Devant la bêtise humaine, même les dieux sont impuissants

You can always build your own Damus, I do. 🐶🐾🫡

Paranoia has to be applied in healthy dosages. Do you trust Apple to keep your nsec safe? What about all the TLS interactions? Do you trust they private key of each site is safe? This list can go on forever……

it’s open-source code where you can verify what you’re using so i don’t think it really matters

If someone is rude to you, then you are rude back, you are not the bigger person and just as bad as them.

Damus’s build process currently bakes the current git hash into the version number in settings. You can look at this hash and compare against the source code with that version. You can clearly see in the code that the nsec never leaves the device or is ever sent to damus servers (I dont even have custom servers that damus talks to)

Not to mention there are no trackers or integrations that have the ability to send information outside of the app. This is why we open source 👌 nostr:note185tvu0nld67ler6lg0hhhuqqua7u5r2svtc5e22zknffd4uuw40s5l4ty6

Interested to hear Luke’s thoughts on that thread. 👆

This drivechain system seems to a private group of miners passing messages to each other, storing data in the base chain. They seem to be following the “rules”.

The drivechain proposal is overly complicated (with unknown long term consequences), but probably unstoppable if all current nodes will accept the data.

Let’s hope this is benign because if following the protocol rules is an attack, then bitcoin is fundamentally broken.

Hey Luke, Is this possible? We can't recognize those blocks?

Didn’t #[4]​ once say something about not selling your bitcoin because it’s like prime real estate in Manhattan. That rather than selling it and having to pay capital gains tax rich people will use #bitcoin as collateral for a loan and therefore legally avoid having to pay taxes on it. And also if you sell it you’re likely only going to have to buy it back at a higher price while also paying taxes on the sale.

Controversial #Bitcoin takes...

1. Holding #Bitcoin in tax advantaged retirement accounts (like w/ Unchained) is only an advantage if you think taxes will be lower in the future than they are now.

2. The real value of unregistered (NoKYC) sats is exiting the nation state and multigenerational estates, not fiat gift cards.

3. One should use a dedicated laptop/device to interact with their #Bitcoin savings, not their daily driver.

4. Retail isn't going to front run institutions like Bitcoiners are.

5. El Salvador is vulnerable to late-stage imperialism by the liberal world order.

6. BlackRock could very well succeed at paperification of Bitcoin in the medium term, effectively trapping most of the "dumb money" from exiting into Bitcoin.

I still don’t fully grok the attack. I can imagine you’re sick of the discussion (I saw you credited on the BIP website). Just hoping you’ll help me with more details.

I’ve read the BIP writeup. To me, it sounds like a side protocol like ordinals / inscriptions. Old node software versions would see it as meaningless data that only means something to the participating users.

Like I’m watching a baseball game and I see hand signs but don’t realize what they mean.

Is it really an attack though? Does it improperly change network incentives? Censor transactions? Some other harm to the base chain?

I get Lyn Alden’s point that we want the base chain to be resistant to change, but, unless I’m missing something, nothing appears to be changing from the perspective of old node software.

It’s like a private group of people coordinating to use the blockchain to pass messages to each other.

Again, appreciate any insight you can provide. 🙏

Grateful if someone could link to the best pro/con resources 🙏

Sure, it's not to someone who supports drivechain.

💾⛓️🚫

Drivechain is a 51% attack

A miner-activated soft fork (MASF) is a soft fork in the Bitcoin network that is activated by miners. In a soft fork, new rules are added to the protocol, but old nodes that do not implement the new rules will still be able to communicate with the network and process transactions. However, if a miner wants to continue to mine blocks that are accepted by the network, they will need to upgrade their software. If a miner continues to mine blocks that do not follow the new rules, their blocks will be rejected by the network and they will not receive any block rewards.

MASFs are activated when a majority of miners signal their support for the new rules. This is done by setting a flag in their mining software that indicates that they will only mine blocks that follow the new rules. Once a majority of miners have signaled their support, the soft fork is activated and all miners on the network must follow the new rules.

Users and nodes are not required to follow the rules of a MASF, but if they want to continue to use the network, they will need to upgrade their software. If a user or node continues to use software that does not follow the new rules, they may be unable to transact on the network or they may lose their funds.

The main advantage of a MASF is that it is relatively easy to activate. This is because miners have a strong incentive to activate soft forks, as they want to ensure that their blocks are accepted by the network. Miners can also coordinate their efforts to activate a soft fork more easily than users and nodes.

The main disadvantage of a MASF is that it gives too much power to miners. Miners can potentially delay or prevent the activation of soft forks that they do not support. This can be a problem if miners have their own agenda, such as increasing their profits or promoting a particular project.

MASFs have been used to activate a number of soft forks in the Bitcoin network, including Segregated Witness (SegWit) and Taproot. SegWit is a change to the Bitcoin protocol that improves the scalability of the network. Taproot is a change to the Bitcoin protocol that improves the privacy of transactions.

MASFs are a powerful tool that can be used to change the Bitcoin protocol. However, it is important to be aware of the potential risks associated with MASFs, such as miner collusion and centralization.

Could you please break that down a bit more for me?

I assume you’re referring to the “silent”, miner coordinated soft fork.

You refer to an attack. Is there a way that this can hurt the base chain? For example, if I ignore that this exists, could it hurt the incentives or my BTC in some way?

Please help me understand the BIP 300 risks better. All I’m hearing at the moment is that people don’t want sidechains to use BTC as a native currency.

Pros:

+ gives miners more revenue

+ allows people to experiment with other functionality using their bitcoin

Cons:

… unclear

How does this negatively impact the base chain?

Are silent keyboards a thing? Seems like the most straightforward countermeasure.

closed source custodial nostr clients are a threat to users and during these early days of nostr adoption represent an existential threat to nostr

if a non sovereign client or tool accrues significant market share they could potentially use their control over users to influence the greater network or bifuricate it

nostr is permissionless and we cannot stop people from shipping whatever tools they want but it highlights the importance of rapid development of freedom focused foss clients and tools

this is my main focus, supporting the individuals building out the freedom tech tools we sorely need, momentum is strong, incredibly hopeful, we must continue to push forward 🫡