have no idea what covenants are, will read about it

URXO sharing also confuses me. is that an UTXO that can be spent by multiple pubkeys?

have to read more about lightning channels, they still confuse me

thank you for the information ⚡️

what changes are required in L1? would that depend on the L2 implementation (Lightning vs Liquid vs ...)

Share screenshot please 🙏

You enjoyed ICOs, NFTs and Ordinals right?

Well the next scams attempting to relieve you of your bitcoin will come in the form of "Layer 2 Solutions" that claim they solve bitcoin's scaling problems.

And you guessed it, they'll each have their own native token that they'll claim is necessary for scaling.

Which vibes? The filters don't cause forks whereas Ver deliberately went towards forking Bitcoin from the get-go. The proposed filters (I think we're talking PR #28408 here?) discourage 'spammy' behavior by applying arbitrary data stored in witness data to the same datacarrier rules as OP_Return. It's not even a new rule, it's an existing one

Maybe I'm not entirely familiar with fixthefilters, but those who wish to normalize arbitrary data on Bitcoin are closer to advocating for a fork because arbitrary data on Bitcoin has ALWAYS and should continue to be discouraged. (note: yet remain always possible) Nodes engaging in discouraged behavior are who causes the forks, the filters don't do that; Nodes running filters ultimately validates spammy blocks just fine too The filters just nudges the network to discourage spammy behavior one node at a time.(the network at present is one that encourages spam 😅).

At present (v26) there is no set of configurations to give users control on whether or not to relay transactions witness data containing arbitrary data because the txs completely bypass datacarrier checks. Users are without the ability to make the decision for themselves whether or not to relay these sort of datacarrier-in-witness transactions.

I agree that Users ultimately should build implementation like Core on their own. (Applying the patch is great homework assignment to do as the drama plays out.)

However as you undoubtedly understand, that's a journey down the road for those aiming to achieve further sovereign usage, hard to nudge the network in any direction relying on only them. In the meantime, shouldn't giving more users better control and responsibility over how they wish to interact with the network, a good thing? (As opposed to no control)

Some feel that the filters are futile, bad actors will always discover ways to circumvent them. Maybe the fears and concerns over an endless cat and mouse game over arbitrary data are legitimate, but does anyone truly believe the game around arbitrary data stopped at OP_RETURN? Bitcoin is software, a part of it could run better by fixing something that was overlooked, why is fixing it controversial? Isn't it only contentious to those who prefers a network that encourages spam? Aren't they the ones giving off the Ver fork-vibes?

I was replying to Skipper, not you.

I didn't buy Monero anywhere near the top of 2018, but you can imagine I did if it makes you feel better about your expensive surveillance coin.

How will you "preserve" something that everyone (specially the fascist state) knows how much you have, how and when you will spend? Property without privacy it's synonym of surveillance capitalism.

You're so mad 😂

We're not stopping you from using an expensive surveillance coin for transactions, incomplete privacy L2s with terrible sovereign UX, or custodial solutions. Have at it

It's not about profits or green candles. It's about sending a message.

You're the one who started throwing insults and seems upset. Sorry, Bitcoin is surveillance chain by design. It can't be good at everything. Trade offs exist in real life.

Red herring back to price (nothing to do with privacy)

Another non-sequitur price argument that has nothing to do with what we were discussing, Skipper npub12rrvutnfeu9677d4yjytypqccjn0njnm6zkx2j6xyn2uqfw02ldsrl8ty9

You can still use Bitcoin for long term hodling if you so wish, dingus. I'm talking about transactional privacy. They don't have to be mutually exclusive

Dude, no one is going to do that. 99% of users are going to re-use Bitcoin addresses and not practice good privacy habits. Privacy on Bitcoin is like trying to convince everyone a screwdriver is also great at hammering nails. Any sane person will just use the right tool for the job. You can still use Bitcoin to save if you want.

The last part is a flaw of Bitcoins' not Monero. Don't go in and out of Bitcoin. Spend Monero directly - problem solved.