a custodian

https://mempool.space/tx/a6d697a25266ce3c78774fd1d75f896b7af522ada209b0f6228ea497bc49a46d
Looks like 3400 Bitcoin have been returned.

4k BTC is almost the entire liquidity in Liquid according to https://liquid.network

I've seen something similar a few years ago:
https://github.com/standardsats/plugin-fiat-channels

I thought Bitcoin-Blake2B already has one way replay protection. Why not use that instead?

Unified sighash:
A new opt-in SIGHASH_UNIFIED format works across legacy, SegWit and Taproot inputs.

It provides linear signature hashing, commits to every input amount and gives one-way replay protection.

Source: #1558342

Rage bait

Read the release notes:

From block 961,640 until the parent block’s median-time-past reaches 1 September 2027, blocks are limited to 800,000 weight units, approximately 300 kB

The block was found in July and this is not bad news.

Don't have one. Which ASIC does it use?

Even if you supply your own entropy to the hardware wallet, you still have to trust it to actually use your entropy.

Best way to know that your seed is truly random is to print out the word list, cut the words out and then randomly pick 11 words. The twelth word needs to be chosen with the help of the hardware wallet, since it contains a checksum.

Awesome, very convenient to have that.

I also built a very primitive BCUR QR code reader a few years ago:
https://filiprogrammer.github.io/bcur_qr_reader/

Is the balance still onchain by default and they swap for Lightning?

Yes. Not a real Lightning wallet. The wallet backup is also non-standard.

https://fork.observer/?network=mainnet

You cannot make this up.

Seems the majority was wrong

Correction: The change from 12594.5 vB to 50096 vB for the 50 kB JPEG inscription is actually a +297.76% increase.

Removing the witness discount does not hurt miner incentives.
They were mining 1000000 vBytes before, they will be mining 1000000 vBytes afterwards. And vBytes (or Weight Units) are the unit by which fees are measured.

Also since I haven't seen anyone do this before, let's do the math on transaction sizes under different consensus rules.

Consensus Rule Scenarios

• Current Rules: No CISA, 75% witness discount
• BIP459: CISA Full-Agg, 75% witness discount
• BIP459 + Remove Witness Discount: CISA Full-Agg, No witness discount

Transaction Types

• Simple payment with change (1 input, 2 outputs)
• 3 UTXO Consolidation (3 inputs, 1 output)
• 5 UTXO Consolidation (5 inputs, 1 output)
• 10 UTXO Consolidation (10 inputs, 1 output)
• Coinjoin (14 inputs, 18 outputs)
• ~50 kB JPEG Inscription (1 input with data, 1 dust output)

Calculation

Assuming the use of Schnorr Signatures.

$w$ is the witness cost factor.

$i$ is the input count.

$o$ is the output count.

TX size without CISA:

TX size with CISA Full-Agg (Might be off by a byte or two, depends on how it is ultimatelly implemented):

Simple payment with change (1 input, 2 outputs)

• Current Rules: $f(0.25,1,2)=154$ vBytes
• BIP459: $g(0.25,1,2)=154$ vBytes
• BIP459 + Remove Witness Discount: $g(1,1,2)=205$ vBytes

33.12% increase

3 UTXO Consolidation (3 inputs, 1 output)

• Current Rules: $f(0.25,3,1)=226$ vBytes
• BIP459: $g(0.25,3,1)=193$ vBytes
• BIP459 + Remove Witness Discount: $g(1,3,1)=244$ vBytes

7.96% increase

5 UTXO Consolidation (5 inputs, 1 output)

• Current Rules: $f(0.25,5,1)=341$ vBytes
• BIP459: $g(0.25,5,1)=275$ vBytes
• BIP459 + Remove Witness Discount: $g(1,5,1)=326$ vBytes

4.4% decrease

10 UTXO Consolidation (10 inputs, 1 output)

• Current Rules: $f(0.25,10,1)=628.5$ vBytes
• BIP459: $g(0.25,10,1)=480$ vBytes
• BIP459 + Remove Witness Discount: $g(1,10,1)=531$ vBytes

15.51% decrease

Coinjoin (14 inputs, 18 outputs)

• Current Rules: $f(0.25,14,18)=1589.5$ vBytes
• BIP459: $g(0.25,14,18)=1375$ vBytes
• BIP459 + Remove Witness Discount: $g(1,14,18)=1426$ vBytes

10.29% decrease

~50 kB JPEG Inscription (1 input with data, 1 dust output)

TX size:

• Current Rules: $f(0.25)=12594.5$ vBytes
• Remove Witness Discount: $f(1)=50096$ vBytes

397.76% increase

Let's put it into a table:

There is definitely a weakness in embedding arbitrary data

If we believe this to be true (and I do), what do you think is a reasonable response?

Activate Cross-Input Signature Aggregation and remove the witness discount.

This incident showed us that "don't trust, verify" also applies to the RNG.

No, because these blocks would be consensus invalid under BIP 110.

Sorry for your loss

#1537410

Anyone is free to correct me, but I have seen no reason at all to attribute this to AI fud.