benma

@NicolasDorier Setup an agent that monitors Bitcoin Core PRs and checks if they would break anything for you. You or it could then comment on the PR.

A breaking change AGAIN on Bitcoin Core wallet which made me waste time on fucking migration on a fringe feature I should never have supported on the first place... T-T

@zerosandohs @bourbonni @lopp @isabelfoxenduke If there was a bug discovered today that made all coins spendable by anyone, would you be in favor of a fix?

@bourbonni @lopp @isabelfoxenduke Lopp’s ideas and rationale aren’t the issue. He has done as good a job thinking this through as anyone. The problem is the principle of the matter. Deciding what happens to other people’s money. Some of us (me) see it as a grave sin.

Hay mucho ida y vuelta por la propuesta del BIP 361 de @lopp pero atentos que se están salteando algo La clave está acá y el lo explica en este podcast de @isabelfoxenduke en esta sección youtu.be/Q-0wSicRylk?t=… El NO está diciendo "Vamos a quemar monedas de satoshi". Sólo está proponiendo que a partir de un tiempo (eso será tema de debate sin dudas), las transacciones de direcciónes viejas (TODAS), sean invalidadas hasta tanto exista la fase 3 que dejo en la imagen. Eso en principio no requiere arbitrariedad de elegir ciertas transacciones y bloquearlas, deja básicamente un esquema donde todas las monedas podrán ser gastadas eventualmente pero hay que trabajar en esa etapa 3 para definir como sería y poner un timeline. estaría bueno que el foco esté en definir esa fase para que la misma básicamente se implemente en simultaneo con la fase 2

@coinjoined @BitPaine The basic assumption is that private keys are private, not public. Critical bugs ought to be fixed. > Consensus is functioning exactly as designed. Exactly: consensus is up to users.

Forging is the wrong word. A forgery would mean tricking nodes into accepting an invalid signature or permitting a double spend (re: zero op_return bug of yonder). In a QC scenario the network is still verifying a perfectly valid signature. Consensus is functioning exactly as designed. The issue is not forgery, but that the cost of deriving the signing key may have collapsed. That distinction matters because Bitcoin has never had, and can never have, a global state of how securely every holder generated, stored, or backed up their keys. The system cannot tell the difference between someone recovering coins after their HDD died, or cracking a forgotten low-entropy brainwallet, or someone who left a key on a Post-it note on their monitor or PsyQuantum using a future cryptanalytic breakthrough. All it sees is a valid witness. Would Saylor no longer be allowed to use a quantum computer to recover his own coins after a cosmic bitflip rekt coinbase? By what objective rule could the network distinguish that from an 'unauthorized' recovery? Respectfully, as an ancap slop enjoyer, your market argument overreaches. The existence of weak custody practices elsewhere does not make my coins less meaningful any more than someone taping their seed to a monitor changes the monetary properties of Bitcoin today. Bitcoin's security model has always been ruthlessly meritocratic: coins migrate away from negligent security assumptions toward those who protect them better. If a new technology changes the threshold of competent custody, the system adapts by repricing old assumptions and rewarding stronger ones. That is not the death of money but the same competitive self-correction Bitcoin has always enforced.

The real quantum debate won't be about whether the science is real, but about who claims the authority to invoke exceptional measures before consensus exists. What starts as a technical discussion of timelines and migration paths will predictably degrade into a political conflict between those who argue that the possibility of a future break justifies immediate intervention, and those who understand that premature intervention may be more dangerous than the threat itself. So the true fault line isnt quantum versus no quantum, but precaution vs. proof. The first "protective" move will likely be symbolic precisely because symbolism is how legitimacy is manufactured: a proposal to freeze long-dormant exposed coins, Satoshi's holdings, or other untouched early UTXOs - not because they are uniquely urgent, but because they normalize the principle of intervention. Once that, in my view disastrous, precedent exists, the question quietly changes from how do we migrate safely? to who gets to decide whose property rights may be suspended in the name of systemic defense. The quantum era will test Bitcoin less as a cryptographic system and more as a civilizational system of rules revealing whether its social layer can preserve neutrality under pressure or whether existential fear becomes the wedge through which dangerous discretionary governance enters.

@giacomozucco > pseudo-science Nope. Copenhagen and related views however are. > philosofically inconsistent No, why would that be? It's just an explanation of reality that makes sense, unlike the illogical hogwash related to duality or wave collapse.

@_benma_ Nah. Total pseudo-science, philosofically inconsistent, doesn't even derive Born rule. Qbism is the only logical interpretation.

That is, assuming statistical independence and single universe. Which are the only metaphysically sane assumptions anyway (superdeterminism and many-worlds are both retarded). So, yeah. This.

@thsottiaux @CodeEdison Emacs+magit for reading/reviewing/navigating is complementary to codex.

@CodeEdison I prefer Codex, but occasionally I also use emacs when I’m on the plane

As a dev, which AI tool do you think is best for coding?

@dathon_ohm For the lazy, I did this. Here is the quote: > While it is impossible to fully prevent steganography, limiting data sizes **ensures such abuses are non-contiguous** [...] The demonstration completely refutes this claim.

Anyone who thinks this demonstration somehow undermines BIP-110 has not read the BIP. It can be found here: github.com/bitcoin/bips/b…. Search for the word "steganography".

@giacomozucco Luke did stress at the PlanB Lugano panel that the bytes touching was the problem.

To be fair to Luke, "contiguity" argument, which I find completely idiotic, and which this transaction completely and definitely debunks, was never his main point. His main point was always "sanctioned by the community as standard", which he claim a large op_return standard by Core default mempool policy would be. Other BIP110 supporters stressed "contiguity" instead. There should be "sad Mechanic" instead of "sad Luke".

@coinjoined @hodlonaut Not that, but that people will lose their money by following that hopeless fork, like what happened to bcash and bsv victims.

@hodlonaut Or could it be that we care about plebs not getting their lightning node rekt?

If BIP 110 had no chance to succeed, they wouldn't be throwing temper tantrums. Let me repeat that: If BIP 110 had no chance to succeed, they wouldn't be throwing temper tantrums. And once more: If BIP 110 had no chance to succeed, they wouldn't be throwing temper tantrums.

@hodlonaut > BIP-110 opposition seems to be greed- and grift-driven. Greed in the sense that BIP-110 is destroying the value of Bitcoin? Then yes.

Maybe. But. BIP-110 opposition seems to be greed- and grift-driven. Bitcoin requires resistance to grifters. 🤷‍♂️

@Arthur_van_Pelt Have you not been here for the blocksize wars? This particular claim has been made and debunked on a daily basis back then. The quote you made has nothing to do with consensus changes whatsoever.

For those still in doubt: Adam Back is *certainly not* Satoshi Nakamoto. 😂 He's proving it here. Bitcoin's consensus model actually works with a democracy-like voting system to reach majority consensus, explained in the Bitcoin whitepaper section 4:

@stephanlivera @SimplestBTCBook @adam3us @hodlonaut Moving an involved custody setup to a new one can be a huge effort, especially if there is no alternative that is currently ready to use. So by simply continuing to use a current setup, one creates new UTXOs by making new change outputs, or periodic refreshes, etc.

@SimplestBTCBook @adam3us @hodlonaut That's not true, see Kevin's explanation - there are presigned schemes and things like taproot miniscript where users can have funds frozen. Some of those UTXOs don't 'exist' yet but the user can still end up in trouble if bip110 activates x.com/KLoaec/status/…

Do you really think Knots/BIP-110 is an attack on Bitcoin @adam3us? A bigger one than Ordinals even? Wanting to stop spam and grift on Bitcoin is a «bigger attack» on Bitcoin than spammers and grifters exploiting a segwit/taproot hack to fill the chain with JPEGs? Are you for real?

@digispud @lopp Usually they try to get you to enter your seedphrase in the fake website/app.

@lopp What happens if you click the button? Surely the BitBox won't accept unsigned firmware.

Nice try, scammers!

@giacomozucco @KLoaec @stephanlivera @kretchino @darosior @nunchuk_io @bitcoinKeeper_ @AnchorWatch @rewindbitcoin Not always. Sometimes engineering a branched version is not worth the effort, risk, UX complications, etc. Current tooling does not optimize for this euther, e.g. the Rust policy compiler will create Taproot leafs with OP_IF inside.

@KLoaec @stephanlivera @kretchino @darosior @nunchuk_io @bitcoinKeeper_ @AnchorWatch @rewindbitcoin Would you agree that, entirely disregarding BIP110 (which I oppose for other reasons), it would be in general more elegant to use branches instead of op_if for tapscript condition?

For context, for the 110 fork people: Miniscript uses things called fragments. Some of these fragments use op_if, that your fork disables for some reason. A user defines what their wallet should be, for example "a 2-of-5 multisig". Miniscript will output a Bitcoin Script (a wallet basically) that is the best and safest way currently known to do this policy in Bitcoin. Disabling an opcode that is very much a building brick for safe Bitcoin wallets is dumb, but also has a big engineering cost on: - the engineers who build the Miniscript engine - the devs that implemented it, in Core and in multiple libraries like Rust-Miniscript - wallet devs - wallet users who may unknowingly have such a policy. This cost cannot just be denied or ignored by "there is a 2 weeks window" it'll take a lot more than 2 weeks to do (took 3 years to get Miniscript anywhere), and users may be impacted without knowing so. Bip 110 is all about virtue signaling and ignoring real costs on the ecosystem, including potential loss of coins for users who did nothing wrong, just used a good wallet software.

@craigraw @SparrowWallet Indeed, BitBox support for SP predates this BIP. We'll need to check if our DLEQ proofs are compatible or need to be adjusted.

@_benma_ @SparrowWallet See the next post in the thread - afaik BitBox02 doesn’t support BIP375?

Sparrow v2.4.0 released with: Send to silent payments hardware wallet support Address display chunking Wallet discovery for USB hardware wallets Codex32 support Trezor Safe 7, Ledger Nano Gen5, Keycard and Keycard Shell support sparrowwallet.com/download

@SparrowWallet Which hardware wallets specifically? Does it work with BitBox02?

This release adds support for sending to silent payment addresses from hardware wallets via BIP375. As the output address is calculated from private keys secured in the device, Sparrow verifies a DLEQ proof provided in the PSBT to ensure that the calculated address is correct.

@nic_carter > We want to be making slow careful progress now, so we can mitigate tail risks well in advance. > slow careful

You guys hated it when I made this argument, how about longtime Bitcoin dev Ethan Heilman? Just another fudster?

@stackhodler > Not saying you need to become a stock picker, It is stock-picking though, which is a very risky thing to do. Pointing to some stocks that outperformed BTC does not help. They might as well have failed. Bitcoin is different to stocks and does not have the same kind of risks.

This will be very unpopular. But at least 3 of you will get value from this, so f*ck it: Many Bitcoiners would benefit from swapping a single belief: Replace "selling Bitcoin is a moral failure" with "My family's financial security and quality of life is my investing priority" If you're experiencing anxiety, malaise, or heart palpitations because BTC dipped into the low $70K level... It's because you hold a core belief that lead you to be in that position. Take full responsibility. Because that's the only way to improve. A lot of Bitcoiners saw posts from people that were getting cautious on BTC in August / September / October Momentum was clearly stalling despite the best news imaginable... But their belief system made them ignore the warning signs. "Everyone's bearish" "They're just dumb bears" "they don't understand Bitcoin" "so and so says we're going higher" But if their core belief was "my job is to protect my family's capital" they would have been far more likely to consider the possibility that Bitcoin would drop down to $72K And they may have sold enough where they would actually be pleased to see $72K The guy whose belief system told him to sell between $98K and $114K isn't having heart palpitations right now - he's licking his chops at the idea of scooping up cheap Bitcoin. Or maybe he took profits on BTC in August and allocated to gold at $3,000 / oz Now he's up 66% in five months instead of being down 40% over the same period. All because his belief system guided him to the best opportunity for his family. When BTC crashed in 2022 it hit me way harder than it should have. I had millions in BTC and my belief was as strong as any bull. But my priorities were aligned more with BTC than my family, and my expectations were misaligned with reality. So I suffered. My biggest realization from that period was that I was putting way too much attention, focus, and personal identity into something I had zero control over. For some people, riding through a 70% drawdown is a point of pride. A badge of honor. "I don't have weak sissy hands like you" Great. I'm happy for you. I've been there and done that too. But personally I'm no longer interested in playing that game. Do I wish that the world would move to a Bitcoin standard because it's a fairer system that can't be as easily manipulated? Yes. But my first priority is to be the best father, provider, and protector I can be. Bitcoin isn't my God, it's merely a tool to help my family. And like all tools, there's a time and a place for it. You don't have to be all-in on Bitcoin. There are other real, non-shitcoin opportunities out there. There are legitimate equities that have absolutely smoked BTC over 5+ years. $CCJ (uranium miner) and $POWL (electrical infrastructure) and $WPM (precious metals streamer) have all outperformed BTC over the last 5 years with very simple, easy to understand theses. Even physical gold has outperformed, with way less volatility. "but you're cherry picking timeframes!!" Not really. $CCJ and $POWL have outperformed BTC since 2018 (!) Not saying you need to become a stock picker, But if your goal is to multiply your capital there are opportunities out there for those who look You identified Bitcoin. You can identify other opportunities too. If you allow yourself. And if you want a more passive approach, then some diversification (gold, cash, AI/energy/commodity related equities) may or may not help you outperform BTC... But it could help you become a healthier, happier version of yourself during Bitcoin bear markets. Bitcoin is finite. But your time is deflationary. You don't have enough time to be living like a shell of yourself because of something that's entirely out of your control.

More than 10 of my bitcoin friends got hacked in the past month. All had 2FA enabled. It didn’t help. Here’s how they almost got me too 👇 HOW THEY FOOL YOU 1️⃣ Someone from your contacts messages you to schedule a call. This is already a stolen account. A friend who got scammed before you. 2️⃣ They send you a calendar invite first. Then, right before the call, they send a Zoom link. At a quick glance it looks legit. The preview looks identical to real Zoom. The trick is subtle: the hostname and subdomain are swapped. This is the fake Zoom link they sent me. A real Zoom link would have those two words around the dot swapped. 👀 https:// zoom (DOT) webus05. us/j/47369507762?pwd=7kiAzRm6PNBvNFdBBEY04cr6LLzHPk.1 Easy to miss, even if you know what to look for. Especially when it comes from someone you trust. 3️⃣ The fake Zoom app looks flawless. Perfect copy of the real Zoom UI. No red flags. 4️⃣ You immediately see your friend on video. This is NOT A DEEPFAKE. It’s a recording of your friend from seconds before they got scammed in the previous session. That’s why it looks perfect and trustworthy. HOW THEY GAIN CONTROL 5️⃣ The fake Zoom app says your audio is broken and asks you to update. 6️⃣ The update “fails” and you’re shown a command line troubleshooting guide. ⚠️7️⃣ If you paste that command into your terminal, it’s over. You just gave the attacker remote access to your computer. HOW THEY ROB YOU 8️⃣ The malware they install remotely is simple and runs fast. It takes one or two seconds. It usually does two things: A) Scans your computer for bitcoin wallets and steals access. ⚠️B) Steals session cookies from chat apps. This is how they bypass your 2FA later. ELI5 SESSION COOKIES When you log into Telegram on your laptop, you enter your password and 2FA once. Telegram then saves a session token on your computer so you don’t have to do it every time. That token is basically: “Yes, this is the same person who gave you the password and 2FA earlier.” When attackers steal it, they present it to Telegram, which sees it as a valid session and lets them in. So they don’t need your password or your 2FA code. THEY ARE YOU. If someone gets access to your computer, you’re done. At that point, it’s just damage control. MY GOLDEN RULE Life is short and beautiful. No client call is important enough to mess with command line troubleshooting. Be lazy. Be safe. PS: unrelated, but we just launched Braiins Hashpower. On-demand bitcoin hashrate. Try it. It’s awesome. Like ice cream when you’re 12 😁

The BitBox Marmorera-Update is now available! ✨ This update contains security updates, let's you change your device password without fully resetting the BitBox and improves self transfers. Find out more about the new update below 👇