111 sats \ 0 replies \ @moneyball 19 Apr \ parent \ on: Stop Calling It MEV · BlueMatt's Blog bitdevs
Yes, correct. Small miners would need to rely on 1 or a handful of entities that were specialists. This would be a very strong centralization effect on bitcoin and would effectively create permissioned bitcoin mining as you'd need to register with one of these entities in order to be competitive as a miner.
Then, these handful of entities could effectively dictate the rules of bitcoin in the future and censorship-resistance would be lost.
Hard to see how bitcoin would have much value if only a few entities had this much power.
111 sats \ 2 replies \ @moneyball 18 Apr \ parent \ on: Stop Calling It MEV · BlueMatt's Blog bitdevs
It is when a miner needs to pay top developers to develop software that maximizes fee revenue from transaction selection. Versus using free open source Bitcoin Core.
The benefit of a phone over a laptop for many people is that they only own a phone.
Also, phone's are far less likely to be infected by malware than a laptop.
So there is a capital gains tax event incurred? (at least in jurisdictions where there is a tax event when selling/swapping an asset)
Or, possibly server-as-a-screen allowing any other software app/device to act as the display. https://bitkey.build/screens-are-not-a-panacea/
An important addendum: Based on early feedback, allow me to clarify. I'm not suggesting redefining open source. A better way to frame it is open source best practices.
Sure working in open could apply pre-initial launch or post-initial launch. I think the latter is more important for a sustainable project that serves as a public good.
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @moneyball 19 Dec 2023 \ parent \ on: What does it mean to be open source? opensource
Agree reproducible builds should be added to the list of best practices.
There are ways to use HSMs to allow users to verify server-side builds matches the open source code, although I think only conceptually. Would love to see this done in practice so we can learn from it.
DEMAND pool supports Stratum V2 and is available today. https://x.com/bitentrepreneur/status/1730350206317703648?s=12
Self custody is a spectrum. At one end of this spectrum is the 100+ page Glacier Protocol. But of course few humans have the patience or dedication to successfully implement the Glacier Protocol. So many early bitcoiners have opted for a Trezor or Coldcard because of a superior UX over the Glacier Protocol. But I don't hear people criticizing those products because of their relatively poor security to Glacier. That's because people recognize UX can lead to better overall safety.
Designs like Bitkey are further along the spectrum offering tradeoffs to what we're accustomed to with existing hardware wallets. There are definitely benefits. Two of the biggest are:
-
It avoids opening pandora's box with "what to do after I write down these 24 words." Most people either don't take protection of that backup seriously enough or they do recognize how fraught with risk it is and decide not to self custody because they're worried they will mess up. This is completely avoided with a design like Bitkey while still maintaining self sovereignty of funds with the Break Glass option.
-
It also has superior recovery options. Again, many people who have actually become convinced to self custody (after fiascos like FTX) still fear doing so not because they're worried about theft but they're worried about making a mistake themselves. The recovery options in the Bitkey design are substantially better than anything that exists in the market today.
I fully expect many aspects of the Bitkey design to be copied in other products in the market, elevating the self custody experience for even more future self custodied bitcoin users.
Agreed on scaling but I interpreted the OP question as to whether the self custody UX is for anyone and yes I think we will get there soon.