Odd, not sure what’s up. Looks to be working on my end.

I’m getting up to speed on it. Not sure what to think yet. At present, it looks like Steve is using the patent to protect people (upstream customers) being sued by Cursoe under a patent they filed. But definitely a situation that merits watching. Defensive patenting is a legitimate strategy, and for now, that seems to be Upstream’s play against Crusoe.

Full disclosure: Distributed Hash & CryptoCloaks filed a joint patent on using shrouds in a large scale (not home) mining environment. For the same reason, so that someone can’t try to patent it and block us and try to cover home use too. (Home use is disclosed as a prior art use in our application)

I fully expect to be held to account if we misuse it.

#[0]​

Ace-er-iss or arse-er-iss.

Whatever works for you 🤷‍♂️

It was a throwback to my online gaming days, and was intentionally designed as kinda hard to say.

Glad you liked the poem/limerick though!

Hey #[0]​, I know you love poison bean juice, and you love to support LN enabled companies. Have you tried #[1]​? Great poison beans ☕️, LN payments, direct from El Salvador 🇸🇻.

#[2]​, zap him!

That looks strongly like a fat-finger, so not the best example. But you are correct, there are examples where an organic fee market caused this:

https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000131d1df9ba77969ffef2f003a6d42d16765541e808d1df

The Cardinal.

Reply 🤣. Could be cool.

Actually, I’d say that pursuing Apple would be a horrible idea, since they have the power to totally crush him. But yeah, he can ignore it and eventually be unable to sue them due to the statute of limitations passing. (Ongoing infringement could be actionable, or blocked by latches, depending on tons of things). But that’s only with respect to Apple. It doesn’t stop him from trying to go after others.

Also, I’m not so familiar with UK law, so unsure of what will be the impact in that country.

This is not the case for copyright, at least in the US. You do lose patent, trademark, and trade secret, for failing to defend, but not copyright. One loses the right to collect damages against parties who infringe too long, but not new parties. (Except if there’s a case that could rise to the level of creating a latches defense, but that’s different than losing the right, and is pretty unique).

That said, CSW is fraudulently claiming copyright, so it’s a moot point with regard to him.

I have access to some machines still running 10.13.6, and it doesn’t seem to be present on that version. Anyone able to check 10.14?

Wait, wait… what’s an anti-griddle for then? 🤣

1.5x? Those are some rookie numbers.

I think it will be, once Dusty’s splicing gets fully implemented. Not sure if it’s possible now.

Signature Bank didn’t hang itself.

If DST is peak fiat… the fact that pretty much everyone wants to get rid of it, but can’t agree on how to actually do it, is like staning on the peak with a selfie stick.

It’s a game changer to be able to have a censorship resistant communications channel.

Inscriptions Update:

199209 (as of block 778,528):

Paid 57.46₿ in fees

Used ~3.3GB

In 3898 blocks (~879.3kB/block)

With an average fee of 28,842丰

(10.9丰/vB & 75% < 15.0丰/vB)

The average size was 17.2kB, (75% < 14.8kB)

Yeah, you have to adjust it in settings. I think #[4] should give you an option to set a custom amount, maybe with a long press.

Inscriptions Update:

158110 (as of block 777,672):

Paid 51.24₿ in fees

Used ~2.8GB

In 3053 blocks (~946.6kB/block)

With an average fee of 32,407丰

(11.5丰/vB & 75% < 15.0丰/vB)

The average size was 18.3kB, (75% < 15.9kB)

I think so.

Part of the free-market reaching the equilibrium state is ensuring that all information is out there, so I’m doing my part by putting what I see out there 🤣

That’s why I said “ASIC operators should hold their pools accountable”

I could be wrong, of course, and many ASIC operators might totally not care about this.

Personally, unless there’s something extreme, I don’t think I’d support a consensus change that forces an equilibrium state. To me, the downside risk there is bigger. If you take the position that these are “unintended consequences,” what’s to say that a new change to fix this consequence doesn’t cause more issues.

Yes. It’s not “zero-fee” in that they’re not paying anything, but the fee is out-of-band (ie: not included in the TX).

It’s anti-social, and unnecessary, though it’s not a consensus issue. There’s no reason the fee *couldn’t* be encoded into the TX itself, even for a directly mined TX. If the fee is in the TX, then the direct-miner is still guaranteed to receive 100% of it.

Only reason to hide the fee is to intentionally obscure what is being paid, which is why I take issue with it. On a few small TX, it’s not a big deal, but if it becomes common, especially with big TX, then I believe it starts to negatively impact the fee market, and negatively affects ASIC operators.

To be clear, I have no issue with direct-mining of TX. Plenty of reasons for that. But put the fee in-band.

ASIC operators should hold their pools accountable for taking these TX, by moving pools.