ASICs are used in nearly every aspect of modern technology, such as TCP Offload Engine in network cards, the VPU in most GPUs, RAID chips, USB controller, and much more. You want an ASIC for nostr for the same reason you'd want an ASIC for Bitcoin or any of these things. A well designed ASIC can solve a specific task, faster, and more energy efficiently than a CPU.
If there is anyone close to this it’s probably nostr:npub1aghreq2dpz3h3799hrawev5gf5zc2kt4ch9ykhp9utt0jd3gdu2qtlmhct
There is already a private relay which is really good. 5 more updates and we will be there.
Umbrel is not an asic. They are not even attempting or considering anything to the effect.
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV-BIP119) is a proposed soft fork into #Bitcoin that I'd really love to see activated, here's what it is! 👇
Before we get into the BIP, let's understand what covenants are because it's what BIP introduces. Generally if you want to spend your Bitcoin you just need to own keys to be able to spend them but covenants can introduce additional restrictions on coins maybe spent.
Like if you're passing on your Bitcoin (private keys) to your kids but you add a restriction saying it can only be spent after a certain block height which is like 10 years in the future. You could do savings accounts where you can only spend over a period of time.
Or advanced escrows where payments are released only when certain conditions are met. Exchanges can easily manage funds flowing between their cold and hot wallets. The use cases are endless, you can imagine so many different things that can be done.
Without CTV you can do some level of restrictions on how coins can be spent but nothing is straightforward and it's messy. Ok now let's get into the BIP.
The basic idea behind OP_CTV is to restrict on how a UTXO can be spent and it does this by committing to a "TEMPLATE" for the next transaction. In a regular bitcoin transaction to spend coins, you have to satisfy the script in the utxos like for example, these utxos can only be spent if they are signed by some X public key but ctv restricts the structure of the next transaction that spends these utxos. What does this mean? When you spend a utxo with op_ctv the transaction must satisfy the committed template, like specific outputs, amounts and other parts of the spending transaction.
The way all this is done is, you build a template for the future transaction, put all the crap you want to put inside of it, hash the template and then shove the hash in the utxo's script. Remember you have to satisfy the script in the outputs to spend them, now only way to spend them is to satisfy the op_ctv script. The spending tx must hash to the committed hash when you pull stuff from the template and hash them. In short if a utxo has op_checktemplateverify in it, the spending tx must satisfy it.
Criticism: One big criticism that people have said about covenants is the risk of fungibility where coins could have permanent restriction on how they can/cannot be spent. Ctv introduces very simple covenants where your templates are restricted to be very simple where outputs are known at the time of creation of the template. Based on a destructuring argument, it is only possible to create templates which expand in a finite number of steps.
CTV also enables several other cool things like payment pools where multiple people can own one utxo, it is a massive privacy benefit because when that utxo is being spent it will appear on chain as the whole utxo is being spent when in real someone is spending their portion.
Another cool thing is ctv can enable vaults in Bitcoin which would look something like this giving so much more security and peace of mind.
You can read a lot more on this website:
https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/op_checktemplateverify/
Overall I think op_ctv is a really cool upgrade to Bitcoin and could prove to be very valuable and seems like the only only soft fork right now most people are happy with.
Here's the BIP and the authors are
Jeremy Rubin and James O'Beirne.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki
It is also worth highlighting that it is the recipient that sets the covenant restrictions, not the sender. I cannot send you Bitcoin with "shotgun" restrictions, it is a conscious choice to that I (or my wallet) must make prior to generating an address to receive.
He's saying it doesn't use lightning to store sats. It swaps them on demand.
Two pools racing with two blocks on each side. That's not entirely healthy.
https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1655339317835726848
It's fairly common and discussed in the white paper. Absolutely nothing "unhealthy" to worry about
I ran this video and the document it addresses by a U.S. intellectual property attorney. He confirmed that the document is primarily composed of boilerplate language, with the exception of the firearm-related provisions, which are likely unenforceable. Observing a non-attorney attempting to understand and interpret legal jargon is neither beneficial nor constructive, and frankly is embarrassing for the content creator. While I am not defending Rust, it is likely that they engaged external legal counsel to draft this document, who in turn may have utilized a standard template with minimal modifications for this purpose.
All of the outrage is unwarranted.
You don't need a business model if it isn't a business.
I am. I had some issues early on, but they seem to have gone away with newer versions of the app.
If you put a 50gb file on a 100gb hard drive, how big is the hard drive?
Storing another Blockchain in Bitcoin would not inherently increase the block size.
How long until you're able to interface with the LightningTipBot over nostr dm rather than telegram?
I don't see any reason that you couldn't use it on isolated offline networks with others on that same network.
In none of the cases described does a hard fork occur. It is a soft fork despite the forking of the chain. Both chains are valid Bitcoin blockchains but the majority of nodes are following the one that contains more work.
I suppose you then end up with some form of an alt coin, which could become Bitcoin in the future if the chain contained more work.
A soft fork requires the majority of miners or users to agree to enforcing the new rules of the soft fork.
Not just another service. I have a 11 year old Mac mini just for blue bubbles. Luckily I got it for free in the trash and it only draws about 4 watts.
Run an Air message or blue bubbles server on an old Mac mini or MacBook.
Chase is also the only one I don't have working. I just use the webapp.
The biggest problem with inscriptions is that they abuse the segwit witness discount in a way that is opponent to it's intent.
If CISA is soft forked, the discount should be removed or reduced by half.
The receiving wallet?