Quote from: satscraper on Today at 08:09:57 AM

Hmm, the only way I see pgp key related to curve25519 becoming compromised is if it’s exposed to the public. Sure, the method of storing the encrypted SEED on blockchain isn’t for those who don’t care about their sensitive information, like private keys, SEEDs, etc., and end up spreading them around. However, responsible users can still use it as long as they take proper care of the relevant pgp key. At least I know one person from Russian local who uses it. He himself came out publicly about it.

You sadly didn't get my point, let me reiterate. I don't remember the exact time period when this happened, so ignore any errors regarding exactly when this occurred. 20-30 years ago people thought the exact same thing about the PGP keys of that time. They thought the key technology of that time would be secure for a very long time. They engaged in direct conversation using public servers, even sharing personal secrets to each other via PGP messages. All these messages were stored, and fast forward into the future it turns out that the keys from that time are no longer safe. Eventually somebody deciphered them all.

The point is, that even if you use the best PGP key derivation scheme it is secure according to what we know today. However, once you store this information on the Bitcoin blockchain it will remain permanently there. If you do this you could run into the same situation that people have already experienced in the past. It is best not to store crucial information in a permanent and public data storage. Don't get me wrong, the risk is really low but I don't like to encourage newbies or retail to engage in things that they barely understand at all. I have not met one retail person who understands PGP, different keys and potential risks of using it. I have met a few who know how to use it.

Quote from: Mia Chloe on September 16, 2025, 08:01:41 PM

It is actually supposed to be a kinda strategic effort to encourage data storage to shift from more harmful methods like those used by Ordinals to a less harmful one.

The argument against this is that the incentive is weak and completely irrelevant to a malicious actor. If they want to spam the UTXO set to damage the Bitcoin blockchain with bloat, they will. People who are against OP_RETURN are not convinced at all by this incentive. While I am not necessarily on their side, this is one argument that I am strongly convinced by. We should work on ways to make the bloat expensive or impossible, not try to persuade bad companies with weak incentives.

Quote from: Mia Chloe on September 16, 2025, 08:01:41 PM

In the end the only real risk of a temporary increase in activity might be a new marketing trend and not really a fundamental technical shift.

Very wrong. Nobody knows the real risks of the future. That's why some advocated for a gradual increase.