pull down to refresh
135 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 31 Oct \ parent \ on: Review of Jimmy Song v. Peter Todd filters debate (Plan ₿ Lugano) bitcoin
I agree.
We can better account for the costs of certain types of transactions, e.g. use of the UTXO set. But we fundamentally can't stop people from publishing data with Bitcoin. Indeed, the entire reason why Bitcoin works at all is because PoW proves that transactions were widely published, ensuring that double-spends (if they existed) would be seen and rejected.
That's exactly what my OFAC point was getting at. The end-point of what the pro-filter crowd wants is dynamically adjusted blacklists. Which is exactly what the pro-OFAC crowd also wants.
They're the same thing.
Nah, actually that was the result of a lot of prep.
The thing to remember here is I was scheduled to go second. Doing a big pre-prepared formal statement in that circumstance is something I really dislike in a debate like this: my role is to respond to Jimmy. Hence why I tried to get him to nail down what he actually meant by "spam", so I could respond appropriately. Which is a strategy that has worked well in other cases for me. But in this case I really threw off the moderator.
The way I (and many like me) prep for this kind of debate is to go over the likely arguments from the other side and 1) come up with responses, 2) make sure you have the facts memorized. Jimmy repeatedly made basic technical mistakes; he either clearly did not do #2 properly.
Fundamentally an error I think a lot of people are making here is treating this like a highschool debate team. I'm not trying to win points in a scored debate where rhetoric matters more than facts. I'm trying to actually sway an audience. It looked like slightly more people agreed with me on the end than before, so on that basis I'm happy.
This is definitely out of date. There's no way migrants are getting from Moscow to Kyiv right now...
My comment on Twitter:
Not good.
Anyway, the only ethical option for Signal if this passes is to refuse to comply. Signal shouldn't even block the EU: let the EU block them.
It should be the only legal option too: implementing Chat Control is a crime against humanity. The US should explicitly criminalize compliance.
One crazy thing about Chat Control is that Signal is heavily used in Europe for military communications. They're proposing to backdoor the exact same system that they rely on for national security.
The EU bureaucrats pushing this are just psychopaths who want more power.
This is why I use Qubes on all my laptops and desktops. Qubes basically let's you do everything in separated VMs. So I do all my web browsing in disposable VMs, completely separate from the VMs I use to write and maintain code.
This isn't an insane move. It's a calculated, rational, plan to keep on escalating to split NATO apart. If successful, Russia will demonstrate that Russia can attack NATO countries without actually triggering a real response, paving the way to actual ground invasions.
Russia wants Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, etc. Unless we respond with force to attacks like this, Russia will eventually win.
Secondly, all these drone attacks are collecting intelligence. These drones are not one-way deals. They all have satellite and/or cellphone communications (e.g. with SIM cards) back to Russia, allowing Russia to collect intelligence with each flight.
It's disappointing that Signal is not going to allow you to use your own backup server. Better than nothing. But I'd rather use my own.
Better to wait until this is actually announced officially you know. The tag is a last step. But mistakes can happen and it's nice to give devs one last chance to check things over. It also gives time for deterministic builds to be done.
211 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 31 Aug \ parent \ on: You wouldn't give your mom a UTXO - Niftynei privacy
Awesome!
Though a critical detail: when you close the channel, what do you do with the 1% or so remaining? I personally like to donate it to charities.
Also, do you make a new node each time? Your node identity should ideally be new each time.
If India wanted to stay out of this they'd stop sending money to Russia and calling Putin a "friend".
Russia’s crude volumes for exports have jumped in recent weeks, as Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries have crippled Russia’s processing capacity.
This is the key thing to understand: Ukraine has knocked out about 20% of Russia's oil refining capacity. So they're exporting crude oil instead at low prices. Prices so low it's still worth it for India to buy.
The situation is bad for Russia, good for Ukraine, and for now, good for India too.
In the long run its likely that Ukraine will cut off this supply to as they run out of refineries to blow up and move to other targets. That will be bad for India. But the onus is on them to stop supporting Russia.
Taproot didn't change anything meaningful from the point of view of someone who wants to publish data. The limits on P2SH are already plenty big. You just need to add more inputs if you exceed those per-txin limits, which doesn't significantly increase the cost.
In 2021, an unintentional bug shipped with Taproot (but not connected with Taproot itself) defused one such filter (datacarriersize) for some txs.
This is fundamentally wrong.
I posted a separate article explaining why: #1196553
tl;dr: -datacarriersize was never intended to stop all types of data containing transactions. It was obviously impossible to do that. And in the same release — years prior to taproot even existing — we added that option, we made it possible to embed data in scriptSig: essentially the exact same way inscriptions embedded data.
Leave Taproot out of this.