It's a very common thing. I'd mainly call it wishful thinking: they want bitcoin to be cool, they wan the interface of using it to be slick, they want to use the companies and tools of the famous people they admire, so they choose people like Jack Mallers, and then when the reality of these nonfree tools inevitably shows itself, they get hit with cognitive dissonance.

The ugly truth is you kind of have to learn how to deal with both the shitty older systems and the new genuinely empowering open systems, the latter are clunky, dangerous, difficult and not cool/slick at all but 100% worth learning. Occasionally you find little corners that are truly magical.

Gotcha.

I have a couple test transactions at 1.58 sats/vb stuck for 4 hours now, lol. Not that it matters, just, I'm confused what's happening.

Thanks.

Isn't it worth mentioning that by default, makers randomize fees in reannouncements?

Or am I misremembering something. Not unlikely.

I agree this is not some straightforward privacy upgrade, as some want to paint it. But disagree that it's a privacy downgrade; it's more nuanced than that.

Yeah needs a fork. I haven't read it yet 😄

Hmm how it work; presumably different checksig opcode with the typical noop opcode for soft fork. You couldn't just use a sighash flag because it's not *only* changing the message signed; it's a different verification algo.

That's the answer I wanted to make to @Vitor Pamplona more than @Matt Corallo tbh, but, either way 😄