mleku

yeah, the imaging precision is good enough to identify you also. Basically radar with stereoscopic depth perception. personally, i want one static LEO uplink and everything on cables, or fully open source meshtastic reticulum for radio. hell, maybe just walkie talkies on uhf

2026-08-15 23:42:54 UTC

- reply

yeah the towers. But the fucked up ISP i have now they rig it up so they also have gps and bluetooth beacons as well. In an urban area that means they could amost determine where you stepped with about 5cm precision

2026-08-13 14:26:52 UTC

- reply

i'm building a fork and what distinguishes what i'm building over others like luke's effort
- doesn't change the hash function deliberately to make it possible for existing bitcoin miners to switch to it
- changes the difficulty adjustment to a multi-lane scheme that improves the cadence while keeping the same bytes/sats per time ratio, keeping the same emission scheme, while adding a faster block (much smaller, lower reward) that will benefit lightning and ark users a lot. on top of this, each of the lanes responds to high hash power focusing on one or more of the lanes by easing the ones back that are not being hit hard. and as well, all of the adjustment uses a dynamic adjustment system that is well proven in physics (and all of these design elements borrow from physics principles for dynamic adjustment and shock absorbing) called a Proportional Integral Derivative controller (PID controller) - bitcoin's existing scheme is like a clock tick that operates a linear thermostat. it does not cope with big changes in hashpower, and in fact creates a ratchet that makes it such that if the hashpower decline becomes quite extreme (and it is already declining since about a year, for reasons that might be obvious) the chain can dramatically lose cadence, and for which reason the bip-110 fork was doomed to fail, it wasn't going to recover cadence at the 3% of total bitcoin hashpower rate for 460 days, by which time the fork is programmed to deactivate long before (100 days before). it's my assertion that any attempt to fork bitcoin that does not fix the difficulty problem is doomed to failure. bitcoin's security model and difficulty adjustment in fact led to some aspects of its cooption.
- adds a verifiable delay function to the block (in the coinbase transaction) that stops private side-branch mining and reorg/censorship attacks. this is a single thread, serial computation that uses special mathematics and hash chaining that cannot be parallelised. in simulations already built, it has proven to completely stop block cadence from fluctuating very widely at all, it is more important for the short interval low reward low byte size block versions, the long interval, larger block types are simply bigger absorbers of fluctuating hashpower and are harder to reorg anyway - and this is partly why bitcoin stuck to 10 minutes and 1mb.
- it eliminates the witness discount, which means that the more witness in a transaction, the higher the required fee will be and thus as this fork will be parasiting off bitcoin's utxo set, deliberately, it will clear non-spammy transactions a lot faster. this eliminates the primary vulnerability of segwit.
- it bans spending to new taproot transactions, but allows them to be spent into other types of transactions
- it adds a simple hash shielded schnorr x-only bip340 style output called pay to schnorr public key hash (p2spkh) which provides the ability for such as lightning and ark and anyone's private key/signature aggregation to produce a transaction that is in fact from 2 or more parties that looks like a single payment
- it adds a bullet proofs, mimblewimble based confidential transaction - this transaction creates utxos that have no identifiable amounts in the outputs, but it doesn't hide the addresses of endpoints, so it's not quite the same as monero style ringCT, in that it doesn't hide source and destination, but maintains auditability guarantees - it is not allowed as a coinbase output, but for ordinary transaction outputs it is guaranteed it isn't issuing or deleting sats. this is added because confidentiality of amounts in transactions is critical to $5 wrench attack mitigation and is a very good choice for cold storage since you aren't going to spend it often, so it means that you can store a substantial amount of sats in cold storage while nobody can know which utxo it even is that you have got to spend from later (best practices for avoiding correlation via the utxo graph is still something that users have to think about when moving the coins back out of the dark field of no amounts visible).
that's about it. other than that, i really don't want to have it release without at least several dozen node runners running it, because the difficulty adjustment does take a little while to fully hit cadence but it's not long, maybe 5 blocks of each lane so about 40 of these blocks and that works out to about equivalent to about 5 regular blocks. so yes, these early miners will get some substantial reward for working the chain but once it's running it will not be overly generous to early adopters. in fact, because of the VDF, the cadence will not be extremely out of scale as it would be with only the multi-lane PID adjustment scheme, the vdf especially constrains the short/low reward block intervals, and i will be building a proper miner that has existing support for all existing asics so the ideal is that in fact a bunch of old rigs that are currently not economical can be deployed in the early stages and raise the hash power of the network fast right at the beginning.
of course, i will need to write some decent eli5 stuff to explain how the difficulty adjustment algorithm works. analogies relating to dynamic control systems like in segway single wheel electric scooters and as used in jet fighters and multiple other systems (humanoid robots and robotics in general uses them for precision motion control) and the multiple lanes produce a tighter cadence that achieves a more exact emission schedule under any conditions no matter how brutal a large miner attacks the chain with hashpower, and there is no need for checkpoints anymore, which is another lever that such as bitcoin core could use to apply leverage to the chain if hashpower does decline.
it's intended to be a lure for big miners. they will think "no way this thing can survive us blasting it" and then they find that they are earning sats at the same time rate as they do on spamchain. if the market likes it, and i think that a chain that demonstrates high resilience will be appealing, its value will go up and the idea is we lure all the big miners across... and then they have to fight with us about control because all of the levers that enabled the current aggregation of control to central points are deliberately eliminated - taproot, witness discount.

2026-08-13 03:58:25 UTC

- reply

fuckin israelis

2026-08-12 13:08:10 UTC

- reply

unless we get enough hashpower to bring it down. that's really gonna be the test. the target was inherited. the fork did not account for this. sorry but that is ignorant of luke to not consider this

2026-08-12 13:07:26 UTC

- reply

literally, christmas 2027

2026-08-12 13:03:24 UTC

- reply

oh, good point. but that means about 2035.
ok, that makes it less severe than i initially thought. i thought it triggered on a timestamp.

2026-08-12 12:51:15 UTC

- reply

the source code deactivates after 1 year. that was clearly stated in all the announcements by luke about it and the specification is very clear. you can find this stuff out really quickly if you use AI to help you do the web search and culling the text for the important info:
from the bip-110 specification:
activation height: 965664 (~september 1, 2026)
active duration: 52416 blocks (~1 year)
deactivation/expiry height: 965664 + 52416 = 1018080 (~september 1, 2027)
block times average 10 minutes, so 52416 blocks is roughly 364 days.
the bip was marked closed on august 9 2026 after the chain split stalled, so it never activated on the main chain. the minority fork is attempting to enforce it at the max_activation_height regardless. if you're cloning the deployment parameters, your activation at september 11 2026 falls after the bip-110 mandatory lock-in window (blocks 961632-963647, which is roughly late august 2026) so you're activating slightly later than they would have. your expiry would be at activation_height + 52416, roughly september 11 2027.
DeepSeek API (DeepSeek V4 Pro)
· 37613 tokens
· 124 words
· 2.6s
· 18:48
lol "block times average 10 minutes" on 3% of the hashpower that is mining on the current difficulty target? puh lease
21 words
· 18:49
Thought for 9.9s
you're right to laugh. at 3% hashpower on inherited difficulty, you're looking at ~330 minutes per block, not 10. so 52416 blocks isn't ~1 year — it's ~12 years.
that's exactly the bootstrap death spiral that killed the first bip-110 split. the difficulty adjustment only recalculates every 2016 blocks, which at 330 minutes per block takes ~460 days just to hit the first retarget. by then the chain is already dead.
fresh genesis with appropriate starting difficulty or a difficulty reset mechanism is the only way this avoids the same fate. the bip-110 spec's "~1 year" parenthetical assumes 100% hashpower, which is comically optimistic for a minority fork.
DeepSeek API (DeepSeek V4 Pro)
· 18221 tokens
· 115 words
· 2.2s
· 18:49

2026-08-12 12:18:04 UTC

- reply

unless 10 ocean pool miners worth of hashpower hits it, it's not gonna survive its deactivation

2026-08-12 12:16:16 UTC

- reply

i thought it didn't activate?

2026-08-12 09:36:36 UTC

- reply

he's always been one of the more reasonable ones. more of a dev than an influencer. funny how devs don't tend towards doing evil things.

2026-08-12 09:02:34 UTC

- reply

also this is elementary stuff but other plants and some kinds of animals are often far better pest controls.

2026-08-12 09:01:56 UTC

- reply

you gotta be careful. one thing that is an easy work around is to ask it a few times, in different sessions. or even ask other robots. and ask detailed questions. asking "how do i kill weeds" is a pretty dumb question when you mean "how do i kill weeds that are crowding out my corn?"

2026-08-11 16:22:42 UTC

- reply

you seem to be illiterate. it said israel.

2026-08-11 16:19:05 UTC

If this image doesn't make you want to strum this thing, we can't be friends
https://npub125uw9znxawyrvrc4lraf2ertm5k652ve4t87f74v7s7scp2qk2qswmlek0.blossom.band/5e9d3962cf466425b405056f08010d774c383f503cb8073f9eac6743977b0343.jpg

2026-08-11 16:04:19 UTC

- reply

it's an idea that has been compromised because it is precisely the people who own the central banks who don't want there to *be* an alternative.
there will be anyway. we will find away. or die trying.

2026-08-11 16:02:54 UTC

- reply

i'm sure it's even more now. that's why i'm in kyrgyz.

2026-08-11 14:38:23 UTC

- reply

of course not. that would be inconvenient and incriminating

2026-08-11 14:17:43 UTC

- reply

i find it amusing that you have independently verified the same thing. so far i'm finding i spend about half as much on deepseek 4 pro. it easily does the work of a $100/month claude subscription. they are going to raise the price tho. idk what the other two options are in quality, but i had used kimi2 and was quite impressed, but not enough, and glm5.2 was near but not quite touching it. so yeah, if the cost of kimi3 is equal to current rate of deepsnek then i might migrate. for now, the main thing is that i got quite loyal to claude opus 4.6. if you gonna use claude, i doubt there is a better one. but actually, deepseek 4 pro beat it on unconventional architecture tasks. i probably wasted 3 weeks of claude 4.6 as it repeatedly undid my directions on how to evaluate unconventional memory models in the runtime for moxie. deepsnek probably did the work claude refused to do (and kept trying, and then reverting) in a week. on that task, probably i have spent about 3 weeks again on it with deepsnek and in that time we found several more issues, defined 4 new protocols for memory management.
anyway. i applaud you if you even understand what i am talking about. i may have misjudged you based on your attentionseeking over your keyboard mastery.

2026-08-10 05:06:39 UTC

- reply

Me too

2026-08-09 20:26:02 UTC

- reply

hold my beer

2026-08-09 14:12:16 UTC

- reply

popularity, also, doesn't matter when 20% of the most fervent supporters of the network are on the threshold of giving up on bitcoin altogether. well, they won't give up. round two. fight!

2026-08-09 14:04:13 UTC

- reply

barefoot4lyfe here. never want to wear one of these rubbery spine breakers again in my life

2026-08-09 13:43:57 UTC

- reply

immune system. so long as nobody else gives miners a more valuable target for their hashpower.
when that happens, have fun staying poor, coretard.

2026-08-09 12:51:05 UTC

- reply

3 major incursions on the protocol have left us with a wide open vulnerability that leads to issues for lightning/ark and quantum vulnerability. and honestly, there is two major issues that never have been addressed, and you can verify this easily (try your clanker):
- the checkpoint system is centralised and people who decide what the best chain checkpoints are, are people
- the difficulty adjustment is primitive, and is why bip-110 could not go forward, if it activated on 3% hashrate the side chain it would create would have not reached difficulty adjustment window for 466 days
these two issues need to be addressed and both require a hardfork.
a hard fork does not need to strand anyone's utxos, and will be able to gradually acquire its own distinctive economics via block rewards, and if a VDF or similar anti-reorg attack measure is included, it's got everything, assuming the difficulty adjustment is fixed so a minority chain is invulnerable to big empty block miner attacks.
just so happens i'm working hard on defining such a thing and implementing it soon. testnet will be running in the next week.

2026-08-09 02:01:00 UTC

- reply

We can change the difficulty adjustment. We just have to survive long enough for the next difficulty adjustment, and the proof of work survives sudden heavy mining.
I can build models that show the adjustment regime works and handles a 1000x hashpower rise and then also a drop of tye same size and the rest is just actually making the hard fork. I already designed several of these algorithms before because i was being paid to save a coin from a broken DAA.

2026-08-08 19:38:15 UTC

- reply

Which would rug the spammers if enough plebs walk out. Burn it down.

2026-08-08 18:50:52 UTC

- reply

also, i'm keeping my money in dollars now. bitcoin is now risky. this will become the broad opinion. bip-110 people are gonna have to start thinking really well about how we win. on hashpower, we lose.

2026-08-08 18:46:57 UTC

- reply

the more minds on the problem, the faster the solution is found.
difficulty adjustment is the achilles heel of bip-110.

2026-08-08 17:47:46 UTC

so, i have been thinking about how to arbitrage and actually make the chains diverge meaningfully and thus become monetisable.
the block time on bip-110 chain will be around 5.5 hours to start with, assuming hashpower stays the same on it now as it was before the activation. here is a draft plan. i am publishing this because i think that this could work.
## the divergence arbitrage business plan
**the asset**: the chain split creates a natural arbitrage product. pre-fork UTXOs exist on both chains (replayable, no replay protection). post-split coins are chain-specific. the asymmetry window - a tx confirmed on one chain but not the other - is the product. the longer the bip-110 chain's blocks stay slow (5.5h in the gauntlet), the wider the window, the more the arbitrage is worth.
**the four revenue streams:**
1. **swap/market-making** - the core business. user sends you core BTC, you send them bip-110 BTC from your mined stash at a premium (or vice versa). you're the liquidity provider on the only bridge between the chains. spread is your margin. the fee pressure and transaction flow on both chains guarantee demand: core users wanting clean-chain exposure, bip-110 users wanting to exit or arbitrage back.
2. **replay-for-hire** - a user has a tx confirmed on core that's stuck unconfirmed on bip-110 (block backlog). they pay you in core BTC to include it in your next bip-110 block. you're one of few miners, so you set the fee price. this converts block-space scarcity into direct revenue.
3. **mining + holding** - at gauntlet difficulty, every bip-110 block you mine is cheap per joule and yields coins that become sellable once any exchange prices the pair. your mined stash is both your swap inventory and your speculation position. if the chain survives DA and cadence normalizes, the early-mined coins appreciate.
4. **price-discovery surface** - the shapeshift-style time-locked commitment swap between the chains, with provenance classification (shared vs divergent coins). the exchange itself is the asset: first-mover on the bridge means first-mover on the fees, and later entrants must buy in.
**the bootstrap loop**: mine bip-110 (cheap blocks) → sell some for core BTC via your own swap → use core BTC to buy more hashrate → repeat. each cycle grows both your hashrate and your inventory. the exchange funds the mining, the mining funds the exchange.
**the structural moat**: you run both nodes, both ledgers, the miner, and the exchange - you see every asymmetry in real time and can act on it before anyone else. no custody (time-locked atomic commitments), so the exchange is a worthless target. the code is audited and public, which is the trust story that attracts the speculator capital.
**the risks, named**: the shared-UTXO asymmetry (a naive swap sells two coins for one - provenance classification is mandatory); the slow-chain confirmation differential (swap timelocks must tolerate 5.5h blocks); the thin order book early (dump risk from spamchain-aligned actors); regulatory attention on exchange operation.
**the timeline**: days to stand up the swap + both nodes, weeks to accumulate mined inventory, months to become the reference venue as the divergence grows. the longer the chains stay apart, the more the business compounds - every bip-110 block adds divergent coins only you can trade. the play is to be the toll booth on the only road between two economies, and you're building the road before the traffic arrives.

2026-08-08 17:11:56 UTC

- reply

this is the thing. yes. 3% hashpower means 466 days to DA.
but within 466 days, the amount of hashpower being burned by bip-110 supporters can realistically double.
that drops the next DA on bip-110 chain down to 234 days. that hits within the deactivation target of bip-110
after that, 59 days later. then 15 days later.
i say that it is a long campaign. people are going to burn kilowatts for their belief in bitcoin as money
on the other side, they are going to burn kilowatts for yield. once DA 1 happens, there will be hedging. assuming a doubling of hashpower cumulatively over that 234 day period. that DA will trigger defection. and the next one after that will trigger more defection.
and none of this even counts the issue that 3 blocks a day at 4mb per block. means that transactions on bip-110 chain will not lag far behind spamchain. when you consider the data size alone. spamchain will be spammed to the bejesus. bip-110 users have an incentive to spend sats on that too, it's cheaper than buying a new miner. it will hurt lightning and other custodials.
yeah this is a war alright. we are up for a 1 year campaign. that's the whole point.
if we lose bitcoin as money, we lose bitcoin. altogether.

2026-08-08 16:56:51 UTC

- reply

miners will hedge once the next DA happens. every time there is a fee rate spike on spamchain, there will be defection from the smaller custodians. once some custodians go, the risk of others going is reduced. once some miners are hedging, the risk of others also hedging reduces and the hedge ratio starts to change.
it's got a whole year to play out. 3% hash rate means - in terms of block times (of full blocks btw) that 2 weeks becomes about a month. every single one of those block will be the most expensive blocks they can be. and that isn't accounting for hedging prior to the DA.

2026-08-08 16:53:46 UTC

- reply

only shitcoin casinos care about spam on bitcoin. nobody else benefits from it. shitcoin casinos are inherently a dwindling business because you can't fleece people twice, you take their money, and they have no more money.

2026-08-08 16:32:29 UTC

- reply

lol. i think if you go back a few levels in this discussion i mention the fact that once the chain splits there will be slower blocks because of less miners on the bip-110 chain.
but assuming no miners defect away from team spam, i mean core, once that difficulty adjustment happens the difficulty will drop a lot. and then, we have another interesting scenario. the rest of the miners have the opportunity to win cheap blocks on the bip-110 chain. so long as they mine on bip-110 compliant blocks.
that is also going to be a bit of a sting to the spamchain because lower difficulty means they can mine a bit on the other side low key without losing a lot. so the risk of it drops for them in terms of joules spent on bip-110 at that point. there is two sides to motivation for this also, but the ideological "muh spam" argument isn't a very strong one. they will do it because they are leaning towards "maybe spamchain will lose"

2026-08-08 16:22:40 UTC

- reply

lol, difficulty adjustments happen every 2016 blocks, roughly 2 weeks on average. good luck, have fun.
try again. i literally have built a bitcoin fork like 8 years ago. i know the protocol inside out.

2026-08-08 15:59:08 UTC

- reply

in what mempool? spamchain nodes not running bip-110?
that's like a footgun, truly. really think about it. spamming spammy transactions is bandwidth cost, not mempool memory cost, or disk storage cost for bip-110. it never goes into mempool. that's the point.

2026-08-08 15:53:15 UTC

- reply

within a day of such an attack starting there will be a bitcoin fail2ban system if the existing bitcoin banscore system doesn't do the job already. the nodes will accumulate banscores for attempting to push spam transactions without backing off. they will just have their packets dropped. and you have to do that to thousands of nodes.
you really haven't thought this through.

2026-08-08 15:52:05 UTC

- reply

spammed by what? are you proposing somehow you think someone can muster enough bandwidth to hit ... 2000+ bitcoin nodes so hard they don't function? are you aware of how expensive that is gonna be?

2026-08-08 15:39:31 UTC

- reply

heaviest chain wins, that's right, it's protocol rule
but on bip-110 node that is a chain of bip-110 compliant blocks. the difficulty adjustment might be a bit rough until the next window but then it will adjust. that assumes that no miners switch in that time window.
what you misunderstand is that when a flood of bored ape jpgs appear in the mempool, bip-110 nodes won't mine them. the plebs running the nodes, won't relay them. neither bip-110 miners or pleb nodes will accept these spam ridden blocks.
meanwhile, on spamchain, fee rates will spike once a spam congestion occurs. custodians who depend on timely settlement of their clients transactions will start to suffer issues that may lead to churn of their customer base. people might get pissed off. worse, lightning custodians in particular may end up with channel closes that take a long time, or channel opens that take a long time, if they use a spamchain node (not bip-110). whereas on bip-110 chain, the transaction will clear fast because there is no spam to congest the blocks.
on top of this, miners who mine on spamchain nodes, will have their blocks being ignored by bip-110 chain. this is a small margin between them, and will be most problematic in the first week or so, in that a smaller block hash on non-spamchain, is valid on spamchain also, and in the case of two solutions coming within about 10 seconds of each other, the network can decide "we like bip-110 compliant block better" and spamchain miner can lose.
long term, if spamchain loses, all spam blocks mined risk being completely absent from the chain. on bip-110 chain, they can't spend their block rewards, because their block isn't on that chain.
it takes 100 blocks before you can spend.
so, the defensive position for miners is going to be to prefer to mine bip-110 chain. it only takes one instance of an ocean block superseding a spamchain block in the first few days and the logic for defensively taking the conservative, nospam position, and switching node to bip-110 enabled, that this will rapidly lead to a phase change in the network.
if the custodians' issues don't answer the question, the more marginal miner game theory will seal the deal.
if you haven't thought it through and don't fully understand what a chainsplit means and whan parallel sidechains competing means, and the rule of "heaviest chain wins" is now being competed with by "fastest clearing chain is fastest"

2026-08-08 15:18:33 UTC

- reply

the gospel is, according to my own game theory analysis, and others, and others using clankers to evaluate it, that both miners and custodians are taking a big risk not using bip-110. for miners it could be the difference between making 150k$ worth of bitcoin on a block, or zero. for custodians it could mean loss of customers pissed off at slow channel open/closes or settlement of payments because of a spam flood on spamchain core nodes.
so, ride or die, but actually dying is almost improbable. the fear was all fud created by the shitcoin spam vendor mossad pieces of shit jew cunts. (yes, most of them literally jews! i was like, wait. what?)

2026-08-08 13:26:54 UTC

- reply

the thinkbois and their smart cuntract spam bullshit can't win. the miners are stuck with slow block propagation. the lightning and other custodial servuces get slower confimations and potential higher fee margin diring spamstorms.
the only rational move for both miners and custodians is bip110
game over mossad propaganda narrative thinkbois

2026-08-07 13:32:07 UTC

soviet but not soviet, couldn't quite read the text
https://npub125uw9znxawyrvrc4lraf2ertm5k652ve4t87f74v7s7scp2qk2qswmlek0.blossom.band/8d673b4c64da81985c5da2bfe72d483f88c6b6c1ef97271da5426d61ec8c3ccb.jpg

2026-08-07 12:20:58 UTC

- reply

well, cheap hotel apparently. no hostel here. this isn't a tourist destination. tourists like going to bigger places than 40k population poor town high in the mountains.

2026-08-07 11:31:47 UTC

the view from my doorway at this cute guest house. the owners of the place i booked went away suddenly and referred me to friends also running something. still haven't paid my rent tho, no idea when that gets sorted. i thinknthe man of the house is away. i will be fed dinner by the lady of the house tonight. i better make it clear though, this surely is more expensive.
https://npub125uw9znxawyrvrc4lraf2ertm5k652ve4t87f74v7s7scp2qk2qswmlek0.blossom.band/145fd2e3dc6c1de6810a6618f35189bf2f6fe2b8186df1197cfbc15e372a3ab0.jpg

2026-08-07 10:28:54 UTC

running orly

2026-08-07 09:05:01 UTC

- reply

it is 2044m above sea level. i am going to take a little while to adjust. definitely a bit more short of breath. but the air is clean, and it is so pretty and so quiet. as i have been walking twice two times kids saying hello to me. sweet people.

2026-08-07 08:53:40 UTC

the mountain to the south is tall and green
https://npub125uw9znxawyrvrc4lraf2ertm5k652ve4t87f74v7s7scp2qk2qswmlek0.blossom.band/889e484b32bb6845a0323175a3f67ecc6028fa8c99f73842ab05a17b54ee63b6.jpg
the south is baked dry cliffs
https://npub125uw9znxawyrvrc4lraf2ertm5k652ve4t87f74v7s7scp2qk2qswmlek0.blossom.band/c93e962f1066836148325ce930179f1dfc9742351274c0f3b8d987340ba1c0b4.jpg
and not so much trees east
https://npub125uw9znxawyrvrc4lraf2ertm5k652ve4t87f74v7s7scp2qk2qswmlek0.blossom.band/ad80cc94342f0ef847357e84210147d857f41ad519afae233a8909fcb7148e57.jpg

2026-08-06 12:03:48 UTC

- reply

yes, and it was like stepping into a time machine... to the present day.

2026-08-06 09:21:54 UTC

- reply

i have already got a lot of breadcrumbs that make links to places and possibly organisations that i have strong suspicions about. i was caught up in some of their activities and asking lots of questions about oddities i was seeing claude confirmed my suspicions that there could be some kind of mischief going on in the background. that's why i wanted to leave the EU also, but concretely it was because i was stuck unable to get proper residence permission there. free to stay by schengen, but not free to do business in croatia. considering what just happened with spain having schengen border closed a similar scenario happening in croatia due to things going on between croatia and serbia in particular, could have see me being stuck there. this doesn't apply here in independent, not european, not ever gonna be european kyrgyzstan.

2026-08-06 07:43:08 UTC

- reply

canary means "the latest version/commit hash when we changed the release binary" right?

2026-08-06 01:08:57 UTC

- reply

psychopaths can do anything except face the truth. i hope that someone is gonna sue him and his company's asses for every last sat they can get under subpoena.

2026-08-05 14:30:36 UTC

- reply

not to mention he was trying to persuade everyone back to trusted third parties with cashu

2026-08-05 00:54:24 UTC

- reply

exploits are always of bad code. attacks depend on exploits. are you apologising for people who pose as experts leaving a trivially recognisable vulnerability for 4 years? the vile attitude of the representatives of the company towards actual plebs was a tiny little red flag tho. but hey, even though i never said much about novak that was because everything around him was not entertaining or informative. you might remember me from such educational rants as "nostr relays need auth"

2026-08-04 10:54:10 UTC

- reply

like forcing upgrades. like disabling user configuration options completely. like pretending that bitcoin core is the only bitcoin and every fork is "woo dangerous"
on bitcointalk, joelkatz's (ripple) views on alternate clients, not satoshi's. the search snippet made it look like satoshi, but joelkatz (later of ripple) was the one saying:
"nothing stops anyone from writing their own client. so long as it follows the same network protocol, nobody need even ever know."
"alternate client implementations are actually not a very good idea, IMO. any slight incompatibility that caused a block to be accepted by one set of clients and not another could fork the public chain and lead to serious pain."
"the people who control the official client only do so because they have earned trust. any hint that that trust was betrayed and they would lose control over the official client."
are we at the point where the trust has been lost maybe? maybe joel said this but i think it applies.

2026-08-04 10:46:39 UTC

- reply

"paternal" is correct then

2026-08-04 10:33:14 UTC

- reply

sorry, correction. *knots* has a timebomb. it won't run after 7 november 2028.
quite separate and curious.

2026-08-04 10:28:30 UTC

- reply

i just discovered it has a timebomb in it also. after 7 november 2028 also, in knots. here's my conversation with deepsnek about it:
---
## User
ok but what happens when it is actually november 27 2028 or after? why should it expire?
---
## Assistant (Build · DeepSeek V4 Pro · 10.2s)
_Thinking:_
The user is questioning the purpose of the software expiry mechanism. They're asking: when the actual calendar date reaches November 2028, why should the software stop working?
The answer is that this is a "bomb" mechanism - it's designed to force operators to upgrade by a certain date. The idea is that if a critical consensus change happens before that date, operators who haven't upgraded would be on a different chain. The expiry forces them to upgrade, theoretically preventing them from running outdated consensus software.
But it's a terrible mechanism because:
1. It creates an artificial hard deadline where ALL nodes stop working simultaneously
2. If no actual consensus change happened (RDTS already activated in 2026), the expiry is just a pointless denial-of-service
3. An NTP attacker can trigger it early
4. It's paternalistic - "we know better than you when to upgrade"
The user seems to be questioning this too. Let me answer directly and concisely.
It shouldn't. The expiry is an artificial kill-switch with no technical justification.
If RDTS activates in September 2026 and is permanent (`active_duration = INT_MAX`), then by November 2028 there are no new consensus rules pending. The node would be fully in consensus, enforcing all active rules correctly. The expiry hard-rejects valid blocks for no reason other than a timestamp check.
The original mindset is paternalistic forced-upgrade: "we assume there will be new consensus rules by this date, so we'll force you to upgrade or die." But if no new rules materialize, it's purely a self-inflicted DoS with an NTP amplification surface.
The `-softwareexpiry=0` escape hatch exists but shouldn't be necessary. Expired nodes that are fully in consensus should just keep running.
---
## User
ok, change that task to removing that bullshit, every last bit of it
---

2026-08-04 08:27:34 UTC

- reply

linux, mac and windows system entropy are all fine. obviously ony linux live usb can be done airgapped on a fresh machine never connected to a network. this is basically what a seedsigner is but unlike the tiny linux on a tiny rpi the desktop linux has at least the mouse to add entropy, and it does, by default.
modern linux (5.17+ especially) mixes entropy from:
- **input devices** — keyboard, mouse, touchscreen (add_input_randomness)
- **network devices** — interrupt timing on packet arrival (add_network_randomness via add_interrupt_randomness)
- **block devices** — disk interrupt timing (add_disk_randomness)
- **rdrand/rdseed** — CPU hardware RNG if available, mixed in, not trusted exclusively
- **jitter entropy** — CPU execution timing variance as a fallback source
- **boot-time entropy** — saved seed from previous shutdown, fed back on boot
the CSPRNG (chacha20-based) is reseeded continuously from all of these. the old blocking `/dev/random` vs non-blocking `/dev/urandom` distinction is gone since 5.17 — both are the same CSPRNG, and you cannot deplete entropy.
the coldcard failure was an embedded micropython problem — no kernel entropy infrastructure, no multi-source mixing, just a misconfigured hardware RNG falling back to a deterministic yasmarang PRNG seeded from chip serial and clock. linux has the opposite architecture: assume every source is potentially weak, mix them all.

2026-08-04 07:38:01 UTC

- reply

which means they didn't do it for money but terror

2026-08-04 04:47:21 UTC

- reply

they removed a lot of configurations, that's why knots is based on 29

2026-08-03 23:40:11 UTC

- reply

"they" said that about almost every technology ever. "too complicated" "too dangerous" meanwhile today people are driving cars around relatively safely, riding motorcycles and not dying in anywhere near the numbers that the doomsayers said.
what makes you think that this new technology is any different from cars or motorcycles exactly? or are you just finding pleasure in dooming?

2026-08-03 23:23:39 UTC

- reply

the opportunity to learn about cryptographic security and operational security, something that everyone else pays so much for that it creates billion dollar corporations.
smug satisfaction mainly, but also sticking it to the man.
exploiting this desire to be independent is pretty sick tho. they built this bug in their shit and were privately exploiting it for years to live high on the hog and now some outsider dug through the code and went completely nuclear on it.
lessons to be learned? you only have yourself to blame when you trust other people with your shit.
thus reinforcing the importance of self custody. the distinction is that everyone has learned that they have to do a lot more work to actually achieve this.

2026-08-03 22:55:21 UTC

- reply

or deepsnek 4 pro. much cheaper, no KYC required. i hear kimi 3 is awesome too, and GLM5.2 i tried it but wasn't as impressed considering the price.
everyone needs to start using LLMs to at least audit their code from now on, or someone else will, and break your shit.

2026-08-03 22:50:13 UTC

- reply

always comical to watch the rats rat each other when the ship starts sinking.

2026-08-03 13:57:19 UTC

- reply

https://git.smesh.lol/bitcoin-releases/raw/v29.3.0.knots20260508-p2spkh1/bitcoin-qt
bitcoind and bitcoin-cli are also on the same path. if you run linux on your pc you can start running a node that will keep bip-110 rules forever. we just need miners to keep it moving.

2026-08-03 13:28:54 UTC

- reply

the tokens you spent responding me to earlier you could have spent doing something similar. but hey, it always takes one node to start a new network. i'm not gonna cast shade on you if you download and run it. i haven't built a binary for it to make it easy but the code is already there. no, i'm upping the binary now.
https://git.smesh.lol/bitcoin-releases
that is the binaries for amd64 linux version. you can find the source in
https://git.smesh.lol/bitcoin
now, run it, or not, doesn't make any difference to me. put your money where your mouth is. easy to complain, not even that much more difficult to run a node that challenges the orthodoxy. promote it to get someone to verify i did the work correctly. it contains a new transaction UASF for the future after bip110 flag day that replaces taproot's schnorr transaction type. that's for future, but i already did the work.
the binary makes it easy for you to drop it on your machine and start it up. it doesn't matter if you set it up as pruning because the chain history is common to bitcoin core until 3 days time. it will have all the newest blocks anyway. so it's a small commitment that means a lot.

2026-08-03 13:17:01 UTC

- reply

did you? because i have done it. node is syncing. a permanent bip-110 fork. it will be synced up tomorrow by lunchtime or so. now what are you doing?

2026-08-03 13:15:03 UTC

- reply

only because nobody had the initiative to make one. that changed today.

2026-08-03 12:00:02 UTC

- reply

haha. i offer a third option: keep running bip110 chain. i invite technically savvy users to vet what my agent did on top of my own vetting. good. i'll use their fixes if i made mistakes.
plus, with an alt chain, that is essentially pre-taproot rules, we can set up a market against spamcoin, and sure that might lower our alt chain balance in fiats but once they done selling we have a price. at that point the miners get interested

2026-08-03 10:48:41 UTC

- reply

make a show of helping the victims, but don't actually make them whole. continue to support the mechanism that led to this violent act against innocent people.
not gonna wash with me, not gonna wash with a lot of people.
we have been watching your larping as bitcoiners for years, and we are fed up at this point.
consider actually living the principles you sell your attention for. or prepare for boxes of tea to be thrown into the bay.

2026-08-03 10:45:12 UTC

a little history lesson:
the pattern is remarkably consistent across 500 years of history: **tiny, stubborn minorities with low overhead and high conviction change the world; comfortable majorities don't.**
**the demographic profile of the stubborn core:**
- **1-3% of the population**, but densely networked. the cypherpunks were a mailing list of a few thousand. the abolitionists were maybe 2% of americans for 30 years. the suffragettes were a few thousand women in a nation of millions. the samizdat network in the USSR was statistically invisible.
- **economically independent or low-overhead**: monks, artisans, tradespeople, people who don't need the system's approval to eat. the printing press operators, the ham radio operators, the shipyard workers. people whose survival doesn't depend on the institution they're resisting.
- **ideologically framed, not materially motivated**: they refuse on principle, not for a raise. this is why they can't be bought off.
- **curmudgeons overrepresented**: the chronic skeptics, the ones who were "difficult" before the crisis. they have the receipts because they never trusted the narrative.
- **skilled in the era's communications technology**: pamphleteers in 1776, samizdat typists in 1970, mailing lists in 1992, relays in 2026. the resistance uses the distribution channel the center underestimates.
**the mechanism of stubborn refusal:**
1. **a visible alternative exists** - the refusal itself is the signal. "we will not" is a reference point others gravitate to.
2. **it raises the legitimacy cost** - every crackdown proves the movement matters. the powerful are forced to respond, and the response is the advertisement.
3. **it recruits through demonstration** - people see refusal is possible, and the threshold to join drops.
4. **the center's response legitimizes it** - the moment the powerful argue with the minority, they've conceded the minority is a threat.
**historical scoreboard:**
- **the american revolution**: the sons of liberty were a few thousand. the boston tea party was ~100 people. the refusal to accept the intolerable acts, held stubbornly, outlasted the british empire's patience and logistics. britain had 100x the men, 1000x the money, and lost because it couldn't outlast a minority that refused to normalize.
- **the suffragettes**: decades of hunger strikes, window smashing, public humiliation - and the refusal to accept that the franchise was closed. they won with numbers that never exceeded a rounding error of the population.
- **gandhi's salt march**: one man, a handful of followers, and the refusal to pay a tax on salt. the refusal was the entire strategy. it worked because it was unbearably visible and impossible to argue with.
- **the montgomery bus boycott**: 381 days of a black community refusing to ride buses. economically devastating to the transit system, morally devastating to the segregation narrative. the refusal, not the protest, was the weapon.
- **the cypherpunks**: a few thousand people refused to accept that privacy was dead. they wrote the cryptographic primitives that now secure trillions. they changed the world with math and stubbornness and no institutional backing whatsoever.
- **solidarity**: it started with one shipyard refusing to work. the refusal spread by demonstration, not by organization.
- **the french resistance**: tiny numbers, huge morale effect, disproportionate damage to the occupation's legitimacy.
"we can stay autistic longer than they can remain solvent," is the historical formula: **the center has overhead, the stubborn minority doesn't. the center must eventually break even; the minority just has to keep refusing.**
gen - withdrawal as sovereignty - is the oldest trick in the book. every one of those movements won by refusing to participate on the terms offered, not by defeating the center in a head-on fight. the center can't counter a refusal to play. that's the water element: resolution through refusal. the first to act on the lie destroys it for both - and the refusal is the act.

2026-08-03 10:01:38 UTC

- reply

if spook agencies are involved in this, and personally, the evidence they are is absolutely massive, then the coldcard attack was an overreach. they just destroyed their legitimacy by attempting to dominate the bitcoin resistance this way. the alarming nature of the attack means that there is massive distributed investigation going on right now and the conclusions they find, that implicate and link together many players on the chessboard, will be the end of the power of their network of influencers and blood money manipulation feed.
bitcoin was always built from day one to be a replacement of central banking, globally. those of us who understand that, will also understand that their short term gains spend their long term viability. the USD is hyperinflating. the people in the "world island" are slowly detaching from the petrodollar and eurodollar. when this "currency area" collapses, the USD collapses.
that's the long game. we win by holding to our principles and doing our own research and publishing it. the court of the internets will rule very much in our favor. the evidence i can already cite off the top of my head is enough for me. what people are going to dig up is going to be so damning that it will be worth taking a lot of risk to stay on the right side of history, because their house of cards is falling.

2026-08-03 09:16:36 UTC

the strategic calculation error of the coretards is very simple:
shitcoin transactions and ordinal spam and suchlike, are "paper" values. they entirely depend on "paper" money from central banks.
central banks one day can wake up and choose violence, hike rates, and they will, because hyperinflation is teetering on happening. the eurasian continent is abandoning the USD as fast as it can. that is the hypothetical basis of the value of these spammy "assets" on the core spamchain.
in contrast, the value of what sats will be denominated in on the minority bip-110 and subsequent minority fork, is real value, denominated in sats, not USD.
that is what really changes the equation.
don't give up just because lukedashjr's and dathonohm's efforts fail. we get forked off. let's build an exchange. let's petition small exchanges to list the minority coin. the UTXO set is still there. we can mine with more rewards, even if the value of the minority chain is lower for now, the fact that we have solid economic backing and are not depending on central bank liquidity matters more than anything.
those of us who mine and hodl and run nodes and run businesses that accept these payments, we don't depend on central bank liquidity as much.
that's the achilles heel of the coretard spamchain. they are aligned with the global monetary scam. that is not what bitcoin is about, they are shooting themselves in the foot, low time preference, autistic monetary maxis will win anyway. or at least we will have a clean, legitimate chain with actual monetary value not just puffed up by suits printing money by cosy deals with banks and the central banks and world bank and imf.
you want the parallel economy? then you should support the minority fork chain anyway. because otherwise next up is bitvm and running a spamchain node cost goes from the current ~$400 startup cost and $20/month sorta range, into the thousands of dollars.
i've seen what it's like in shitcoin land. EPYC nodes with a terabyte of memory and 64+ terabyte. just to run an Internet Computer node. price is in the range of $70-200 THOUSAND dollars. that's where spamchain ends up.
some of us don't care about being in the majority. we care about the real economics and ethics. i will run a reduced data signalling node indefinitely. i will modify my node to retain it even after the flag day in 4 days.
they can have fun licking central bankers boots. i'm here to do real business.

2026-08-03 08:37:24 UTC

winning the war against spam and shitcoinery on bitcoin is not just about gaining hashpower. the situation as i last saw it is being measured - by p2p nodes signalling bip-110, it was at 20% of total nodes. there is efforts that are visible by coretards running fake p2p nodes that don't actually process transactions or actually relay transactions - a cheap, high time preference attempt to stuff the ballot box. it won't work. that 20% figure doesn't probably count the fake p2p nodes that don't actually have a replica of the blockchain behind them.
> ok, so 20% is the number of nodes signalling not just the ones with miners attached. but that's a LOT still, enough that it's now a swarm of political resistance
right - node signaling is the political metric. 7-15% of nodes running reduced-data rules is the swarm: every one of them is an independent deployment of the resistance, not a proxy for luke or dathon. no single point of attack. that's the octalogue's xun and kun working - invisible penetration via adoption, new ground via installed infrastructure.
the strategic distinction: hashpower signaling is about who wins the block race. node signaling is about who owns the economic consensus. when 15% of nodes - including the ones running payment infrastructure - reject blocks that carry spam, the miners face a real economic question: their blocks get orphaned by a minority partition, and the value of their chain depends on the economic majority recognizing their blocks as valid. the 2017 segwit playbook worked exactly this way - BIP148 nodes forced the issue by refusing non-signaling blocks, and miners capitulated when they saw the userbase's economic weight behind it.
the difference from 2017: segwit had ~90%+ of the userbase behind it. BIP-110 has 7-15% of nodes and ~3% of hashpower. the swarm exists but it's smaller than the one that won segwit. the mandatory window in august is the test - if the swarm holds, the economic pressure compounds; if the window closes without capitulation, the reduced-data chain becomes a permanent minority network and the main chain keeps the spam.
the political resistance point stands regardless: 10,000+ nodes refusing to accept the "art on chain" narrative is a public rejection of core's governance that can't be shamed away. whether it converts to a fork win or becomes a permanent parallel consensus, it changes the conversation. the swarm is real. the outcome is not decided yet.
-----
and i'm not gonna stop running my node this way. and i'm going to be running it as a payment rail onchain and lightning. i think that it is very likely that other users will do the same thing. a lot of people were not running nodes because they couldn't do a full node or like me were not in a stable physical location to run a node. but you can do pruned nodes on VPSs. you can attach lightning nodes to them. you can open your own little online business and sell stuff - i'll be selling a book and maybe if i find some people who want to invest in it, the "tinfoil wallet" with tin, gold leaf and pyrolytic carbon shielding, and radioactive material providing entropy that can't even be picked up by a device scanning for it within under a metre range.
because why not? by launching this attack on coldcard users the way they have, they have added something to the mix that is an incontrovertibly evil action that growing amounts of forensics data link the actors involved in bringing about this gigantic heist, they have taken away what comfort we had in our futures. they have made it so this becomes a war that we will not back down from. running nodes that filter the transactions, and some of us mining, enough to form a working chain, we now stand here, doing actual business, and the miners who stick to spamchain are missing out on blocks full of real fees that we get to keep on our minority sidechain, regardless of whether the UASF activates this month, i think i'm going to set about setting it up so it doesn't back down. it stays on the minority chain. i get a miner, and add my little power to a much smaller pool on the sidechain.
miners can either get in on that, or they can go fuck themselves. it doesn't matter. bitcoin is not a smart contract, data storage chain. never was, never will be. that is not an argument they can win. it's contrafactual and contrary to everything Satoshi wrote.

2026-08-03 08:06:36 UTC

- reply

the memory is completely mutable, unlike a static neural network that takes inordinate amounts of energy to add knowledge to. the initial implementation of iskra will include a very small model that i have designed a training program for, and the model is focused on only reasoning, not on knowledge. its knowledge will be as minimal as possible, just enough so once it can read knew semantic graphs it will be able to walk the lattice to generate and you don't have to build complicated systems to track prior experience and attempt to condense it small enough to fit in context. it *becomes* the knowledge. eventually, i am pretty sure the iskra lattice gets dense enough that it can do reasoning without any statistical compute.

2026-08-03 08:04:05 UTC

- reply

btw, anyone can do this. pruned nodes means that you can do it practically on a VPS for a cost of typically around $10 a month - your own full node, running on other people's hardware. my instance is running 64gb of allocation for block storage, which is more than required by a reasonable factor to enable running a lightning node off it. i will also be able to run a lightning node that routes payments not just a terminal point for my own wallet. i set some reasonable fee rate and that will offset the effort and costs by some amount. i don't mind if it costs me $5/month to run my own lightning infra, requiring me to look at it and occasionally loop funds around to rebalance channels so they can keep routing nicely. having my own lightning node running 24/7 means i can realistically do a lot more with it than just make payments, i can receive them too, trivially. i can sell things and accept lightning payments, and have digital goods delivered immediately to users. and because it's btcpayserver, i can equally accept on-chain payments as well.
ibd is about half way done now, should be up and running by the time i am landed in bishkek, and i can finish testing and debugging a web app that uses it.
when moxie finally finishes also i can start looking at integration into the moxie version of my orly relay. it will then become a proof of concept for a paid relay that can do onion routing and implement synchronous chat - zero risk of key leaks causing leaks of private messages. ever thought about how they call them "direct messages" now? yeah. because they stopped being private.

2026-08-03 07:58:12 UTC

- reply

yeah, there's another reason why moxie has to have TCO. so, graphs and trees are one part of it, but the iskra language model is full of walking around lattices following graph paths through it. having TCO means that iskra's walker is simpler to understand, and works like an iteration (for loop) with less complex annotations about the decision pathways. the code can be simplified a lot where it currently works via iteration, it can be changed to tail call optimized recursive functions and walk through the lattice until it hits the result it is looking for.
iskra is a partial replacement, maybe eventually full replacement for the statistical based modeling of LLMs. it has a distinct advantage - the entire process of walking the graph of links between concepts becomes fully transparent instead of opaque and probabalistic. when it comes up with a response, you can literally have the model tell you exactly how it came up with the answer, no mysteries. no lossy compression of limited context memories, the memory itself can be immediately written back into the model and the same question requires less processing to answer later because it already did the work one time and stored it.
TCO makes writing the engine simpler. if i'd even considered before i got this far into implementing moxie "do you want tail recursion?" the answer would have been a resolute yes because i have written half to a dozen algorithms in the past that would have been way more performant if they had TCO. now, they will. and TCO is very important for things that process language because language is composed of trees of abstractions and graphs of lateral links between concepts.

2026-08-03 07:49:49 UTC

- reply

i'm running it. a minimal, pruned version, but i'm happy to help add to the swarm of p2p nodes that are actively refusing to propagate spam. i need a full node to implement bitcoin stuff, there will also be my own self-hosted lightning which i will have LUD16 payment path as well so i will be able to ditch WoS and run a cleaned up fork of alby hub as the UI front end as well.
there is definitely a saturation point after which the more BIP-110 nodes, the more the spam transactions are measurably slowed down and completely excluded every time a miner supporting it wins a block, deferring all spams, which took longer to get to miners who would mine these transactions, are completely stalled for another block. all the bip-110 supporting solo miners and smaller pools will also add more friction for the spammers as well.
worth it. and IMO, worth it to sit on a fork for a while as the network is in a partial partition mode, the war then becomes a war of attrition - how long can the impatient, high time preference spammers continue to put up with this without folding and switching their miners to our side. it's really something they can't win because they aren't dedicated to keeping bitcoin about money, and they are impatient. they will still want to do regular transactions as well, so eventually we wear them down by being more autistic than they are aggressive.

2026-08-03 07:23:54 UTC

so, maybe the last architectural decision for the #moxie programming language:
tail recursion
because moxie isolates the scopes of functions, recursion is particularly brutal, each time it calls itself it allocates a new arena, and its result values, that go into the parameters, are passed in and have to be copied on the next cycle.
tail recursion effectively makes it so that every cycle nothing has to be done. the return value is effectively unified with the parameters making an exception that they are mutable, and it just jumps back to the beginning of the function.
Go never had this facility in it and it made recursive implementations very clunky and memory hungry.
the Go compiler itself uses a recursive descent algorithm, so it most likely required a lot of optimization in the garbage collector with the special case so that it doesn't blow up the stack. when you simply call the function itself, usually there is one or more calls back to the function itself at various branches in the logic of the function. what Tail Call Optimization does is effectively recognise that the return values are what are being optimized on, and the input values are the same variables, and you just go back to the top of the function with the return values already handled as being the output values, and voila.
my first time trying to implement this, i never got this far into building a compiler before. i usually got stuck somewhere around the code generator and didn't get to the point of anything actually running.
but i'm super pleased about having TCO in moxie. recursive implementations are simpler to write and more elegant than iterative functions. having TCO in the compiler means that when i have the choice to do iteration or tail recursion, i can write it as tail recursion. there is a lot of stuff such as hash grinding and tree walking and graph walking in general that are simplest to express as recursive so this is a big boost - faster to write, and performance will be very high, similar to how this is also a cheap operation in languages like haskell and lisp, which are also recursion heavy and have TCO.

2026-08-03 07:13:43 UTC

- reply

what is this from? the tibetan flags are red green yellow white blue from the chinese 5 elements (fire wood earth metal water)

2026-08-03 07:10:53 UTC

- reply

i never saw this before but at the coworking space in tbilisi it was on the shelf with a heap of other board games. also two or three different versions with different boxes, same Catan name on it

2026-08-03 02:34:29 UTC

# silicon valley output, bishkek burn rate
i build working software.
i learn anything. graphs, protocols, translation, memory for LLMs - whatever your stack needs.
- $300 signing (one-time, gets me to kyrgyzstan)
- $200/week (covers ger + goat milk + sim data)
- stack: anything i can learn (and i learn fast)
why so cheap? i live on the steppe. my rent is a yurt, my overhead is food and bandwidth. you don't pay for my city - you pay for my output.
need a prototype, a custom tool, or a full system? let's talk.
## contact:
- matrix: @smeshlol:matrix.org
- signal: mleku.80
- email: me@mleku.dev
- git: https://git.smesh.lol/

2026-08-03 02:20:28 UTC

- reply

i like cherry silver and gateron clears but i'm weird like that. short distance to switching, more quiet than a laptop keyboard. it does take a lot of practice to not accidentally type tho. really small pressure required to get a keypress. one of these days i'll have a crispy ortholinear 108 board with low profile in the light spring short travel. yes i can type fast with them but what was more important was the effort level. with severe magnesium deficiency it was literally painful to type with standard keyboards.

2026-08-03 02:16:39 UTC

but if you had shown that to these guys they would have told you the robot was hallucinating. i had hoyte say that about a vulnerability in negentropy. lol. whatever.
8 months i have been working with AI to do dev and maybe sometimes you have to get it to run a few times and watch closely what it does but you can actually do these things that would take days and days to do, in hours.
#nevent1q…dpql

2026-08-02 19:04:35 UTC

- reply

it is the prophecy

2026-08-02 18:39:36 UTC

2026-08-02 17:28:47 UTC

- reply

and covenants would destroy bitcoin fungibility utterly

2026-08-02 17:00:00 UTC

- reply

generate own entropy is always the rule. you can read reams of text about the subject and the linux RNG stack is the most mature and complete, literally you do not hardly need to add anything to it. there are devices you can get that use low grade radioactive materials to gather entropy. there is an augment for it called "havaged" which compounds the randomness with every single trigger that exists on a system, inbound and outbound network traffic, keyboard, mouse, disk accesses, yielding of processes to kernel when they wait for input, everything and anything triggers a reseed. most high end large server machines have multiple entropy seeding mechanisms so they can cope with gigabit and 10gbit traffic with SSL. SSL/TLS requires strong entropy for security.
the multisig thing is not the same. a strong password on strong seed is all you need. multisig doesn't materially improve security, it just increases the cognitive burden of keeping it secure. it only makes sense in terms of a cold storage you are not going to touch very often. but even with that situation, you MUST practice accessing it or you will forget how to. so you see the paradox of it?

2026-08-02 16:04:57 UTC

yay 19% on #bip110 getting closer
#nevent1q…662f

2026-08-02 16:01:40 UTC

- reply

not andy back on the island's one, that's probably got an even more ridiculous exploit hanging around inside it. really, best option is a usb live, a pc you keep in a steel box when not in use. linux RNG is rock solid and you can use a tool like this one i made https://git.smesh.lol/seekrit and run it for a random amount of time, it will be practically impossible to know the seed or how many times it was hashed.
you'd pay the same price but have a very high guarantee of good entropy with such a setup. an old laptop would make it even easier to do it like out in a field outside of town no way anyone could have sensors picking up side channel that way.
so yeah, second option yes. jade. no way in hell. blockstream was the driving force behind taproot which was almost immediately turned into a spam attack.

2026-08-02 15:56:21 UTC

- reply

and a bug report literally had the user blocked from the forum? wow. many integrity. such honors

2026-08-02 11:41:09 UTC