I added a self-signed, self-hosted url, hopefully works better for tor/vpn access: https://census.labs.yonson.dev

Oh dang, that’s unfortunate. Thanks for the heads up. I’ll see if it’s a setting on the bucket and re-host if necessary.

It’s just hosted on a GCP bucket so I assume so? I’ll try to kick it a bit later today to make sure not an issue on my end though. Let me know if you want me to add anything to it in the future though!

Hmm, I’m not seeing the “spend bitcoin”. Maybe state dependent?

nostr:npub1art8cs66ffvnqns5zs5qa9fwlctmusj5lj38j94lv0ulw0j54wjqhpm0w5 impressed by your patience

https://github.com/TheCharlatan/kernel-node

This flow works for the Q or mk4

open water bitcoin

Is this cause the socks connections don’t have to be encrypted or something?

Ah ok, more to learn. I wasn’t aware v2 required new firmware.

Why v1? Does it not make sense to use v2 if even just for the encryption?

First time watching bluey with my kids now and wow the feels

There are other impls, but the rust bitcoin guys generally want very few external dependencies. Plus this impls interface is kept small, just what the bitcoin use case requires.

I gotta frame this

Next up notedeck package 👀?

Always panic a little when I see the block height represented as 3 bytes. What will we do in 300 years when I am long gone??

Yea, just making sure I understand the problem. I agree in general that pow appears to still be lookin for a second use case.

I was thinking a user id (if one exists) would make a pow at least only useable for one user.

If the PoW scheme requires the user to commit to some user id in the hash, would that satisfy specialization?

What’s wrong with PoW?

Been a bit since I looked into it, but I was thinking of these expansion ports which all go to usbc instead of being like, directly connected to a motherboard (I assume, not actually sure if that’s right): https://frame.work/marketplace/expansion-cards