Avatar
Big Barry Bitcoin
0d97beae567fcec9c6574f1c6ef6126ea969d4992c3198e51c0fac52c5274a14
Big Barry Bitcoin - Bitcoiner, pleb, developer, enthusiast, 👎💩coins Check out my nostr blog! https://big-barry-bitcoin.npub.pro/

Does that even work? Doesn't tor create its own tunnels between nodes?

I like that there is more thought about giving the recipient what THEY want.

It does require the recipient to advertise their preferred mints, but it improves the trust element of ecash payments.

Another concern I have had in the back of my mind is the idea that ecash is good for service credits. If the ecash that the service provider accepts is their own, then you're really paying them up front. It means that I'm not paying micropayments for streaming Netflix for example, I'm just using the credits that I bought.

The only way to solve against this is to create dual-trusted mints, I. E. MasterCard?

Honestly, I don't understand the problem. Either you are talking to a bot and then you realise but there is no harm done, or you recognize a bot and get annoyed but then block them and continue with your day, or you interact with a bot and it starts asking for personal details or tries to get you onto another platform like a telegram channel, or it asks for your seed phrase... Things you should not give to a bot OR another person.

So honestly, I'd like to hear real stories about what people are experiencing so we can catalog it and understand what the problem is.

Saying "how can we identify bots" is like saying "how can we identify nostr users who have blue eyes?" Like 1. You can't, 2. Why do you want to filter them anyway?

If we treat bots and people the same, then the question becomes: how can I protect myself from scammers (which I THINK is the real question)... That's an answerable question but still difficult to answer until we have case studies.

Now include people who don't hate calle. Idiots too?

Just type a hidden message, choose an emoji and copy the emoji at the bottom and paste into a messenger or Nostr client.

If you want to hide ecash, then you need a cashu wallet and you need to figure out how to get a text copy of a cashu token. It would look something like:

cashuBpGFteCJodHRwczovL21pbnQubWluaWJpdHMuY2FzaC9CaXRjb2luYXVjc2F0YXSBomFpSABQBVDwSUFGYXCCo2FhCGFzeEA4MWNjZWY3NTEzNThjNmMzMTliNDViM2YyOWRhYWJiYTVhMmUzNzkyZWRlZjNkYzdlNDlkZjEzODdjMTdmMGJjYWNYIQKoNeORI9H1y74S6WpbSFuL-4Zsw3J4eXUBq7tZKBXw_6NhYQRhc3hANjQzNmU5OTQyNTM2NDA1Y2Q0ZmJjOGI0YTNkYTk2ZTYxZmM1NDRkNTg1YzM0NjA2NDNhOTExNGRiNTVhYzIyM2FjWCED7ckF-gPbUgvI1ztUP2WvbjDsmGc0dPMNTcrWRaGlOQdhZHJTZW50IGZyb20gTWluaWJpdHM

Use that as the secret message and now you have ecash hidden in an emoji 👍

Replying to Avatar salvatoshi

Some updates on OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY:

- BIP draft: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1793

- bitcoin-core concept implementation: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32080

- Delving post: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/op-checkcontractverify-and-its-amount-semantic/1527

In the new post on delving, I delve into the amount logic of CCV, something that has somewhat evolved since the initial posts.

I argue that while scriptPubKey checks are just equality checks this transaction-wide logic is preferable, and it's difficult to replicate it otherwise.

However, while the amount logic is not difficult, transaction-wide checks present some implementation challenges, because of multi-threaded Script validation in core.

Solving this seems to be necessary for several possible soft forks (CCV, VAULT, TXHASH, CISA), but even just to implement batch validation for Schnorr signatures, which is an optimization available today.

More details in the PR.

As usual, you'll find all the links at https://merkle.fun.

I look forward to your comment and ideas.

Sad that #Nostr (or maybe just #Amethyst) doesn't support Phoenix Bolt 12 addresses yet.

Replying to Avatar salvatoshi

Some updates on OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY:

- BIP draft: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1793

- bitcoin-core concept implementation: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32080

- Delving post: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/op-checkcontractverify-and-its-amount-semantic/1527

In the new post on delving, I delve into the amount logic of CCV, something that has somewhat evolved since the initial posts.

I argue that while scriptPubKey checks are just equality checks this transaction-wide logic is preferable, and it's difficult to replicate it otherwise.

However, while the amount logic is not difficult, transaction-wide checks present some implementation challenges, because of multi-threaded Script validation in core.

Solving this seems to be necessary for several possible soft forks (CCV, VAULT, TXHASH, CISA), but even just to implement batch validation for Schnorr signatures, which is an optimization available today.

More details in the PR.

As usual, you'll find all the links at https://merkle.fun.

I look forward to your comment and ideas.

Thank you, will bookmark this and read ASAP. 👏