d5
Z
d5d3727a26e2b43e32db6bde55b14d528432977ee385391a3ca21d2576589ef2
A

Lol some drunk did that to me at a supercross event after he stole my seat and got kicked out of it by the usher

SBLOC at fidelity doesn't recognize Bitcoin ETFs yet, I was quoted like 11-12% interest for a margin loan at 30% the value of the ETF assets.

Don't plan on using those products as it is.

Lightning is awesome I've had a channel open for over a year and my zeus wallet connects and I can spend in the wild.

I just get worried thinking about risking a lot on it because it's so complicated to back up channels and haven't found a solution besides asking for cooperative closing.

I wonder if there could be a way a watchtower could back up your node or something like that.

I don't understand server back ups to keep the latest channel states and don't ever want to get penalized.

They showed up in my mulch bed in the yard, I took a sample and made a liquid culture and the then I poured it on the mulch pile for next year and they went crazy. Every spring and fall they come up.

Replying to Avatar Bob Social,

⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️

😤: ☯️Think privacy☯️❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️

⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️⛔️

"Cypherpunk Manifesto (1993)"

The “Cypherpunk Manifesto,” written by Eric Hughes in 1993, outlines a passionate defense of individual privacy in the digital age. It argues that

privacy is not about secrecy but about the ability to control one's own identity and information, especially in electronic interactions.

-----------------------------------------------------------

*Eric Hughes*

-----------------------------------------------------------

Cypherpunk Manifesto (1993)

Code of conduct Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is

something one doesn’t want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn’t want anybody to know. Privacy is

the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.

If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this.

How could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society,

we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to. Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that

each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction❗️ Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible🔎🤔😌🩵. In most cases personal identity is

not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or

what I am saying or what others are saying to me, my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by

the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself. Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to

reveal their identity when desired and only when desired❗️❕️❗️ This is the essence of privacy. Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one’s identity with assurance when

the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature. We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy🤔😲😬😮‍💨 out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free✅️😌. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor’s younger, stronger cousin. Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes,

knows more, and understands less than Rumor.

❇️(We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any🔎👀❗️❕️❗️)❇️

We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place✅️. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.

We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money. Cypherpunks write code.

We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can’t get privacy unless we all do, we’re going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide. We don’t much care if you don’t approve of the software we write. We know that software can’t be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system can’t be shut down💪. Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes

information from the public realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation’s border and the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe, and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible. For privacy to be widespread it must be

part of a social contract. People must come and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one’s fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves.

We will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our goals. The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy.

Let us proceed together apace.

(Highlight)

-----------------------------------------------------------

🔺️ 🔥 The Bitcoin Revolution 🔥😳❗️🔺️

🩵❤️‍🔥🩵

Awesome glass hummingbird, what's that from?

Bloontd banana farms are essential to stacking sats for endgame

Replying to Avatar VonMises

First period.. holocaust class

Second period... black history

Have you considered diversifying into wine and cheese wheels?

Did anyone notice the spread on the different exchanges on this dip it was like over 5k

Replying to Avatar jimmysong

Within the datacarriersize/OP_RETURN change is hidden a change to how many OP_RETURN outputs are allowed. Previously, it was 1. With the datacarriersize change, it's now as many as the user wants.

The technical justification for multiple OP_RETURNs now being standard is completely unconvincing. To quote

@theinstagibbs

:

"The motivation for doing this is for situations where you cannot commit to all data efficiently otherwise. Think SIGHASH_SINGLE | ACP scenarios. The datacarriersize argument applies to payloads themslves, so yes, if someone wants to do ~80 bytes of payload and can do it in one output, they should just do that."

To paraphrase, he's saying there might be transactions where multiple people sign one input and have one output that they get to control, which are each OP_RETURN. No wallet I know of even supports SIGHASH_SINGLE/ANYONECANPAY constructions. I'm not sure if you get 10 Bitcoin seasoned developers together that they'd be able to construct a transaction like this together without a lot of debugging.

I have never seen any transaction like this in the wild (multi-op-return, sighash_single), and I have not seen anyone even ask for something like this. This justification was never brought up until I specifically asked this question in the un-deprecation PR. The multiple OP_RETURN becoming now standard was pointed out in the original PR, asking if this was an intended effect, to which no one responded with anything like the quote above. Thus, the rationale quoted above looks like to me an elaborate post-hoc justification for bad code.

This modification is going into v30.

Honestly, I'm not too concerned about the consequences of this particular aspect of the PR as the effects of it aren't too great (the 100k default is far more consequential), but the fact that this flimsy rationalization was accepted without much question is what makes me question not just the user-alignment, but code quality of the datacarriersize PR.

How long can we run 29 for?

This pisses me off I need to research and change what software I'm using because core wants to sell out to shady investors.

Do you use a brix refractometer to check the ripeness of the grapes?

I heard about this tool earlier this year I kind of want to get one to check my garden veggies.