Bitcoin Core’s GitHub exists to allow contributors to contribute and build good software. Sure, banning people who show up with no intent to contribute creates drama elsewhere, but “are you preventing contributors from contributing” is a pretty clear line. If people can’t stomach that, that’s on them.

Honestly incredibly excited that Bitcoin Core folks are finally more strictly creating an environment where contributors can focus on code rather than letting things get bogged down in stupid drama. This is incredible news for Bitcoin.

Huh? TXHASH is way more understandable - you have some flag bits and you hash those parts of the transaction. CTV is a very specific version of that and you have to understand whether it’s the “right” one.

> First is that CTV is relatively way more mature. Been around for a while and hasn't changed much since. So it can be adopted fast. TXHASH still has quite some room for bike-shedding.

This seems like a pretty bad reason to decide on a specific soft fork that we’re committing to for decades, at least when the second option isn’t like crazy complicated and would require a five years of work to “finish”.

> While TXHASH is way more flexible it's also an order of magnitude more complex, mostly code-wise. Needs quite some caching etc, so the code is far from trivial.

Honestly this doesn’t seem that complex? Some tx hash caching already exists so adding a few more cache entries seems…. Incredibly doable?

Honestly these seem like incredibly weak reasons (not saying they’re not the reason, just that if they are, we should choose a different path).

Forks in general have substantial cost by their nature. If we’re gonna do one to add features for these types of applications, it seems worth doing one to add Features for these types of applications. Just because one is a restricted version of another isn’t a strong argument to prefer it (unless the other is unreviewably or unusably complicated, neither of which applies here)

For a dev? Not really, CTV is a special-case of TXHASH, if you want CTV you can use that mode.

In the abstract, sure. But specifically in this case? The whole point of CTV was it being “not recursive”, but with CSFS it kinda is, and more importantly no one seems to actually want to avoid recursion (and now it’s not even in the BIP).

Is there a reason why people are pushing CTV currently over TXHASH? It seems like the second is strictly more flexible and I haven’t seen a reason why we should prefer not-that. Maybe nostr:nprofile1qqs2nep2pjnwfvfqszytdzj06eq8fqd3yps0j9dqlm95ezr524lrwjgpzfmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82cspr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqvgfg4m ?

Not sure which you’re specifically referring to. I’ve spoken and promoted at length about it, eg on Marty’s podcast and at Bitcoin 2024 in Nashville.

You absolutely cannot start from scratch here. I mean if you have like a trillion dollars to burn hiring engineers, buying equipment, and creating process nodes that you throw away maybe? But even then you’re probably better off just acquiring Intel and then driving their process nodes to leadership.

Isn’t this better done with BOLT 12? That way a sender/responder could make the payment and include proof-of-payment in the same note as the comment itself. Anyone can trivially verify the proof of payment by looking at the recipient’s profile and there’s no need to have multiple notes flying around for one comment.

I didn’t say it was likely, said it was the only path to having a fully domestic chip fab. TSMC absolutely manufactures a good bit in the US now, but never the absolute latest generation, and for political reasons isn’t likely to change that.

Packet loss, but it’s a general complaint form.

For Americans, I cannot recommend the FCC complaint form enough. Fill it out and suddenly your ISP will harass *you* to get your internet issues fixed.

Chipfabs specifically is a question of being bleeding edge. There are a lot of chipfabs (including some post-fab processing) in the US (they’re high value-added goods, we manufacture a lot of those in the US!). But it’s fierce competition between Intel and TSMC. So to get Intel to be dominant it’s mostly a question of fixing bad leadership at Intel and making sure the best engineers want to work there.

lol that’s not true, China imports a ton for their electronics, but more importantly, you can’t start from zero, if you want people to manufacture you either have to dump a few hundred trillion into factories (which we don’t have the manpower or supplies to build, doubly so since they’re now tariff’d lol) or be willing to import low added value goods so that you can build the high added value goods.

Not particularly oversimplified, no.

Because the tariffs are also on raw materials and parts, making it unreasonably expensive to manufacture things in the US. If the tariffs were only on fished goods or strategic industries that might be different.

I appreciate that finished electronics are now tariff-exempt as it ensures no one would ever dare dream of trying to build electronics in the US, and luckily they don’t have to!

I wish I had some bad news to announce cause man this week would be a perfect time for it.

Gonna end up kicking out everyone named Muhammad. Horrendous for long-term competitiveness of the country.

nostr:note1suxlsa8c0f94nt4t6zmznkullr2wkn2rd05ujvw3nrjt2927sgpqjenzde

Turns out Taproot is great for post-Quantum in Bitcoin. https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/8O857bRSVV8