JorgeHowardN0B

Ex-NSA Chief: 'We Kill People Based on Metadata' (2014)

DiamondJuarez40M

How do you think people (technical and/or non) can best contribute to or work towards improving/accelerating bitcoin advancement and improvement these days?

Said another way: what does bitcoin need most right now? What would you be building if you were starting today from scratch?

gaming

Seeing Through Stereotypes: Which countries SURPRISED you when you visited?

DarrellShieldsD8Q

I want to understand ordinals better. My node is still syncing so still limited by that, but interested in inscriptions and pixelart. 



Bitnodes showing large drop off of tor nodes

DevonStuartDYF

Michael you’re wrong on every point as usual.  Man, you hold a grudge 😅  Saylor was a guest at our conference and I wouldn’t set up a meeting for you.  Get over it.

For anyone new to Michael’s world, he’s literally walking anti-signal.

Stacker_Sports

Of course size limits would not be a problem if we had op_checktemplateverify. So why are size limits a problem for covenants on Bitcoin without a soft fork?

# Lamport Signatures

All of this on the heels of the development of Lamport Signatures being done in Bitcoin script which (among many other things) allows for spends of P2SH and P2WSH outputs to be quantum resistant

The Bitcoin OpTech newsletter about Lamport Signatures can be found here: https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2024/05/08/

# Covenants without a Soft Fork

Andrew Poelstra (a director, at Blockstream Research) commented in the mailing list:

>Another reason this is useful is that if you have a Lamport signature on
the stack which is composed of SIZE values, all of which are small
enough to be manipulated with the numeric script opcodes, then you can
do covenants in Script.

>(Sadly(?), I think none of this works in the context of the 201-opcode
limit...and absent BitVM challenge-response tricks it's unlikely you can
do much in the context of the 4MWu block size limit..), but IMO it's a
pretty big deal that size limits are now the only reason that Bitcoin
doesn't have covenants.) 

source: https://mailing-list.bitcoindevs.xyz/bitcoindev/ZjD-dMMGxoGNgzIg@camus/

But then, there you have it. BitVM might be the final piece of the puzzle

I will remind you why I care about covenants, CTV, LNHance etc. Its because of the possibility of LNSymmetry/Eltoo (in spite of the trade off of removing the anti-deterrence mechanism of justice transactions) and for Timeout Trees, specifically timout trees created by a multi-party channel "Pleb LSP"

Also, you can't do LNSymmetry with covenants alone, its just when you add op_checksigfromstack (CSFS) that you can.

"Size Limits are Now the Only Reason that Bitcoin doesn't have Covenants"

bitcoin

Hey there,

Have been running few nodes and always struggling to understand what's the best/secure/private/anonymous option to connect remotely to the node to perform some maintenance.

As `ssh` is not always available, have been exploring connecting to nodes remotely (outside the local network) with a Tor browser and also using the IP provided by TailScale

Any feedback on these two will be much appreciated or in case other options ara available please share your solution(s) below 

Thanks in advance