They are censoring disjoint sets of things. If you need to send to an OFAC address, ocean can mine it. If you need to mint a chonky inscription F2Pool can mine it.
Every single newly empty swimming pool is a win for bitcoin.
Any pool that actually implements StratumV2 and lightning payouts is a win for miner decentralization.
A new pool with public block templates is a win for miner decentralization.
A pool that runs knots instead of core is a win for mining decentralization.
A new pool that censors inscriptions and doesn't censor OFAC addresses is a win for decentralization.
Its in response to a new media blitz about some terrible pseudoscientific paper that just came out.
These 🤡s in the media....🙄
Water they going to come up with next?
I highly recommend getting a bitcoiner spouse. It's like an orange pilling tag team. Just onboarded another neighbor. 💪
Wow that's nuts!
Just spun up a 10TH/s test miner pointed at nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze using https://reactor.xyz
Try it out! Let's boil the oceans.
The mining pool landscape has been a shit show for so long. BULLISH
nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze got dat new new ngu!
new favorite bitcoin 📈 graph
Codex32 mitigates all three risks if used correctly. The real magic is being able to manually produce a pubkey and checksum your results with pen and paper. You can also shard the key with SSS for geographic distribution.
Important caveat: you need a digital computer to generate addresses. So it is best used as a receive only wallet. Stash the xpriv somewhere or somewheres safe and import the xpub to a watch only wallet. Once you load the xpriv into a computer to spend it's best to sweep the entire wallet. It's a perfectly offline cold storage piggy bank. Break in case of emergency.
I think this is the future direction for self custody.
Not formally, no. I have fielded the concerns I’ve received by informal review by developing simulations, which are in the repo: https://github.com/jimbojw/seed-picker-solitaire
There are two ways to use the system: pick-and-replace or Solitaire (use the full deck as a seed). Both rest on the quality of the shuffling. Analysis of pick-and-replace is easier, because one may assume that each batch of shuffling is an independent, random sample.
Analyzing the Solitaire method is, as far as I can tell, intractable because it demands considering the joint distribution of deck orderings (of which there are 52!). My simulations use distributions in the value of the top card as a proxy for total entropy because the top (and bottom) cards change position least frequently during a traditional, riffle shuffle.
Consider. You cut the deck, then interleave the cards. The new top card will either be the previous top card, or the top card from the other half of the deck when cut. There’s a distribution of probable cut locations (we can’t assume perfect cuts), so a closed-form analysis would need to model cut location probability in addition to interleaving.
By way of these simulations, I estimate that 12 shuffles is enough for a typical person to approach 99.99% of the available entropy, as measured by top card. A deck ordering represents ~225 bits of entropy. But since not all of the 52! orderings yield a seed phrase, and only 46 cards contribute, the actual preserved entropy of the Solitaire method I estimate to be ~205 bits.
The Bitcoin signature security threshold is 128 bits, so, if the aforementioned estimates hold, the ~205 bits from a 12x shuffled, Solitare’d deck, encoded as 23 seed words, should be harder for one’s attacker to crack than creating a standard 12-word seed phrase by flipping a coin 128 times.
That is to say, I, personally, am satisfied with the Solitaire approach for generating 23-word BIP39 seed phrases. I would NOT recommend using this approach to make a 12-word seed phrase. For that, you need to use pick-and-replace, AND generate the 7 of 11 entropy bits encoded in the checksum word.
Nice! Is it safe to say that pick and replace is generally more foolproof or nah?
There is a fine art in meeting new people. You have to selectively reveal enough about yourself to keep the conversation going without scaring them away. Look for common interests. Keep your personal stories brief and give the other person space to talk. It sounds like you might be coming on too strong with views or intensity the other party doesn't share. If this bothers you then maybe focus on improving it.