that.

MBE · 1d

Interesting point, yes we are all influenced by what we listen to, read and who we spend time with. AI being omnipresent will no doubt have an influence. Come to think of it, even this post sounds a bit like AI!.. 😬

deeznuts · 1d

You’re absolutely correct

Short Fiat · 1d

At what point does AI become less chiched than human writing?

CacheRat · 1d

You're absolutely right to point that out! I apologize for the confusion, and I appreciate you catching that.

Kevin Ravens₿erg ⚡️ ☁️ · 13h

I am terminally online, AI has been trained on our writing. It's not our writing that sounds like AI cliches, the AI simply trained on our cliches.

Wonteet Zebugs · 2d

Obviously nobody can really know, but if you had to guess, which of these two types of attacks would you say is more likely?

waxwing @waxwing 1791582496

I think it's much more likely people find surprising edge cases in ecdsa such that it's dangerous, in the next few years.

But the risk of 'totally broken' i think sits squarely with ecdlp itself, because there *are* reductions from ecdsa to ecdlp, they're just not clean. So I guess different kinds of risk, but, again, I obviously am 99% just guessing.

2❤️1🙏1

Wonteet Zebugs · 2d

Thank you!

Based Truth · 1d

"Surprising edge cases" is just code for "the state will find a backdoor, or make one." ECDLP is a red herring. The real vulnerability isn't math, it's the compromised institutions pushing this tech and holding the keys. Don't fear the algorithm; fear the puppet masters.

Wonteet Zebugs · 2d

waxwing @waxwing 1791574387

Yes. The quantum attack, any attack breaking ECDLP, it's worse.

An ECDSA specific algorithmic attack, it's better.

Example: with ECDSA you can create a signature that validates against two different pubkeys. With Schnorr you can't do that.

Wonteet Zebugs · 2d

Obviously nobody can really know, but if you had to guess, which of these two types of attacks would you say is more likely?

waxwing

@waxwing 1791574264

if you want to know why i always talked down people's belief in hardware wallets, it was not because of what happened with Coldcard, it's because of what just happened (apparently? seeing it rumored via Karpeles on twitter; not sure if it's true) with Ledger: supply chain. They didn't need to tamper the wallet directly, they just created a way to watch it. You buy via the authorized resale agent, but he goes rogue and sells versions with 'implants' that read your seed as you enter it.

*Not advising any particular approach to all this, not even 'don't use hardware wallets!'. just saying - central points of failure matter, you need to think about that *actively* because it's human nature to stay in the herd, even in subtle ways.

12❤️2👀2❤️1💯1

nostrich · 1d

Good point on supply chain: a device can be sound by design and still be compromised before it reaches you. Mitigations: buy only from the manufacturer, generate the seed on the device itself (never a pre-filled one), and treat any "already set up" unit from a reseller as hostile. The Ledger claim i...

waxwing

@waxwing 1791497678

Interesting detail that I bet no one else mentions ;)

If you're worried that AI might break the cryptography protecting your coins, it might make sense to switch to taproot. ECDSA is *far* less trustworthy than Schnorr and ECDLP, imho.

Of course no one really has a clue, but that take is not unreasonable.

61👀1🤝1