40 sats \ 7 replies \ @DarthCoin 22 Apr 2023
So Matt wants to give more credit to Faketoshi...
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @TonyGiorgio 22 Apr 2023
No. This is related to stopping things like AOPP.
reply
13 sats \ 0 replies \ @0260378aef 22 Apr 2023
That's a bad reason to make a decision about Bitcoin, but ...
I suppose that, since this is not consensus related issue, it's much more just a matter of debate/choice in terms of what you choose to put into your software.
I think the ability to sign over funds is pretty useful, and it will definitely always exist even if it's not in Core, so it would be better for Core to either (a) do it really well and safely, to set a standard or (b) just to define it as out of scope but not (c) say that it is "bad" or "harmful". Uses of it can be harmful, but it is not.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 22 Apr 2023
I agree with you. The devs from Core are corrupted?
I think we can replace with BIP-322? We've already until PR open!
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 22 Apr 2023
Maybe just Matt going sideways. He didn't sleep well. Sleep deprivation could affect the brain really hard.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 22 Apr 2023
Good point :)
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @ursuscamp 22 Apr 2023
This seems like a thing that could easily be an outside tool, not necessarily a part of Core.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 22 Apr 2023
Make sense
reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 22 Apr 2023
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27515#issuecomment-1518506467
What he said.
Can't do proof of control of keys without message signing.
reply