I have tried nostr on and off for many years.
It's time to try again.
Relay list refreshed, LFG
Only the higher bid
Stops transactions not desired
Silence your protest.
If you can write down 12 words you can enter 99 real dice rolls.
That said, tools which allow you to enter dice rolls should prevent you from accidentally entering too few rolls and generating an insecure seed.
The instructions are simple.
1. Enter 99 real dice rolls.
2. Optional: First enter 99 dice rolls on the signing device AND a tool like BitcoinQ_A's seed tool to check they match. IF they do match, RESET the signing device and enter 99 NEW dice rolls ONLY on the signing device (and NOT on any other device).
If you do the optional step of verifying you can sleep well at night without wondering whether the device random number generation was random, without needing to verify both the firmware and the hardware.
What about Coldcard, I read that users lost funds?
Although Coldcard is not FOSS you can view the source code to see exactly what the bug was and how it was fixed.
There was a warning since the dice rolls feature was added in 2019, but users could (and did) override this. https://github.com/Coldcard/firmware/blame/5527d5b399c4056089ab97363e71aaaa4ae53ae6/shared/seed.py#L343
An Enforcement & Distribution Check was added with firmware from v5.1.0, 2023-02-27 which is available only for the MK4 https://github.com/Coldcard/firmware/commit/2bbe27fa52e940bfef2a0a42b290c23e2d93b6db
This is not a hypothetical problem. Here is a very unfortunate example of a user who made the error of ignoring the warning screen, which resulted in lost bitcoin. IMO fixes like this should be included in firmware updates for old models unless there is a technical limitation which makes this impractical.
Before bitcoin core v0.7.0 the default transaction selection algorithm was to pack transactions sorted by transaction priority, where priority was equal to the coin age (in blocks) multiplied by the spent value, divided by the transaction size.
The default policy also set a minimum transaction fee that increased as the space in blocks grew closer to the blocksize limit.
What software / services in use today rely on the immutability of txids?
Fee Rate over the past 6 weeks
1 day rolling average
14 day rolling average
2 Year View & All Time View
Good job you didn't panic and consolidate at high fee rates over the past 6 weeks.
What is your favourite bitcoin wallet, app, product or service which leverages Bitcoin Timelocks?
Out of band payments to miners are the market mitigating an inefficiency which exists as a result of policy rules which are (rightly) designed to protect nodes from DOS attacks.
Personally I am very supportive of bitcoin developers efforts to resolve these inefficiencies in a decentralised way. I also think that there are often advantages afforded by centralised systems (which of course come with trade offs), which can be leveraged by those who opt-in to using them.
Without the need to make onchain transactions there is the potential to fee bump awkward transactions (which can't be bumped easily by other means today) without overpaying. Examples of such awkward transactions include;
- geographically separated multisig where the signing process may take many days / weeks from start to end
- channel close transactions with a fee rate below the purge rate
- tx's sent from wallets without RBF/CPFP tooling
Past and current transaction prioritisation tools leave much to be desired;
- opaque fees and terms
- limited access for users and miners / pools
- private acceleration bids (prior to confirmation) meaning counter bids cannot be made
- private acceleration fees (after confirmation) making it hard for miners in pools to audit whether out of band payments are being collected
I believe that a transparent alternative is possible with
- clear fees and terms
- wider access for users and miners / pools
- public acceleration data for both bids and fees
Because I believe this I am working to help deliver
@Mempool
Accelerator, which I hope will demonstrate that such a radically transparent alternative is possible.
The block audit feature was the first step in this journey, providing bitcoiners with the tools to detect likely OOB payments, including those made by mempool.
If you have a specific use case for Mempool Accelerator i'd love to hear about it.
email orangesurf at mempool dot space
matrix orangesurf:bitcoin.kyoto
TBH we are shocked!
We have a winner. Being sure no one will recognize @ledger
Stax mockup, we gave a hint. We were sure @dorjwa
will not be recognized. We thought @coolwallet
is going to be a challenge...
We thought our 21M sats were safe 🤣
All three answers were pretty damn close but...
We have a winner. 21M sats goes to nostr:npub1edej30zsgmmla78cmd8q7k4x8ff22ny8w8pvzqln6q0h2h9udneq32fwey . He was the first that provided the complete list of brands and models.
Congrats to nostr:npub1edej30zsgmmla78cmd8q7k4x8ff22ny8w8pvzqln6q0h2h9udneq32fwey who we ask to confirm 21M sats are in his hands... whoops - wallet.
Thanks to all vendors who we forgot to ask to participate sats.
1) @OneKeyHQ Touch
2) @Ledger Nano S
3) @BitBoxSwiss BitBox02
4) @dorjwa Model T
5) @dcentwallets D'cent
6) @isafepal S1
7) @cryptokeepkey
8) @ledger Nano X
9) @FOUNDATIONdvcs Passport 2
10) @coolwallet S
11) @SecuXwallet W20
12) @Ledger Stax (dummy)
13) @Trezor Model T
14) @Blockstream JADE
15) @BCVaultOfficial
16) @dorjwa One Plus
17) @ledger Nano S Plus
18) @ellipalwallet
19) @trezor One
nostr:note18kmp77rvprqyc0v2ym0eykk7fpx4qe786k423flwz8969w3xct3sqap90p
Ackchyually.... it's the D'cent Biometric
With wallet vendor
1) Onekey, Onekey Touch
2) Ledger, Ledger Nano S
3) Bitbox, Bitbox02
4) Dorj, Dorj T
5) D'CENT, D'CENT Biometric
6) Safepal, Safepal S1
7) KeepKey, Keepkey (Original)
8) Ledger, Ledger Nano X
9) Foundation Devices, Passport (Batch 2)
10) CoolWallet, CoolWallet S
11) SecurX, SecuX W20
12) Ledger, Ledger Stax
13) Trezor, Trezor Model T
14) Blockstream, Blockstream Jade Hardware Wallet
15) BC Vault, BC Vault ONE
16) Dorj, DorjOne-Plus
17) Ledger, Ledger Nano S Plus
18) Ellipal, ELLIPAL Titan 2)0 Cold Wallet
19) Trezor, Trezor Model One
How good are you at recognizing HARDWARE #WALLETS?
Would you bet you know all of these below?
We bet 21M #sats, that no one recognizes them all from this image until 6/1/24 10PM CET.
We’d bet 21M #Bitcoin but we don’t have them, sorry :)
Rules of THE Game:
How to win #sats by guessing the name of the wallets?
a) Everyone can participate. Name them with numbers, like 1) wallet vendor, wallet model, 2) wallet vendor, model… 19) wallet… etc, like they are numbered on the image.
b) The game is live on Nostr and X: https://twitter.com/DaKript/status/1743380806288990627
c) The sats will be zapped on Nostr
d) The max reward is 21M sats or 0,21 #Bitcoin and can be won in the first 24 hours after publishing the post. After every 24h reward is halved as there will be less and less HWWs to guess.
e) Hints: 1 hint will be given on day one. Every next hint halves the reward even further. Hint is given when at least 3 contestants request for it. We will publish an image with names of guessed wallets here and there.
Have fun.
🤞
1. Onekey Touch
2. Ledger Nano S
3. Bitbox 02
4. Dorj T
5. DCENT Biometric
6. Safepal S1
7. KeepKey (Original)
8. Ledger Nano X
9. Foundation Devices Passport Batch 2
10. Coolwallet S
11. SecurX W20
12. Ledger Stax
13. Trezor Model T
14. Blockstream Jade
15. BCVault (One)
16. Dorj One Plus
17. Ledger Nano S Plus
18. Ellipal Titan 2
19. Trezor Model One
Current bitcoin fees in the context of historic rates.
Unsolicited advice for bitcoin wallet developers, push your code to GitHub before pushing a release to app stores.
Calling all ordisrespectors / filter enjoyoors. In the interests of understanding your position here is my best effort to steelman why new bitcoin core policy rules should be updated to 'filter out spam'.
If you are an ordisrespector please add comments where you think missed something.
1. Bitcoin was intended for financial transactions, not arbitrary data storage.
2. The demand for arbitrary data storage is essentially infinite.
3. Spammers who want to use bitcoin for arbitrary data storage have deep pockets to pay for high fees.
4. Because of 1 & 2 & 3 active measures are required to stop the scarce blockspace being filled with non transaction data.
5. Bitcoin core policy rules can easily be updated to filter out specific types of current 'spam transactions'.
6. Most people run the latest bitcoin core with defaults.
7. If bitcoin core policy were to be updated in a new release the majority of node runners will update
8. If the vast majority of nodes update (7) it will be hard to relay 'spam' to miners over the p2p network.
9. Miners won't make enough extra revenue accepting out of band 'spam' transactions to make it worth their while.
10. Most of the 'spammers' will give up and move to other chains or stop
My opinion is that changing bitcoin core policy will not achieve your desired objectives, and I will reply to this thread with my thoughts on each of the 10 points once I have some feedback on whether this is a fair steelman.