PakoVM

If you are new to Bitcoin, let me give you a tip:

@GregTonoski The tenth rule of the sub might be a clue as to why. Maybe they need to update the title from "con tentious hard forks" to "contentious forks that can/will cause a chainsplit".

- Why do moderators delete posts about Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 in this reddit r/Bitcoin? - This post has been removed by Gregory Maxwell 🤡. reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comm…

⚡ 4 DÍAS ⚡ En 4 días arranca la @bcc8333 🔥 Aquí va un recap del lineup de talleres. 13 workshops, todo hands-on. Esto es lo que te espera: VIERNES 29 🛡️ Watch guard Defense for cold wallet — live demo with @we_satoshis ⚙️ @fedimintdev workshop con Oscar @oz_21m ⛏️ Massive Virtual Mining con @oomahq --> Montar un nodo minero (con foco en privacidad) con Stratum server, exponerlo a internet y alquilar hashrate. 🔨 Pleb Mining hands-on con @BitMaker_ de @BitronicsStore 🔫 Simulación práctica: robo bajo coacción y recuperación de #Bitcoin con @rewindbitcoin. Imparte @landabaso 🔍 Am I exposed? — am-i.exposed — Analiza la privacidad de tus transacciones con... speaker sorpresa ;) 🖥️ Hands on, un PC bitcoiner con @ChavoGnuGrowers 🧰 @BitBoxSwiss hands-on con @PakoVM SÁBADO 30 🔩 Nueva versión de StartOS y novedades de @start9labs este año, con @The_Cryptosquid 🤝 @vexl P2P hands-on with @ViliamKlamarcik 🔥 Minería doméstica con @N21PoW ⚖️ Residencia y LLC en Próspera con @fserer 🔪 Corte de carne durante la BBQ con @Bebop2077_ ---------------------- 📍 29 y 30 de mayo en #Barcelona Cold wallets, mining, privacidad, soberanía, nodos, P2P... No es teoría. En los talleres vamos a tocar, romper y construir. No te lo pierdas. bcc8333.xyz

@Greevilr @GBCLopi @abc_es Si no puedo darme de baja entonces por más que sea privado no es un libre mercado. Es el gobierno que obliga a que tenga el servicio.

@PakoVM @GBCLopi @abc_es tambien estas obligado a aportar al sector privado aunque esten robando a manos llenas. Y antes de que hables de libre mercado, intenta darte de baja de tu distribuidora electrica.

🔵 #OPINIÓN | Menos Estado, menos corrupción 🗣️ La corrupción no se ataja multiplicando los vigilantes, sino reduciendo el campo de juego en el que esa corrupción es siquiera concebible ✍️ Juan Ramón Rallo abc.es/economia/juan-…

@robin_linus @BitcoinBombadil Robin thinking these people actually want to listen lmao

@BitcoinBombadil Covenants substantially improve pretty much every scalability solution including Lightning, Ark, Statechains, and more.

TEMPLATEHASH + CHECKSIGFROMSTACK = LN Symmetry #THIKCS #bip448

@pobremillenial ¿Y como vas con el tema de sponsors?

Hay muchas membresías en substack. Desde que la IA se ha democratizado cualquiera escribe. Pero ¿sabes lo que tiene valor? Crear una comunidad y en la mía el chat de la parte de pago luce así. A diario.

@4moonsettler @theonevortex @brian_trollz It servers the purpose of censorship resistant, neutral money, and it does that incredibly well for me, that's all I need from it.

@theonevortex @brian_trollz if it serves no purpose, then it's not enough.

"Bitcoin isn't playing out the way I thought it would." "People aren't using Bitcoin how I thought they would." "Bitcoin isn't [whatever] enough." Bitcoin doesn't belong to you.

@rodolfo861 @LundukeJournal Sorry man, I stopped speaking "all my apps are a keyloggers" and "non-standard init scripts fucked my system startup" like 8 years ago.

@PakoVM @LundukeJournal Yes, yes, like with Rust, adapt to the trend or perish, except that Wayland is full of bugs and incompatibilities; it depends on the system and for some it goes hand in hand with other less pleasant things like the ID request.

Is Flatpak, the Linux packaging system, getting ready to drop X11 support and implement hard requirements of Wayland and systemd? It looks that way. Flatpak 2, aka Flatpak-next, “removes all prior legacy tech, X11, init systems no one is using.” This according to Jorge Castro, Head of Ecosystems at the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (part of The Linux Foundation), who presented on the topic at the Linux Application Summit this last week. When asked for clarification on if this means the “Flatpak 2” will require systemd, the Linux Foundation representative stated, “Are you serious? Of course.”

@matthewvuk2 @notgrubles @stutxo @getAlby Are we getting Second as part of Alby instead of having to run the whole node? 👀👀👀

Received 100 sats over bark NWC at the schitnzelhaus with @stutxo (it’s albygo btw @getAlby )

@BitcoinErrorLog Bro you are gonna love Bcash so fucking much.

The things we do to pretend layers are not just zero-conf txns are much worse than if we had just kept the first-seen mempool policy. Hundreds of millions of dollars burned at the altar of RBF.

@Loic_Pandul >generate a fresh address each time Amazing you can't see this is horrible UX.

> "SPA just solves address reuse when receiving." "Solves", as if no solution existed before and reuse was the default, when Satoshi himself said back in 2008 not to do it ^^. There was nothing to solve in terms of privacy, only in terms of UX. The fix already existed: generate a fresh address each time. SP just make that convenient. > "Why are people crying" I'm not crying. I wrote a post to help users understand what's going on and avoid mistakes. What exactly is wrong with that? If you have counterarguments, or if I got something wrong, I'm all ears and happy to change my mind :) > "expecting it to solve other problems that it doesn't" It's the opposite. I'm not asking SP to solve anything extra. I'm pointing out what they do and what they don't, unlike the original post, which can mislead people into thinking SP = better privacy.

Mettre en avant les SP pour justifier une amélioration de la confidentialité sur Bitcoin est un raccourcis trompeur. Les SP ne sont pas une amélioration de la confidentialité, mais une amélioration de l'UX, du confort d'utilisation, appelez cela comme vous voulez. En effet, ils permettent simplement d'utiliser Bitcoin tel que Satoshi Nakamoto le recommandait déjà dans le White Paper, cad sans réutilisation d'adresse, mais sans avoir à générer et communiquer une nouvelle adresse de réception à chaque fois. Le BIP32, proposé en 2012, avait lui aussi notamment pour but de faciliter l'utilisation d'adresses vierges, en simplifiant la manière de sauvegarder un wallet. C'était également une amélioration d'UX, et personne aujourd'hui ne dirait que les wallets HD sont directement une amélioration de la confidentialité onchain. Ne pas réutiliser une adresse de réception, c'est effectivement la base de la base pour protéger sa confidentialité, mais ce n'est pas suffisant. Si vous recevez 10 000 sats sur l'adresse A et 10 000 sats sur l'adresse B, puis que vous les utilisez toutes les deux en input d'une même future transaction, la CIOH s'applique (une autre technique d'analyse de chaîne décrite par Satoshi dans le WP) et un observateur externe peut savoir que ces fonds appartiennent vraisemblablement à la même personne. Donc il ne faut pas croire que, parce que vous utilisez les SP, votre confidentialité onchain est parfaite. Elle est exactement au même niveau qu'avant, si vous preniez déjà soin de générer une adresse vierge manuellement pour chaque paiement entrant. C'est juste de l'UX, et c'est cool, je ne critique pas les SP, mais il ne faut pas les présenter pour ce qu'ils ne sont pas. Je ne vais pas relancer le débat BIP47 vs SP. Selon moi, les deux n'ont pas les mêmes cas d'utilisation. Les SP sont plus optimaux pour les donations uniques et les paiements ponctuels. Le BIP47, lui, est plus adapté aux paiements multiples vers une même entité, ou bien dans un marché de frais bas (à cause de la tx de notification). Cela dit, il est vrai que les plus gros producteurs de réutilisation d'adresse de nos jours ne sont plus les utilisateurs particuliers. Ce sont les exchanges. Et pour les exchanges, le BIP47 est sûrement plus adapté. Si vous souhaitez comprendre en détail comment fonctionnent les Silent Payments, je vous mets ci-dessous le lien vers le chapitre dédié dans ma formation.

@maxtannahill @noosphere888x2 @adam3us Don't you need to put the secret to decode the upcoming addresses into an op_return, which an output, thing you can't create unless you spend some bitcoin?

@PakoVM @noosphere888x2 @adam3us Why are people so confident giving their opinions on software they haven’t used?

> Stealth addressing has been in bitcoin for 10+ years. > Sparrow wallet has had it for almost 4 years. > Sparrow adds 2nd method that requires additional server and no wallets use How is this a privacy improvement?

@drivechainz @adam3us @Vladcostea @gladstein @HRF @fedibtc @blksresearch @Blockstream There's no leader in Bitcoin, so it is impossible to tell when it is coming. If you want CTs natively on Bitcoin you will have to propose and build consensus around the proposal.

@adam3us @Vladcostea @gladstein @HRF @fedibtc @blksresearch @Blockstream When is any of that coming to Bitcoin? You only built CT for Liquid, then Monero and Grin took some of the research and used it (ringCT, Bulletproofs++, Dandelion++). Virtue signaling about research is nice. But when are we gonna make that useful?

I used to look up to Gladstein Especially after his 2019 keynote at the Magical Crypto Conference He seemed to understand what’s going on Even wrote a few decent articles about the petrodollar and why bitcoin makes the world fairer Great virtue signaler, extremely bad tech evaluator At this point, I am not even sure if he’s actually that dumb or he’s an evil shill for half-baked privacy technologies in which his foundation invested

@noosphere888x2 @adam3us Then don't, most people won't either, they will just connect to their hardware wallet's node and if they offer that service then great.

@PakoVM @adam3us It doesn't actually require that. Even if using that route, gives sybil/dust resistance, helps with easier recovery, & reduces computational load. Would rather not waste my CPU, bandwidth, and computer resources.

@maxtannahill @noosphere888x2 @adam3us You can have a SPA without having any Bitcoin previously, you can't do that with the txfirst approach.

@PakoVM @noosphere888x2 @adam3us The on chain transaction actually has benefits as far as I’m concerned although it’s definitely possible to eliminate. SP doesn’t represent “improved usability”, just different trade offs.

Simple: I want to send you money --> We take 2 of my UTXOs and 2 of yours --> Mix them together --> You get one UTXO that includes your amounts + what I sent you, I get one UTXO to a change address that amounts for the mix - what I paid. It all looks like a consolidation and only you and I know exactly who paid who and how much. Mix this with SPA and it is a powerful combination.

@PakoVM @murchandamus Thanks. I'll take your word for it. I'm a retard when it comes to Payjoins. So, I'd need to understand that better!

“Address reuse” refers to a malpractice in which a receiver is paid to the same output script multiple times. When such associated UTXOs are spent in separate txs, it suggests that all inputs of those txs are owned by the same user (common-input ownership heuristic).

@noosphere888x2 @adam3us Payment codes requiere an on-chain transaction first, SPAs don't. Absolutely any computer can run Frigate, and the thing is not getting less optimized.

@adam3us User have already had this ability with payment codes. How is this improved usability?

@lifofifo @murchandamus Not exactly, this is just but a step in the right direction. Next step is making Payjoins V2 the default, maybe even Payjoin V3 if they come into production. We can upgrade Bitcoin's privacy via client side implementations such as these.

@PakoVM @murchandamus Yeah, I agree it's "nice to have". Just seems to be made a much bigger deal than it really is, and doesn't privacy in true sense. If we want real privacy, we would need upgrades.