Whoa, heavy, dude.

Wait, gold??

So neutrino is just a protocol & client. The data stays on the bitcoin nodes the client connects to except for what is cached, so from the lightning node's perspective, it's the same amount of storage I believe, but you don't need to stand up a bitcoin node on the same machine. It's remote and it just needs a couple of config options to support neutrino clients. I'm not sure about the privacy preserving features that it has, but my guess is that it scans large sections of the node's chain when it needs to check on blocks related to a channel it's checking on. Not sure about long term concerns, but they can be mitigated by only putting what you're willing to lose, since the tech is fairly new.

Code is shipped with any device that contains processing units, so unless you can verify that the code only does what it's supposed to do, there's a basic level of trust that you have to accept. So then the question goes past just startOS. If they didn't have an OS and gave you a usb drive with all the linux packages that you could independently checksum, you'd still need to trust all the authors of the code that's gonna run on that machine, including firmware. So, you're right, they might as well include a copy of the blockchain, as long as you could reliably verify it. And people generally aren't going to be putting their life savings on these devices since they're hot wallets. An attacker isn't going to strike it rich before word gets out about the supply-chain attack.

Only Democrats can be socialists. Duh

I think for the same reason you can't just bittorrent the blockchain, even if you somehow trusted the source. You basically need to replay all transactions in order to rebuild the spendable state, so that you can verify future transactions. By randomly getting the blocks from different network peers, you're corroborating the integrity of what's being transferred. But there are proposed optimizations: https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/assumeutxo/

Seems like you could just spot check your chain and UTXO set though.

"No explanation. No warning. No justification. Only a github email notification."

That's not blame. He is describing the problem. Why are you defensive about this? You seem to know something about this problem.

Is it me or does this thing have a huge NFT vibe?

Apple "accidentally" leaks details about iterations that come out every 1-2 years. 😱

"Wuddya think of that B2 bomber flying over your head? That was pretty fun, huh? You probably never thought you'd see one of those so up close and personal, amirite right Vladdy-boy?"

Getting there. I've asked for this before, but the font is way too small. Can you please focus on that before any other UX improvements?

Yup. https://x.com/zoomyzoomm/status/1956141182754677084

Just updated iOS version and didn't see it. I'll definitely close my account if they start charging people without their knowledge.

I don't think Swan's a bad company. They've just made some bad decisions choosing partners, afaik.

This must be for the Vault (multisig) product, which Unchained charges $250/yr for. Their original service is still free if you auto-withdraw, which is the only reason many went with Swan to begin with. They're bitcoin only and they encourage self-custody. Where did you clip that from?

This is what I got back in June:

Another way forward is meeting in meatspace. Cyberspace will become less useful for social cohesion and collective efforts.

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.... and divide by 10 online. This is why (state-free) education will be critical as AI takes over more. Our bullshit detectors are going to be taxed.

Unfortunately these are all chock full of inscriptions.

Here's a consolidation of that retardom: https://mempool.space/tx/302746867b35c97ebfb7997e1cea5da44d46d6ff2db3a92c1653c4173f158c40

Well, that's one way to "fill up" a mempool

Thanks!

Oh man, was this painful. Molly White is a broken clock: right all the time when it comes to crypto and the political opportunism regarding bitcoin, but always wrong on bitcoin. Sorry, I couldn't resist trying to make sense of her backdrop:

Dave on no cap gains for bitcoin: "why would anybody stick money into a mutual fund if they could stick money into bitcoin and have weird upsides and no taxes?"

I bet this guy has a coinjar he takes to his local supermarket every few months. He thinks that the government should get a cut of the "weird" appreciation from a money designed to undo all the bad things government has done to money! Or he's just simping for his tradfi sponsors. Either way, he hasn't spent six seconds considering the morality of double taxation.