I didn't mean that in the sense of anything negative, I mean you don't need to wonder about anything that complicated. The NFT/shitcoin stuff could just use some other much cheaper chain or whatever.  They don't because reasons that I discussed upthread-- sidechains wouldn't help those reasons, they'd hurt. The value to the shitcoiner is that it's expensive to make their tokens.


I'm glad you asked that-- I hadn't seen any of that discussion and I totally get why you find it concerning.

You're missing context:  Petertodd's pull request points to this mailing list post: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ/m/mJyek28lDAAJ  So no anonymity.  And why Petertodd?  Because it's simply a reintroduction of a pull request he made previously:  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130   Petertodd just copy and pasted his older change-- kind of the obvious thing to do when someone has submitted a change before that you think should be made now is to ask them to resubmit it.

(also jesus man, can Petertodd not manage to say anything without somehow causing drama? )

As far as citrea: they already make "fake address" outputs.  I don't see how the change *benefits* them, it would however make their traffic less harmful to Bitcoin which seemingly they'd prefer.  Though apparently these transactions only happen when their channels fail or something it's an exceptional and not frequent case for them so not terribly important.

And you can see from the fact that it's been proposed before that citrea is not the driver of this.  Maybe from Petertodd's perspective it's what triggered someone to ask him to try again.  But the reason that people support it (including petertodd) isn't limited to or even related to that triggering event.

And FWIW.  I learned about this whole thing via drama on reddit where people were posting saying Coredevs wanted to turn bitcoin into NFTs/Shitcoins, which is pretty ridiculous.  I'd personally never heard of citria and commented in support of this change before even learning what it was... because it's pretty obviously the right thing to do, and I think that's probably true for many other people.  I don't know enough about it to give an opinion on it. I understand it's supposed to be a payment channel thing, which is good, but a lot of the recent ones of those have a shitcoin.  I haven't checked if it does, 'cause a good change is a good change even if a piece of shit likes it.  (and you *have* to adopt that perspective, or otherwise enemies can harm you by liking things that are good for you )

So from my perspective this is a change that is massively overdue.  And the thing that has changed over time that matters is that now large miners are reliably accepting unlimited opreturn via direct submission, have been doing it for a long time, and are clearly not going to stop.  That differences changes the filter from net-neutral or somewhat net positive to net-harmful.
 

For the record, this pull-req wasn't my idea. I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs instead of OP_Return, due to the size limits. And yes, that's the thing that has changed since.

I noticed SORA $XOR trading on Bitget and gaining more attention. I would just like to know how SORA project would execute further milestone

nope
in the december.2010 he says some bitcoiners will become tyrannical and want to keep blocks small with lame excuses of wanting it to be available on small devices wheree those types of lame excuse idiots were thinking holding back tx counts for those idiots to have bitcoin on a phone would mean more people would get to use bitcoin(sorry but no thats not how utility works)
back then there was not really a "lite wallet" so now in 2022 people trying to use the excuse of keep the full nodes small vi block limits and pruning has meaningless lame reasoning. because phone users can just use a lite wallet instead


the debates(s) were also about including more bloated data unrelated to bitcoin transfers. where people wanted to store library books and domain registries on the bitcoin blockchain. he was simply stating that other data does not need to be pumped into bitcoin blockchain and also that bitcoin can grow for bitcoin utility. while people have separate networks for the other data and find ways to cross communicate when purchasing domains without the need for the domain details to bloat up bitcoin

so imagine if instead of say gold mining which costs about $900/ounce of labour, diesel, sluice machines, loader tricks and diggers..
where market rates are about 1.5x speculative bubble factor of underlying cost(value)
where gold have only ever reached a 2x factor in the last couple decades


imagine if gold could be mined in someones back yard for just $1 an ounce.. using a spoon and coffee filter paper

do you think gold would remain at a market rate of speculation of $1700

well
Ethereum just changed its mining underlying costs
https://i.imgur.com/tIwxtCH.png

from over $940 to under $35

i will let you discuss how much of a X multiple 'speculation bubble factor'. the market should remain at

enjoy the thoughts..

oh slight hint.. expect ethereum price to continue to decline until it corrects to a good value new low

It was in my list when it was open source wallet, then they decided to change source code to common clause + mit, that is not allowing anyone to use their code.
EVerything started after Foundation Passport wallet came out that used thier code, but it is superior device in every way, with open source hardware and software.
ColdCard is still ok hardware wallet to use, but I just don't like direction it is going and their owner NVK  is ego freak and hypocrite.

You can always buy hardware wallet in your local area and pay with cash, some devices are even sold in Best Buy, but there is always alternative of ordering online to PO boxes and using alternative personal information, temp email and phone number.
But if you are going down this path than you should do this for every other purchase you are doing online, not just for hardware wallets.
You can also make your own open source DIY signing device like SeedSigner (using Raspberry Pi) or using ESP32 devices to do something similar.
Here is one list of devices you can check out:

• Trezor DIY Wallet
• PiTrezor DIY Wallet
• Specter DIY Wallet
• SeedSigner DIY Wallet
• Krux DIY Wallet

There is nothing wrong with that option, you just need dedicated laptop and you use it only for crypto, and flash drive can be used for TailsOS.
Only advantage of hardware wallets and signing devices is smaller size and easy portability.[/list]

Why do you go from dismissing Ledger to considering a paper wallet? Trezor has not had Ledger's problems, they delete data after a certain time and they are open source, so they are a better option.[/url]