Developer - #Rust, #Bitcoin, #LN, #RGB, #BitMask, #Carbonado 🏔️🦁
Hunter ₿eaṩt @HunterBeast - 1mo
good food in bad food out
Java and Python both have portability issues. Ever build Sparrow or Electrum from source?
That's really cool!
Stealth passenger aircraft. Lockheed Martin C-22 Ghostliner. Fly safely in these dangerous times.
Hunter ₿eaṩt @HunterBeast - 2mo
Thank you!
Hunter ₿eaṩt @HunterBeast - 3mo
I already addressed that point in the OP is why I ask.
Are you responding to my post? Because I don't think you've read it.
One thing I want to speak out against is the heavy-handed censorship on the GitHub bitcoin org. I've been victim to it also. It needs to stop. In CONTRIBUTING.md, it says: "Anyone may participate in peer review which is expressed by comments in the pull request." https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#peer-review *Anyone* who uses Bitcoin is a peer. It's literally a Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System. Peers are not restricted to developers. Users are peers. They are stakeholders. And for those censoring comments, blocking people from commenting on PRs, and blocking people from the org entirely: They need to not only stop, they need to undo the damage they caused. Shame on the Bitcoin org censors for letting it get this far. Criticism isn't spam, even if it's from "outsiders". If Core devs want to retain any semblance of moral authority at this point, they need to relax their own "spam filters" and allow conversations to be had in the places where the work is being done. If they don't, people will come up with alternative spaces that don't censor. GitHub isn't the ideal place for bitcoin dev anyway. I like GitHub a lot, I use it often during my course of work, and so it would be nice to continue to depend on it, but if things don't change, alternatives will manifest.
Hunter ₿eaṩt @HunterBeast - 4mo
🦀🔥
ACCELERATE
No, I was there
This is rly good!
BitcoinFurs are at it again https://image.nostr.build/fa39a0b3dc7962a91923ccf033b497b7869d103aefa4fefa19e3d80cc15ac070.jpg https://image.nostr.build/dd4cdb5e3cd0a790b5508ebaf6500b471c1527f84c905ea8137734d95608428d.jpg https://image.nostr.build/e0c2b38763c0cb7f4bcdcc2fe9f4d257a900b5d357bebddb1e11ef3f9633597e.jpg https://image.nostr.build/da1f4a2af9dcc11a883aeed383df25f7ba0645af046a29b836977bba71ca24b5.jpg
Is this AI??
Hunter ₿eaṩt @HunterBeast - 5mo
Congrats!
The Taproot decision did, somewhat, back in 2020, on the bitcoin devs mailing list. But I guess that feedback wasn't taken seriously, especially by core dev Pieter Wuille.
It's kinda thinking about it backwards... Basically, there's the scriptPubKey and the witness... The scriptPubKey contains a SegWit v1 opcode for Taproot plus a 32 byte x-only public key. This is the address you send funds to. Then, to spend them, you have to sign a transaction, then include the 64 byte Schnorr signature in the witness to verify you own the private keys to that address. The efficiency gain here is that the 32 byte public key doesn't need to be included in the witness also (that would cost 8.25 bytes with the 4x witness discount-- 32 / 4 = 8, 1 byte for OP_PUSHBYTES32)
No, it's a public key, not a public key hash. This was done to save 8.25 vB from every P2TR tx, but at the expense of showing the public key in advance.
Yes, Taproot addresses (bc1p) are just encoded public keys, so they are vulnerable.
