New design for importing a hot wallet

(you can also import using QR, BBQr, SeedQR or compact SeedQR)

This is how you verify your BIP39 seed phrase back up for hot wallets on Cove

https://m.primal.net/NASB.mov

Which covenant OP codes also give us better lightning, specifically back ups without the penalty mechanism?

All of them?

Last week, I finished the redesign of the new wallet flow.

Much nicer and unified. Really like the interaction to verify your words.

I’ll post a video of that later.

Redesigned sidebar, clean and easier to access multiple wallets

Redesigned the main wallet screen for cove,I think it’s much cleaner now.

The bluesky starter packs are a good idea for Nostr

Cove Send Flow

Cove Send Flow

That’s cool, I hope we see more bad but different ideas on nostr

Made a BIP329 implementation in Rust.

https://github.com/bitcoinppl/bip329

Which client are you using?

Packages for iOS (Swift SPM) and Android (Kotlin) now available: https://github.com/bitcoinppl/bbqr-ffi

nostr:note14pfnkr6yyeust6jywl4qnxjtp9kkt6w67ppwd6nz75exe9zxd0usrnnvm8

Why is bitcoin core taking so long to sync on RPI4 when the CPU usage is only 40%, and RAM is fine, and disk is not bottlenecked?

And HOOPP - Ontarios 3rd largest pension bought 10,000 shares.

nostr:note17v5mgjldzqkhtssvyjse0nk9sqzulp6mj96d8zc99pt5h7gxdj0sg4dvar

I don’t like foo,bar,baz in examples.

Context appropriate names make it easier to understand.

We should have a good nostr tracker and indexer.

Currently going through the gate er hype cycle on bitcoiners

lol bitcoin core has mentally I’ll trannies that love spam. And saylor is the bad guy for not wanting to them get more money. ?

While funding for open source in the bitcoin ecosystem is important, too much funding from the wrong sources can actually bad.

1. It can disrupt market dynamics and incentives

When projects receive large amounts of outside funding, it can mess with the natural market signals that guide development.

Instead of being driven to work on features and improvements that users and the market demand, developers may be swayed by the priorities and judgment of the funding sources.

2. It can lead to centralized control

Significant funding often flows through centralized organizations that then choose how to allocate the money.

This gives those organizations outsized influence over the direction of the project.

In Bitcoin, this enables organizations like OpenSats, HRF and others to act as “kingmakers” in the development space.

3. No one spends other people’s money as carefully

When spending money that was simply donated rather than earned from real customers, there is less accountability and efficiency.

Like government spending, the incentives for careful capital allocation are lacking. If developers couldn’t monetize their own work directly, maybe that work isn’t as valuable as they believe.

4. It can foster an entitled “welfare” mentality

Relying on charity from others instead of finding ways to independently earn a living can create an unhealthy dynamic.

To be clear, open source funding isn’t bad per se.

Funding that comes from those who directly benefit from the work, or from developers investing in themselves, aligns incentives well.

But when it morphs into an expectation of charity from third parties to subsidize developers as a public good, it veers into “socialist” territory.

Open source is a sacred cow in Bitcoin that deserves more scrutiny. Funding can be good, but we should be wary of over-funding or funding from sources with misaligned incentives.

In the long run, the open source projects that deliver the most value will find ways to sustain themselves through the voluntary choices of their users, not through guilt-driven handouts.