pull down to refresh
583 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 30 Sep \ parent \ on: All the other stuff happening in Bitcoin bitcoin
I think it may be a subjective response.
First of all, many BIPs don't change consensus rules, many don't even change how your node runs. A great example of this might be BIP 39 which is how we got mnenomic seed phrases rather than long strings of base58 characters. No one is forced to use BIP 39 seed words -- some wallets still don't (notably Bitkey and Muun). But I think it's fair to say BIP 39 has led to some useful things in Bitcoin.
In the above list, a great example of this is the BIP proposal for Standard Encrypted Wallet Payloads. This BIP suggests a scheme for encrypting your wallet descriptor and labels with your private keys so you can safely store this important information in less secure environments and so you don't have to keep track of two pieces of info in order to recover a wallet safely.
Does this BIP change Bitcoin? I suppose in the sense that many wallets will likely adopt it. But I see this as a pretty good thing. Improved usability that doesn't require consensus change sounds great to me.
Another example of a BIP like this is Craig Raw's BIP 329 which proposes a standard for wallet label data. This is an excellent change to how Bitcoin wallets work. I don't see it as a threat in any way.
Other BIPs do change Bitcoin consensus. An example in the above list is Rusty Russel's Great Script Restoration proposal. In this case though many of the changes are actually undoing changes that other people (Satoshi) did earlier in Bitcoin's history. Do you consider changes Satoshi made as "not changing Bitcoin"?
Finally, I'd note that there are currently almost 200 numbered BIPs in the Bitcoin repo. This doesn't mean they are all accepted or activated or widely in use. But at least 70 of these BIPs are in their Final or Active state, which means they have seen fairly wide adoption.
As far as I can tell, Bitcoin is doing what it has always done which is continue to change as more and more people come to use it.
Matt Morehouse (author of the Eclair disclosure) has a few other issues on his blog (LND, CLN, LDK...):
Whatever...
Anyone that has mined has probably made a profit from "spam". This is dumb.
I hate spam but this purity test nonsense is juvenile. This moralizing of an amoral market based incentive based system is really lazy. One man's spam is another man's art. If I were king of the world a LOT of art including music would not exist. There is a certain arrogance at play here.
I'm pretty sure this means Graphene security patches become not-open-source until about 3-4 months after they actually release them (correct me if I'm misunderstanding this).
These are strictly Android's upstream patches, not our patches or any code that we create. We only have access to these through a new OEM partnership. They're simply an opt-in for people who want to benefit getting all of these patches the moment they are made, rather than waiting for a quarterly release like every other Android OEM / distribution will do. If you don't want to run embargoed code, then you'll just wait like everyone else / how we used to wait for patches before this month.
Standard GrapheneOS is completely open source and reproducible. This is simply a separate addition to a standard GrapheneOS install and that's why the first boot will give you the choice to do so. We recommend security patches for obvious reasons.
We openly call out people to try and download our update packages to reverse engineer them and review any changes. People can make their own code which standard GrapheneOS and other Android distributions can get earlier. We have source code access but we cannot disclose it ourselves.
What we do and any additions we make are totally open source and will remain that way.
Udi can be such a champ when he's not trolling, shitposting or posting reflinks to FTX. More of this?
I have one note:
this is the magic of zk proofs and we don't need to get into how it works.
I'd argue that no, we really do need to get into this if/when this is ever being pitched outside of the scandal circuit of course.
Not a great day at Steak & Shake. None of the workers recalled anyone paying with bitcoin. On the other hand, one of them said they wouldn't really know how people pay at a self serve kiosk. There are no human order takers. Also, one employee was very interested in learning about bitcoin, so we had a good, long conversation about money, inflation, the US dollar, and a low key orange pill session.
Perhaps the most disappointing thing was that my qr code code got cut in half.
That meant I was
Ineligible to win a labubu
There is no justice.
What do you do when a co-author who is supposed to give a full review of a manuscript draft comes back with 3 typos, and then, complements it with: "Additionally, I am attaching below an AI generated critical report which is clearly biased, yet can give some guidance on points to be improved if possible at all at this stage. Apart from those substantial improvement suggestions that we cannot incorporate right now, the manuscript seems to me keeps a good standard as is.".
Yet, when you read the AI-report, you realize neither the AI, nor the co-author has a clue of what is actually being conveyed in the manuscript. If the author had read the paper, he'd have realized all the "substantial" improvement suggestions are just garbage.
There is no shame anymore. #AIslop
Building your own block template is a great opportunity to filter out transactions.
Glad to have independently written something similar this morning for a much smaller audience.
Also GREAT point about the bitaxe - though last time I discussed bitaxes with a mining service provider they laughed me out of the room:
But I have to believe that
they that laugh last... otherwise might as well pack up.By increasing the size of OP_RETURN, we enable criminals to insert illegal data
The premise of that line of thinking in Vlad's thread is false from the start. Changing the default policy in Bitcoin Core isn't "enabling" any new behavior, it simply makes the existing behavior (via modified -datacarrier settings or custom clients like Libre Relay) standard so that users of larger OP_RETURNs can expect timely confirmations, which are required by some L2 designs.
For the people worried about the legal implications of relaying illegal images embedded in transactions, are you also worried about relaying transactions from US government sanctioned addresses?
No, but if this does become a legal issue, then it has broader implications than just bitcoin. Everyone running a box on the internet that other people's bitcoin data packets flow through could be implicated. INAL but this is probably already protected under the law somehow, since people have been using the internet to do crime since forever.
The steelman case for not calling out the personification of AI is that we can't prove that we ourselves aren't just pattern recognizing fill in the blank machines....
.... right?
There are also very oddly human behaviors, like how asking it to spend more time reasoning can often lead to more wishy washy, harder to understand, less helpful responses.
Among the top 10 Cowboys in October last year
#711722
Now...
- @siggy47
- @k00b
- @Undisciplined
- @grayruby
- @BlokchainB
- @Coinsreporter
- @Public_N_M_E
- @WeAreAllSatoshi
- @Aardvark
- @cryotosensei
- The list didn't/don't include hiders.
Who lost the hat among top 10?
Lots of "drama" over someone being taken back in due to literally violating their terms of release by circumventing monitoring.
PS:
vxunderground on Twitter/X is a clickbaiter for those sweet sweet X engagement moneys. Lots of things are taken out of context, always highlighting the drama, to get paid. I don't understand why people on nostr would copy this crap.That's because it's no longer a conversation. It has become a pissing contest. @jb55 just said to someone on nostr "enjoy your shitcoin fork, retard." Come on. I respected this guy for years.
If we do not impose any additional costs on people trying to use bitcoin as a general-purpose database, such use will absolutely drown out payment use cases, especially merchant Lightning nodes which, at the moment, are bitcoin’s most important payment use case.
What a retard. Empty blocks are being mined, how could he possibly reach the conclusion that these Bitcoin database users are "absolutely drowning out payment use cases"?
Alby... Next time please make the announcement on SN and post the SN link on twatter...
That is the RIGHT way to do it.
first ever SN shirt replica
Originally printed by Lightning.store
- 🌐 worldwide shipments
- All in ⚫ graphite and ⚪ white ivory
- 🛡️ No data retention
- 🟠 Bitcoin-only payments
Now available at https://agora.ftp.sh/product/vintage-lngtstore-stacker-news-t-shirt/
1065 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 27 Sep \ parent \ on: Why people leave nostr (and SN?) nostr
You didn't say it expressly. I inferred from your focus being on how to improve the adding side of the inequality rather than reducing the churn side.
In academia, we often break down retention problems into a bunch of different stages at which people are lost and try to analyze each step separately to see where the most promising margins are. SN is much more fluid than a university but a similar approach might be useful.
- How many people make an account but never post/comment/zap?
- How many people make just a few posts or comments but don't get much engagement on them and don't continue interacting?
- How many people make a lot of posts and comments immediately but then drop off?
- How many people become regulars with high trust and many posts or comments over a long period of time but then drift away?
These may all be different issues with different fixes and likely some are responsible for far more losses than others. Getting a sense of where the losses come from is the first step of figuring out how to improve retention, though.
RAM is a bigger bottleneck than storage for node runners
I had no notable issues with a
dbcache of 4GB on an Odroid M2 I sync'd and ran earlier this year, even though it didn't have the whole utxo db cached. It does have NVME and good controllers though - so that may help not having issues with loading from disk. Oh and I'm supposed to get that RPi 8GB delivered this Saturday, so I'll have a go at setting it up and doing IBD with it - so I'll keep you posted on that. Either way, if it works on the Odroid, it should work on the Pi, so it'd be at best a coding issue.I don't have much to say about how filtering at the relay level disadvantages small miners
Back of the envelope math, anyone do correct me if I mess up somewhere:
If you have 8 slots where you randomly connect to peers and 20% of the network filters txs, then you have... .00025% chance to have every slot filtered, and thus 99.99975% chance of having at least 1 non-filtering peer. So in theory it sounds fine. But how many of these peers are actually capable of delivering all txs to you? 10% of the non-filtering part of the network? Let's do the math again:
8 slots, 8% desirable peers, gives you a 49% chance (instead of 57% if no one were filtering) of having at least 1 desirable peer.
This implies that it's not an immediate problem, especially since your node will disconnect malfunctioning or slow outgoing peers, so you have infinite tries and most nodes will eventually find a good set of peers (that won't work for filtering peers right now though); this is one of the things that has been engineered pretty awesomely over the years. But ultimately, when the % of the network that is filtering grows, this could become a problem: it is a forward-looking concern.
DARE: who can write the worst thing ever to be printed on stacker news zine
time is running out fast for Issue #27 classifieds, you've got 3 hours
to write the worst thing