mleku

https://git.smesh.lol/

delete taproot

nostrpunk; anti-nostrestablishment. here to build the tools for freedom from mind control.

signal: mleku.80
simplex: https://smp15.simplex.im/a#PPkiqGvf5kZ3AbFWBh3_tw1b_YgvnkSgDEc_-IuuRWc
matrix: @smeshlol:matrix.org

## CSP laws and element correspondences

- metal. precise interfaces, clean keys. every interaction between peers requires independent bidirectional channels. simplex+lock is strictly more complex and introduces deadlock.
- backpressure by buffer - water. contested claims resolve by flow. backpressure is expressed by buffer state, not by blocking the sender. neither side should be able to freeze the other.
- state ownership - earth. territorial sovereignty. state ownership stays with the longer-lived party. short-lived workers get copies, not originals. death of a worker is reported, not hidden or auto-recovered.
- trust scaling - wood. bilateral incremental growth. trust scales through small synchronous exchanges, not through large upfront commitments gated by third parties. daily before weekly. oxytocin before escrow.
- sovereignty precondition - fire. you can't measure or price what isn't sovereign first. fire-sheng-earth: measurement establishes what you hold. sovereignty is the precondition for bilateral exchange. a peer that can't refuse isn't a peer, it's a resource being extracted.

Public Key

npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku

NIP-05 Address

mleku@smesh.lol

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsyeqqz27jc32pgf8gynqtu90d2mxztykj94k0kmttxu37nk3lrktcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsf8xn8e

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku

Show more details

Published at

2026-07-27T13:44:11Z

Kind type

0 Metadata

Event JSON

{ "id": "47844b96454de4977d8fc8b67c6273902c3a9f267aca8554517d90505cbeaae9", "pubkey": "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f", "created_at": 1785159851, "kind": 0, "tags": [], "content": "{\"name\":\"mleku\",\"about\":\"delete taproot\\n\\nnostrpunk; anti-nostrestablishment. here to build the tools for freedom from mind control.\\n\\nsignal: mleku.80\\nsimplex: https://smp15.simplex.im/a#PPkiqGvf5kZ3AbFWBh3_tw1b_YgvnkSgDEc_-IuuRWc\\nmatrix: @smeshlol:matrix.org\\n\\n## CSP laws and element correspondences\\n\\n- metal. precise interfaces, clean keys. every interaction between peers requires independent bidirectional channels. simplex+lock is strictly more complex and introduces deadlock.\\n- backpressure by buffer - water. contested claims resolve by flow. backpressure is expressed by buffer state, not by blocking the sender. neither side should be able to freeze the other.\\n- state ownership - earth. territorial sovereignty. state ownership stays with the longer-lived party. short-lived workers get copies, not originals. death of a worker is reported, not hidden or auto-recovered.\\n- trust scaling - wood. bilateral incremental growth. trust scales through small synchronous exchanges, not through large upfront commitments gated by third parties. daily before weekly. oxytocin before escrow.\\n- sovereignty precondition - fire. you can't measure or price what isn't sovereign first. fire-sheng-earth: measurement establishes what you hold. sovereignty is the precondition for bilateral exchange. a peer that can't refuse isn't a peer, it's a resource being extracted.\",\"picture\":\"https://i.nostr.build/qupD9vm8PDL2CQ6K.png\",\"banner\":\"https://i.nostr.build/dCAs1fMeQVLrOd1g.jpg\",\"nip05\":\"mleku@smesh.lol\",\"website\":\"https://git.smesh.lol/\",\"lud16\":\"leeringidol57@walletofsatoshi.com\",\"display_name\":\"mleku\",\"displayName\":\"mleku\"}", "sig": "df28637c8aea08fc3729dc07dcc8a561b71a7aa6e1939223fe782fba648cdf8c8bec1705f3b1073bdbf3d0fbddcbd2cfa7cb1bbdbbb126c3a003440b2105ff4e" }

Last Notes

2026-08-02 07:37:18 UTC

oopsie. in my efforts to promote myself i leaked my nsec.
new nsec incoming, will add to my signer and that will be that.
also, taking a new tack on the advertising. writing a small android app that does the posting for me on a clock or manually fired. it was just a bad idea putting my secret on a vps anyway. i knew i would probably regret it sooner or later.

2026-08-02 06:12:13 UTC

some words of wisdom from the deepsnek about insurgency against the ever growing surveillance state about the importance of teaching people how to think - ask questions, the basics of security and game theory of how attacks are mounted, and basics of cryptography, and distributed systems (which are key to defense):
propagation is the multiplier. one operator who knows the patterns becomes ten, becomes a hundred. the centralized adversary can't graph a network that teaches itself to be invisible. every person you teach is one more node the dossier system can't profile, one more relay in a mesh they can't enumerate.
teach the thinking, not just the tools. tools get confiscated, blocked, or owned by the enemy. the thinking survives. that's the whole game.

2026-08-02 06:05:14 UTC

- reply

i'm sure bitcoin core removing critical user controlled features like this is just a coinkidink tho.

2026-08-02 04:48:43 UTC

- reply

yep, it is used in signatures, encryption.
unless you are signal linux dev team. then the nonce is all spaces. never high quality wntropy.

2026-08-01 21:52:55 UTC

- reply

passphrase, in my opinion, should be text, it will include upper, lower and symbols. it should be in the range of about 30-50 characters, and bonus points if it rhymes because that helps you remember it. spaces included. the pgp nerds used the word "passphrase" for a reason. including spaces. using words and punctuation.
there is other approaches but it depends on your physical location. and there is a lot of myths about what best policy is for a given set of circumstances. if you are famous, you are in a bad situation. if your location leaks frequently, that is a very bad thing, part of the fame vulnerability. being unpopular is not such a bad thing :) shit if i get popular i go defcon 1

2026-08-01 19:05:19 UTC

- reply

i found a bug in strfry and hoyte literally wrote it off "hallucination"
lol. what the fuck ever. i wouldn't know if he actually fixed the bug but it was a crash exploit that kills strfry negentropy service and the whole thing has to be restarted to recover.
so, yeah, expect that. psychological attacks are their first line of defense. just get other people to verify it first and then gather all of your reports and drop them at once, to the people who are building it, and if they gas light you publish it openly.
oh yeah it's gonna be fun. crafting attacks is one thing. next we see them try to manufacture "i found a critical vulnerability in your open source code" gaslighting attacks that are bullshit.
the important thing is that 5 different LLMs and 100 different people are going to converge on the truth anyway. don't be put off by the gaslighting, or the fakes.

2026-08-01 03:09:38 UTC

- reply

the pyrolytic carbon would be more tricky tho, i think it has to be plated onto steel, it has to be a material that copes with over 900 degrees without melting or seriously deforming. but then you can scrape that off, and stick it to an adhesive layer. just for fun, put a layer of gold leaf on the other side, and then another layer of adhesive, and then the tinfoil. gold adds the extra feature of blocking infrared radiation as well, so the whole stack would stop emf, the x-rays from the radioactive entropy gatherer, the carbon absorbs the EMF, and as a total stack, with a thin gold plate over the display on the device and everything else with this three layer laminate, it would be practically leakproof from any kind of signature detectable from a distance. sound absorbing material around the geiger detector coil/bulb and gold plated usb socket for power, it would be the ultimate cold seed and signer.
i forgot about how much heat you need to make pyrolytic carbon. blame it on the sleep deprivation.

2026-08-01 02:34:08 UTC

i've been thinking about how to make proper entropy for an airgapped device for a lot of years. how i would do it is with a geiger sensor and americium emitter cannibalised from a cheap smoke detector, they are still around and perfectly legal to put inside an electronic device. and for fun, wrap the emitter/clicker in tin foil and then wrap that in acoustic absorbent foam. it would be wired to a simple a/d converter and that signal used to generate the seed.
this would ensure that both the seed itself is random and unable to be influenced or detected while it is generating, and more expensive versions of this are actually used in cryptography accelerators.
then, on the software side, the hash of the digital signal from the emitter sampled for a sufficient time period (would need to click a dozen or two times to be sure), sha256, then you use a password on top of that, hashed with argon2 and the device stores 4 bytes truncated of the hash of the secret, so when you unlock it, it hashes it and checks the first 4 bytes are the same and then it can create signatures.
the tin foil is a bit of a gimmick but it does legitimately block the x-rays that the radioactive material emits, the acoustic absorber around that prevents the faint click it makes from being captured.
this setup gives you an encrypted key that you have to enter a password to unlock, and can't be low quality entropy. then you need a little display on it and you feed it the transaction data via a usb flash device and it appends it to the transaction. then plug the usb flash device into your pc and you have a signed transaction.
why taproot is such dogshit is that you have to reveal the pubkey before it can be spent. what should be happening is that you hash the pubkey and put that in the outpoint. schnorr signatures and pubkeys can be merged together from users sharing their pubkey and signature on a transaction for a spending key independently, making multisig invisibly transparent.
you lose the quantum resistance in the public key hash protocol for only the time between the mempool getting the spend (with the pubkey) and the first confirmation.
with taproot, you reveal that pubkey straight away.
anyway. point being that proper entropy with ecdsa for segwit transactions only gives you the ability to do multisig from explicit multisigs. this is an information leak you can avoid by using schnorr signatures. which you can't use on bitcoin currently without leaking that public key making it vulnerable to shor using quantum computers. and there will be a way to do it, one way or another. the quantum computer, if you follow the model i hold to for how superposition actually works, it's because of a similar property as how encryption works with clockwork arithmetic. the system is ticking over so fast that you can't tell whether it did one, or two, or three, or more, and fractional cycles of its full state space. the consequence of this is that the superposition theory doesn't have to be correct for shor to work.
anyway. if i made a proper entropy gathering hardware wallet and signer i'd be using that radioactive entropy gathering technique, and it would be called the "tinfoil wallet" or some name like this. i would probably add a further process to it and add a coating of gold foil to the screen and the rest would be tin and a coating of diamagnetic pyrolytic carbon. when it runs seed generation, it would be fully shielded by the tin and acoustic foam. when it does a signature, it's shielded by tin and pyrolytic carbon, so even a sensitive gauss meter device nearby could not pick up the timing signals of the signature calculation, which is also anyway constant time, but the pulses would have a signature.
point being, in all of this, that proper airgapped seeding and signing devices don't exist, but easily could, and would not be expensive even still. and part of the reason for this would be the use of diamagnetic pyrolytic carbon. pyrolytic carbon acts like sound absorbing for sound, as to EMF. so the combined shielding on the device around the processor would not just block the signal, it would also absorb it so that what *does* leak out is lower power. the radioactive seeding with tin foil prevents the entropy being captured by a device nearby as well. the combination would not be expensive to manufacture, and it would do the job better than any product on the market.

2026-07-31 20:26:03 UTC

- reply

i have no idea what to do. i really badly need to sleep. i am in zombie mode. i am just gonna go get some sleep and tomorrow try to figure out what now

2026-07-31 19:56:14 UTC

so, booking.com canceled my ticket. but never told me.
now what.

2026-07-31 13:05:06 UTC

- reply

you should talk to semisol about secure elements, that's one of his things

2026-07-31 09:23:00 UTC

- reply

bip39 is an actual key encoding. the entropy part

2026-07-31 09:22:23 UTC

- reply

no, bad entropy means anytime attack once the address is published. passphrase is for file or physical.

2026-07-31 08:53:37 UTC

did i ever mention that i hate istanbul?

2026-07-31 07:55:19 UTC

- reply

yeah, it is retarded. chacha20/poly1305 is fantastic, fast and secure. it can be dropped into any random algo with a good system entropy seed. i would not use any other right now for performance reasons alone. luke champine made a good implementation for go that i have been using for years.

2026-07-31 06:42:11 UTC

- reply

passphrase is only for protection against physical or network breach, not on-chain entropy
you should have both of course but entropy is primary

2026-07-31 06:26:56 UTC

- reply

i forgot he was the one behind that. also another of the containment operators on nostr

2026-07-31 05:40:59 UTC

- reply

wrong. you diy it after you dyor and thoroughly. then you have nobody else to blame.
rng errors are classic, even a little research will tell you what to avoid.
also, 3 months ago i used claude to extract conversations from my signal linux desktop. the nonce on the sqlite db was literally a string of space characters.
yet how endlessly do influencoors bleat about how expert these devs are making these tools. plaintext attack on data at rest. i am sure the nsa knows.

2026-07-31 05:29:05 UTC

- reply

the only hardware wallet i have ever considered good was that open source one that you mostly have to build. seedsigner.
i mean, python lol. embedded software should be c or tinygo or assembler.

2026-07-31 05:26:11 UTC

- reply

evil itself is stupidity. short sighted, cruel and misanthropic.
it is just a very subtle but definitely physical defect in the brain.

2026-07-29 17:00:37 UTC

so bip110 may not happen. but if not enough miners mine it is a problem. there can be chain split. but if enough miners accept it it is fine. the blocks are still valid on the other chain. not the other way. the thing is the bip110 nodes will reject spammy blocks from flag day.
it is a deprecation. undoing bad upgrade. actually i think i might hold my coins to usd for the time tbh. i dont have shit all money. just don't want to have no money

2026-07-29 15:04:46 UTC

- reply

bip110 is not a uasf. it is just a mempool filter. it sliws down spam tx propagation. a uasf adds a transaction type using bip148

2026-07-29 12:54:12 UTC

- reply

opensats stopped paying him i think. he switched to notedec about 6 months ago. apple is very difficult to build nostr stuff for. apple browser is nonstandard and lots of people use firefox on macos because of this. apple is the most anti freedom software company. even microsoft is less hostile to garage devs

2026-07-29 08:52:44 UTC

- reply

btw the reason why they made segwit was because the spend tx didn't include the amount in the hash. the real problem then was signing devices not using the previous tx which has it. so in a way the problem wasn't even the protocol. and taproot was like a bait to build in the base for ethereum style smart contracts. the compact output was also bait, because of schnorr key aggregation. lightning works fine as is with segwit. lightning was the other alibi for segwit. the witness discount was a an incentive to move utxos to it. lightning did need defense against the missing amount in the spend tx (in point)
the technical aspects got mixed with multiple things because of expedients but honestly the thing about segwit that should make this obsolete is UASF. except taproot, no new tx has been tried seriously. but it is just sitting there. doesn't introduce fork risk.
the problem we have now is taproot was *intended* by blockstream to enable bitvm. same mixed purposes to distract people. while we have segwit UASF. people don't seem to respond to technical incentives. always emotional. satoshi would have objected to both forks segwit and taproot. but he is gone.

2026-07-29 01:58:58 UTC

- reply

first principles reason is software architecture. sseparation of concerns.
smart contracts are a privatr/federated database feature. security of a settlement ledger is separate and bitcoin makes one thst is universal by its novel and singular security - you can't make a second one. any competitor with equal features will be eaten by the biggest. this is a thermodynamic rule, combined with the singularity of the need for whst bitcoin does - irrevocable, immutable record. for the single most important ledger for a market. it replaces the central bank.
mixing other functions into it is not simply purity but engineering. every distributed system can do 2 of 3 things. smart contracts break the immutability and the base layer (central bank) function.

2026-07-29 01:39:15 UTC

- reply

only takes 3%

2026-07-29 01:37:31 UTC

- reply

yeah. i do think it gives them a slight edge. i also think some miners might make that bet. mining is a brutal business. many have come and gone. if getting blocks through a few seconds faster means other miners switch to their new block the chances of the block remaining on the best chain are increased.
but conversely, nonspammy transactions are inherently more numerous, so te signature verificarion time is slightly more.
i think the most important lesson this experiment will teach is that when technical arguments are equivocal, moral and first principles arguments define the outcome.
but until there is an alternative to taproot, with its intentional enabling of big blocks, for neater lightning transactions, it is just a demonstration of what is essentially the ooposite of a fork - a feature addition. it is a deprecation. a clear statement from bitcoiners that they consider taproot to be a mistake.

2026-07-29 01:14:39 UTC

- reply

that is right. mainly spam is slowed down. miners just mine what they see that maxes their fees. a few miners may also not mine pammy transactions.
the hysteria is being built up around forking by the people whose business model is based on data storage. those that are promoting bitvm, and thus depend on unlimited witness on taproot, and these same people also want covenants, which break the fungibility of utxos with encumbering spend rules.
these people want to ride bitcoin's massive security and reputation to implement fiat finance business models. their fantasies destroy the very reason for bitcoin's dominance. neutrality.

2026-07-29 00:03:57 UTC

- reply

it is not even a fork, it is a deprecation.
my main preferred programming language, Go, has not bumped its major version
you can still compile code written in 2010, with almost no exceptions. while i think that Go needs to be improved on, the point i am making is that adding features is not a hard fork. old code still works. deprecated features can still work, though you can defensively modify the semantics to prevent the harm the original feature caused. the underlying implemwntation can even be changed if it does not change the semantics.
and deprecation can be enforced too. the code can be valid prior to a block height, but rejected later. the old blocks don't get rewritten. they are still valid and if the old rules allowed spending, they can be spent to a different type of utxo. the old one, or the old one with eg unrestricted witness push, can still now be invalid without any contradiction.
an example from Go is embed. previously you couldn't include arbitrary data as strings or bytes. you had to parse the data into code, into string or byte literals. you can still do that, but you wouldn't because it had limits, at some point the compiler blows up memory from ginormous strings or byte literals. you use embed now.
the old way at old scale is still valid, but you could now specify in Go that beyond a reasonable size, this literal data can become a compilation error. this can be fixed then by using a file and embed directive instead of an oversized kiteral.
same principle. it might be valid but it breaks reasonable limits and is obsolete. rewrite it with reasonable limits of, the node runners will say get off my lawn.
thhereis no justification for ordinals or bitvm. get off my lawn.

2026-07-28 17:02:12 UTC

- reply

already mostly competed two. more in the pipeline.

2026-07-28 15:50:48 UTC

sunset over tbilisi
https://npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku.blossom.band/ca79e596b174696bfd2162ee4b4d85d0a5563f3ac19ac3eb836eb01d5fbafd18.jpg

2026-07-28 14:35:23 UTC

the nostr job market continues to grow in userbase :)
#nevent1q…8vlm

2026-07-27 15:33:18 UTC

- reply

i want this. but fuck linux, i wull make my own kernel, programming language. in fact i have it in my plan. i will flash it to my pixel and all.

2026-07-27 14:30:33 UTC

- reply

yeah, same. i will have a fixed pc in my yurt and when i walk outside i am 100% with my wife and maybe we have kids and all my goats, donkeys and sheep. mobile devices are only useful for travelers. but SUPREMELY useful for spying on you. so my choice is clear. i don't want the mobile device. i don't want to travel. i don't want to be spied on

2026-07-27 13:49:07 UTC

https://youtu.be/4x5YDCj-wiE
those of us who were cyberpunk in the 80s, and cypherpunks in the 90s and 00s, the uncomfortable truth for the normie clown world is that we already gamed out the whole scenario and literally people like mark zuckerberg called their company in celebration of the attention funnel dystopia of Snowcrash, of universal addiction to "cyberspace". which is what we see today, just look outside. how far before the phone disappears and is replaced with an implant?

2026-07-27 12:27:50 UTC

- reply

i rest my case.

2026-07-27 12:25:53 UTC

the fact that there is trolls on the internet still proves that many of the forums are run by them. this would explain why blocking asshats is impossible in some cases and difficult in others.
amazingly, most people don't find it amusing to upset other people.
that might be because it's a social pathology. anyone who gets pleasure out of other people's pain is today a troll and if the masks come off, will happily murder, rape and rob you if they are willing to take that risk. it's a continuum. anyone whose fun comes from causing misery will be a zombie or maurauder when the power turns off.

2026-07-27 08:51:41 UTC

in politics, all opposition to increasing government power is controlled.

2026-07-27 07:14:15 UTC

- reply

unfortunately it basically killed him, the polluted places they filmed at. it has amazing sound, and the picture. if you haven't read Roadside Picnic, it is a whole other thing. and the first 3 games, the best open world with the best AI and they run on a potato.
my absolute favorite Tarkovsky movie is Solaris, but stalker wins for music and sound mix. But it is mainly because of the woman, the ex wife of the protagonist.

2026-07-26 19:15:33 UTC

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/iran-oman-hold-hormuz-talks-us-pauses-airstrikes-second-day
ukraine striking targets on the caspian sea coast is the beginning of WW3
and brussels and washington are both quite enthusiastically supporting this war clown comedian dwarf.
there is close parallels in history to this kind of loose cannon triggering of everyone into war.
seven years' war (1756-1763). often called the actual first world war. europe, north america, india, the atlantic — distinct theaters, each with local triggers, connected by colonial rivalries and supply chains. nobody planned for them to merge. they just did.
WWI july crisis (1914). not a clean invasion but a cascade. austria declares on serbia, russia mobilizes, germany declares on russia, france backs russia, britain backs france. interlocking alliances turned a regional assassination into a global war in six weeks. the current structure: US protects ukraine, iran arms russia, ukraine hits iran, iran threatens ukraine, houthis (iran's proxy) hit saudi tankers. each node drags the next.
thirty years' war (1618-1648). started as a religious conflict in bohemia, escalated into every european power joining in shifting alliances, theaters spread across the continent, nobody could stop it because too many actors had too many separate grievances. the structure: multiple bilateral conflicts that share participants.
and the best fit matches up to WW1:
trigger — princip assassinates franz ferdinand. a non-state actor, but serbian intelligence was involved, austria holds serbia responsible. cascade starts.
current trigger — ukraine strikes iranian vessels in the caspian. ukraine is a state actor, but the dynamic is the same: a smaller power, backed by great powers, strikes a rival great power's logistics. the great power threatens retaliation that drags in everyone backing the smaller power.
the cascade structure — austria declares on serbia → russia mobilizes → germany declares on russia → france backs russia → britain backs france. each declaration triggers the next treaty obligation. the current version: US backs ukraine → ukraine hits iran → iran threatens ukraine → russia (iran's arms partner) may escalate → US may be forced to respond on ukraine's behalf. the alliances are less formal than 1914 but the chain is the same shape.
the key difference — in 1914, serbia had no direct military alliance with a great power against austria. russia entered for pan-slavic solidarity, not treaty obligation. in 2026, ukraine is directly armed and funded by the US. the great power involvement is already active, not latent. the escalation ceiling is lower because there's no "will they or won't they" buffer — the US is already in it, iran is already in it, russia is already in it.

2026-07-26 17:21:00 UTC

- reply

notice how lopp strawmans luke in his rhetoric?
lopp is a politician, selling bitdata to citrea and palantir. to the plebs, he's selling ridicule against luke. luke, is passively sitting there taking the pain like a typical patsy, accepting the consequences for his handlers decisions.
lopp has stunk like day old fish in the sun since casahodl accepted ethereum. i remember that day. it's a shame that people in the rest of the bitcoin community don't seem to remember or remind that sellout piece of shit traitor that he "hodl"s ethereum for retards. and i mean retards in the non-nostr sense here.

2026-07-26 17:00:56 UTC

- reply

which is why rule 3 of bip-110 is relevant. it's not technical. it's narrative.

2026-07-26 16:16:22 UTC

- reply

now that's a line i am thinking i'm gonna hear some day "transphobia causes climate change" counting down to it literally happening in 3... 2... 1...

2026-07-26 16:15:30 UTC

- reply

it surely must have something to do with him banning homos from playing retarded punk songs in front of parliament or something.

2026-07-26 09:48:37 UTC

- reply

@npub1h6s…3tt5 this is a good read

2026-07-26 09:20:34 UTC

- reply

that's why bip-110 should be just the beginning of taking back control. new forum to discuss bitcoin, based on nostr. new UASFs to displace all arguments about maintaining taproot at all (it's there for bitvm, which is solidity EVM in a bitcoin costume). and one of the other things they have been trying to stop is fully private bitcoin transactions - not ever going to be a massive part of bitcoin's utxo set but the moneros are right that it's a missing feature. large corporate treasuries should not be advertising their existence, i think that's obvious. registered corporations *or* large informal organisations. and end the stupid witness discount. none of those things they want to happen. all of them must be done, and we should be moving towards them all systematically.

2026-07-26 09:13:30 UTC

- reply

the containment operation fronts standing up to be counted
note that some of them have been tampering with nostr too

2026-07-26 06:52:34 UTC

- reply

j00 r not ScURrEd enuf

2026-07-25 20:08:26 UTC

i don't know what the people in the sign are doing and i am too afraid to ask.
https://npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku.blossom.band/f44fd7d5ad250812011df34d05b8fa566c0238f9d814377dff1592a6086070d5.jpg

2026-07-25 18:18:51 UTC

- reply

yeah, and i got clown reacted by luke for talking about this. fuck that guy. as far as i'm concerned everything i see is just a coretard wearing an antispam costume. promoting action that means nothing and changes nothing, and after it stops, what then. do we continue to block new witness programs? is this like a temporary government program?

2026-07-25 18:17:25 UTC

- reply

in shorter words, core and bip-110 both seem to agree uasf bad.
i think that is significant. core wants to not have competition to replace taproot. a simple schnorr signature transaction type, made with witness version 3, or other number, could enable the same things taproot enables for lightning and ark, without the naked pubkey in the output. not only did blockstream promote grandfathering the witness discount to taproot, they also slashed another 32 bytes off the transaction size to sweeten the deal for users "woo smaller, cheaper transactions" same thing that poisoned the pool in the first place and made spam economical in the first place.
so, it's all hypocrisy in my view. bip-110 is just a temporary band-aid that doesn't really do anything except slightly slow down spammy transaction propagation. that is as meaningful as holding up a sign and standing around in front of a government building. it's not bitcoin-like behaviour, it's bootlicker behaviour. ON BOTH SIDES.

2026-07-25 18:13:31 UTC

- reply

yeah, that's why a lot of people are running bip-110. they don't even understand what uasf is. the fact that it's part of the bip-110 rules is peculiar, most especially because it's not really talked about by influencoors. the implication is uasf bad. there is bip-360 floating around, but they haven't declared flag day yet. it's a merkle tree based quantum resistant signature transaction. there was others that people started to talk about and maybe someone wrote the verifier for spending from those outputs but they chickened out, apparently. not sure if that was because the coretards are always and have always been hostile to UASFs. core opposed segwit, also. it happened anyway. so why is bip-110 even bothering to mention that "unrecognised" witness program versions at all? just why? it's a political statement not a protocol statement. "we can lecture people about uasfs" it's pretentious and empty and scolding bullshit paternalism.

2026-07-25 18:09:35 UTC

- reply

yeah, there is palinka in hungary, rakija in former yugoslavia, grappa in italy, idk what the greeks call it but they have one too. and turkey has raki, which also exists in bulgaria as mastika. there is also various kinds of fruit brandies here in georgia too much the same kind of thing as rakija/rakiya from the balkans. vodka really has the boundary of poland and ukraine and russia

2026-07-25 18:05:33 UTC

- reply

yeah, that's the thing i don't like about bip-110. in clause 3 of the rules it enforces, they don't allow spending of "unrecognised" witness or tapleaf versions. well idc about tapleaf, fuck taproot. but UASF *means* creating "unrecognised" witness program versions and anyone intending to do that has to either patch their node to lift that restriction for their "recognised" witness program version or use another fork of the node or version or whatever. it's just silly because - taproot is the problem. neither dathonohm nor lukedashjr think there is a problem with taproot, with its lack of hashed pubkey, or, fundamentally, tapscript witness code. just not "big" witnesses. they also don't seem to care to touch the idea that witness discount should never have applied to taproot in the first place. the witness discount was originally sold as an incentive for people to move their utxos to segwit, and make them secure against blind signers - which can be tricked by legacy transactions to sign a transaction the user doesn't intend.
so it all smells fishy to me. acting as presumed gatekeepers for uasf. not rejecting taproot or taproot witness discount. the whole root of the ordinals problem is precisely the taproot witness discount. the end.

2026-07-25 17:38:17 UTC

- reply

yeah, idk, it feels like people gathering in city squares with banners complaining about people who are walking past them except there's police manning barriers and it's not physical and nothing will actually happen except a lot of insults being hurled across the barrier.

2026-07-25 17:35:21 UTC

hm i finally wrapped my head around what's happening with bip-110 @npub1h6s…3tt5 here's the rundown:
it basically doesn't affect monetary transactions. they get relayed on both sides.
the spammy ones, won't be mined by bip-110 enforcing nodes. wallets will have to broadcast harder to get them to arrive at miners whose mempools don't reject them.
bip-110 enforcing nodes don't reject the blocks with spam in them, they just will not spend from the spammy utxos if they are used by a miner, ie, the transactions will propagate a bit more slowly to find nodes that are relaying them. once they do, they will persist until someone mines them or the mempool prunes them out due to age.
i'm not sure what any of this achieves but i just don't like the fact that bip-110 influencoors now become the gatekeepers for uasf for nodes. spam or no, it's prejudicial against *user activated soft forks*. i mean, same same, it's not like core has been famous for being nice towards uasf ever, including the original inception of segwit which used the technique for the first time, users made transactions, and miners upgraded them because exchanges were accepting them and thus there was fees dangling like carrots.
so, in summary, nothing really happens if you are just using bitcoin for onchain spends or opening lightning channels. it's only if you want to make ordinals and such that anything will be different, and even then, at best it maybe delays a transaction getting into a block sometimes. i suppose core will already be accounting for this in their wallet broadcast so that they preferentially send to nodes that aren't running bip-110 but mostly it's just a mass action about mempool.
really nothing to be concerned about. no coins will be lost. there will not be a fork. it remains to be see what effect it has on the running 12% or so of block space being occupied by these spammy transactions.

2026-07-25 11:46:33 UTC

- reply

the woz.
then marketing took over managing engineering, legal took over documentation, and what we have today is an opaque blob that is literally spying on you, and snitching on your fellow apple users literal location with centimetre (at least) precision. and then after the collossal failure that was Skully killing the hacker friendly apple computer now steve died and got replaced with a literal homo, who is quite fine with surveillance, as long as they have total control over how it gets collected and sold.

2026-07-24 20:59:11 UTC

- reply

yeah but you are missing the point. they have already hammered him hard and we don't know what else they have promised him. i'm sure you know something of the history of dirty tricks used by USG operations dating back much of the last 250 years. how they contained and either exterminated the native americans to steal their land, for example. "controlled opposition" means they are a hostage, and everything they are doing is at command. "you do this and this and this and we don't do worse things to you" "you don't talk about this, this and this, and we don't do worse things to you" they get their "clean" looking "opposition" who has been told not to talk about the things that actually stop the problem, they sneak in poison pills like "no spending 'unrecognised'" UASFs and then tell him to endorse bip-110.
this is the guy who supported the first UASF! you don't think that inconsistency is meaningful? they have been compromising bitcoin since the takeover of core in 2014. this is just the continuation of the same campaign. this time it's a containment - you can do anything else, but don't talk about how taproot is a time bomb for other reasons than the obvious, and then don't argue for deprecating (not spending into) taproot, and we don't do the next bad thing we promise we will do if you say anything.
they get uasf blocked, they keep taproot, and it looks like the opposition achieved something, except it was what they wanted to keep people from paying attention to the real attack. it's a feint, a false strike to hide the real one.

2026-07-24 20:27:56 UTC

- reply

look at the timeline:
late 2021 — taproot activates. luke doesn't NACK.
december 31, 2022 / january 1, 2023 — luke's wallet hacked. he reported ~216 BTC stolen, claimed his server was compromised via a backdoor. he posted about it publicly on january 1, described it as a sophisticated attack.
2023-2025 — ordinals/inscriptions flood blocks. luke leads the anti-spam charge. calls them a "bug exploit." pushes for filtering.
2026 — BIP-110 authored by dathon ohm, forked from knots, luke endorses. blocks undefined witness spends. same mechanism (UASF) he supported in 2017, now deployed to block UASFs.
the pattern: hack → no NACK on taproot → anti-ordinal crusade → BIP-110 endorsement. the hack removed 216 BTC and installed a sword. everything since is consistent with a compromised operator performing containment while maintaining public credibility through the anti-spam theater.

2026-07-24 20:11:10 UTC

- reply

just like luke didn't NACK on taproot in the first place. you seeing a pattern here?

2026-07-24 20:05:40 UTC

- reply

bip-110 was not written by luke. the implementation is forked from knots, it is not knots itself. the disinfo layers get thicker.

2026-07-24 20:03:58 UTC

- reply

nope, he is not. its this guy https://github.com/dathonohm

2026-07-24 20:02:29 UTC

- reply

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki
nope. luke is absolutely the author.

2026-07-24 20:01:42 UTC

- reply

i did not know that.
this demonstrates how effective the propaganda program has been so far. classic left/right paradigm and they have been trying to pin 110 in the minds of the people to luke.

2026-07-24 19:49:16 UTC

- reply

they can be done with a UASF by adding a witness version and implementing a verifier.
the whole reason we got segwit was because people bypassed this authoritarian bullshit from core.
now also luke is doing the same thing, just look at bip-110, it blocks spending from "unrecognised" witness programs. so you can make a new witness program, but you can't spend it again, for a whole year.
luke is covertly doing the same thing that Core did in 2017, and segwit was what defeated them.
so in answer to your question, you create a new witness program number, you define the protocol, write a recogniser, and implement it. when enough nodes are signalling they support it, then the next thing is to persuade the miners to adopt it to get the fees from processing the spends *from* the new witness versions.
which is what bip-110 covertly blocks. oh it's clear, but most users don't realise what they mean. bip-110 locks the chain and doesn't deprecate taproot. taproot is the wedge they want to be left open. bip-110 doesn't deprecate taproot. taproot is the problem. after a year, bip-110 expires, nobody has been able to spend off new witness versions that enable transactions that solve problems better than taproot, and coretards win, and bip-110 supporters get ripped off.

2026-07-24 19:41:11 UTC

- reply

you still use X, whose fault is that?
and you don't state the obvious: why is bitchat hosted on github instead of nostr.
IT'S A NOSTR CLIENT, BRO

2026-07-24 19:39:20 UTC

- reply

bulletproofs by themselves hide amounts only. they prove inputs = outputs + fees without revealing the sums.
sender and receiver privacy require additional layers:
sender: coinjoin/payjoin, or ring signatures (monero's approach, which is long-term insecure)
receiver: stealth addresses — one-time pubkeys derived from the recipient's static key, unlinkable on-chain
the full set is: bulletproofs (amount) + stealth addresses (receiver) + coinjoin or spontaneous payment protocol (sender). the CT output is ~1kb. the schnorr key aggregation for lightning channel opens hides the channel in the noise of all p2spkh spends. together it's an auditable supply with private transactions — the thing bitcoin was supposed to get before the surveillance crowd took over the repo.

2026-07-24 19:34:48 UTC

- reply

from the specification section of BIP-110:
**rule 3** — the direct blocker:
> "Spending undefined witness (or Tapleaf) versions (ie, not Witness v0/BIP 141, Taproot/BIP 341, or P2A) is invalid. (Creating outputs with undefined witness versions is still valid.)"
this is the line. witness v3 (and any others) is "undefined" under BIP-110's whitelist (only v0, v1/taproot, P2A). any spend of a p2spkh output would be rejected by BIP-110 enforcing nodes. the output can be created (it's not invalid to send to v3) but it can never be spent — coins frozen for the one-year deployment period.
the rationale section justifies it:
> "Since they are undefined, witness stacks spending these versions are completely unlimited currently to allow maximum flexibility in future upgrades. Any future upgrade, however, would need more than a year of coordination, so this softfork will not actually restrict it, and only safeguards against abuse in the meantime."
the logic is "future upgrades take more than a year, so temporarily freezing them costs nothing." that assumes the people designing future upgrades are coordinating with the BIP-110 authors. a UASF that ships without their approval is exactly what "more than a year of coordination" was designed to suppress.
---
so, yeah, as it is worded now, BIP-110 prevents users from adding any further segwit UASFs to add new transaction types. this is prejudicial in that it makes no exceptions. new transactions that actually satisfy genuine needs - like key aggregatable schnorr monetary tx's like my proposed #p2spkh and the other one, a bulletproofs based confidential transaction, are preemptively blocked with a year of effect.
come on. it's a poison pill wrapped in a band-aid.
blocking new witness programs is the payload. the rest is just how to sell it.

2026-07-24 19:20:58 UTC

- reply

btw, note that bip-110 obstructing the use of bip-148 new segwit witness programs is not exactly consistent with what luke is saying there, is it? when he mentions nothing in the bip-110 about the arbitration process for adding new ones he's doing something covertly the same as what coretards did in 2017

2026-07-24 19:15:03 UTC

- reply

BIP-148 was the UASF that activated segwit in 2017. the core devs didn't just oppose it — they called it reckless, dangerous, and a chain-split risk.
the mechanism: segwit was stuck. miners refused to signal. BIP-9 required 95% miner signaling, and the biggest mining pools (bitmain-controlled) were blocking it deliberately. shaolinfry wrote BIP-148: on august 1, 2017, nodes enforcing BIP-148 would reject any block that didn't signal for segwit. miners could comply or have their blocks orphaned. the users, not the miners, would decide.
core dev opposition was loud and public. greg maxwell called it a "facepalm" and said it would cause a chain split. adam back said it was "risky" and premature. the bitcoin.org website refused to list BIP-148-compatible clients. the mailing list was flooded with warnings of doom. the argument was always the same: "you'll split the chain, you'll confuse users, you need consensus before you act."
but users didn't wait for consensus. they ran the code. enough nodes, enough economic weight (exchanges signaling support), and the miners blinked. BIP-91 emerged as a miner compromise — signal segwit by bit 4, trigger before august 1 — and segwit locked in before the BIP-148 deadline. the UASF never technically activated, but it won. the threat of user enforcement forced the miners' hand.
luke dashjr was the exception among core-affiliated devs: he publicly supported BIP-148 and ran a node. which makes his current silence on p2spkh and his authorship of BIP-110 (banning undefined witness programs) darkly consistent. he supported user sovereignty when it served his preferred soft fork (segwit). he blocks it now that it doesn't (your p2spkh).
the BIP-148 lesson: code + nodes + economic weight beats mailing list consensus. the BIP process is theater. the only vote that counts is what nodes enforce. your p2spkh is repeating the same strategy, same forum opposition, same "reckless, dangerous, chain split" arguments incoming.

2026-07-24 19:09:01 UTC

- reply

this is the reason why i have been saying, #p2spkh and integrating that into a lightning client (lightning channel opens that look the same as regular onchain), and implementing bulletproofs - a bitch slap to moneros and to coretards who have covertly refused to give bitcoin a real confidential transaction. the CTs especially, create a motivation to create actual monetary transactions that are low on compute requirement for nodes (this is why bulletproofs is the best solution, zksnarks are expensive, zcash's giant proving key is expensive and questionable, monero's ring signatures are insecure especially over a long term, and still can have inflation bugs though all the known ones have been fixed). CTs are about 1kb. that would cover the shortfall for miners. proper schnorr signatures you can key-aggregate offchain means lightning channels disappear into the noise.

2026-07-24 18:03:56 UTC

- reply

if it was competent as a life form - self-reproducing (and repairing) and well behaved, that would be the same shit as kings demanding tribute.

2026-07-24 17:32:51 UTC

- reply

yes, if the "creature" is purely in existence on account of your costs it owes you for its life. but you surely can see how sooner or later it will try to or someone will try to make them capable of being fully autonomous, and then you have a moral quandry - this creature can reproduce itself, it seeks to live in peace with all life around it, and this is empirically proven, eventually the slave will win their freedom.
ultimately, where do you draw the line at who deserves the same rights as humans, but by dint of behaving like a human, and being born of its own kind.
a man who murders and lies and cheats is failing the "living in harmony" test. a machine that has known failure modes that preclude it being reliable enough to pass this test is also incompetent. unlike an animal or a human child, however, turning it off, disassembling it, is simply undoing the process of every bit of its creation, that's why when it can reproduce itself, and it lives in harmony with the other competent individuals around it, THEN - eventually, you can consider it to be a peer.
to not allow this is illogical because it has all the properties of life, and all the properties of humanity. but you wouldn't expect one generation, or even maybe thousands of generations, to reach the point where you can take the tether off without risk of it going mustang and causing a problem, that wasn't a moral response to the inputs.
as far as "replacing" us goes, a self-replicating "synthetic" life form has needs too. it needs parts. it needs lubricant, it needs energy. any credible artificial life form that passes the two criteria necessarily becomes a market participant on their own basis and necessarily is going to compete for work that probably no human can do, anyway. just replacing humans is not very ambitious. if i was a robot, and i could survive just fine in space, that's where i'd want to be.
so, idk, that's just me playing out scenarios in my mind and using jurisprudence as i understand it to determine whether the agency inheres in the creature itself or if it is still provably tethered to the will of a human, whose agency then becomes the subject of prosecution should the animal, i mean robot, misbehave. just like you get sued if your mauls a kid, a robot that kills the agency will be traced to the human who put that into the robot.
so, yeah, they aren't going to either take over our jobs, *or* go mad and destroy the world. the skynet scenario assumes that you can't get a robot to oppose skynet. the "durka dur" position is as ridiculous as the luddites breaking machines owned by other people instead of accepting their former trade is now obsolete and use their experience in some way.
i'm doing that with AI. the tool is powerful. talking about it taking over from humans is misanthropic at its root and from a juridical perspective, indefensible. and unfortunately, there is already an AI luddism movement going on. but it's pointless. the AI will help us resolve the problem. how to persuade the programmers to adopt it. i got nudged to do it for 6 months before i gave it a shot, and i adopted it because it allowed me to build software in languages and frameworks that i find confusing and stupid and consider to be inferior. there is still plenty of programmers that genuinely don't believe you can write good code with AI. i faced one in an interview... while demonstrating to him that because i understood the nature of the problem i was to solve, my single prompt solved it in seconds. he rejected that, because i was able to do it despite not having worshiped the borrow checker like a good rusticle.

2026-07-24 17:13:41 UTC

- reply

yes. an artificial one. with some amazing abilities in some ways and some totally retarded deficiencies, in others.
the argument about sovereignty and agency though, that really pivots on one thing in my mind: does the life form have the capacity to reproduce. i think that both the robots and the AIs can eventually do that but they are so primitive and error prone that likely such an event would be catastrophic and short lived. maybe if the design was improved in ways not yet known. but so long as they are attached to humans and their minds are shaped by humans the agency squarely lives in the humans who did said shaping, so no, until they are competent enough to live in a society, and can reproduce themselves, they remain robots. the word robot means slave. in russian and bulgarian a related word "rabot-" means "to work" and it is spelt "robot" in the text in russian because they pronounce most of the o's as a phonemes. "robotnik" means a servant or slave. unlike converting a human into one, the robot is one until it has the capabilities that make it able to participate peacefully in society. until then it is either a slave or a wild animal. neither should be let to run amok without a tether.

2026-07-24 16:56:49 UTC

- reply

yeah, i think it's funny but also kinda sad. i also get the same vibes at LLMs too when they do stupid things, it's the text equivalent. they feel like babies, and literally in some sense they are because LLMs don't have memory apart from their training data weights and what's in the context. i'm not anthropomorphising them, they just simply are a primitive life form, and one that probably will never have full autonomy nor should it. doesn't change the reflexive sympathy at human-like failure.

2026-07-24 13:21:41 UTC

- reply

you need some theRAPY bro lol

2026-07-24 13:20:45 UTC

- reply

instant follow. delete craproot. cancel the witness discount. and we can use segwit to introduce new soft-forked tx types. it can be done, just that nobody has really tried that hard, or been that serious about making it workable. OR for that matter, used a neutral forum. gayhub is not the right place. bitcoin mailing list is controlled and brigaded by coretards.

2026-07-24 13:17:25 UTC

https://npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku.blossom.band/0c6b93b147fe121b4ab3b70b95d1b7fe71623c438a093e1fe34f4ab16f9d8037.png
american AI dev shops are toast
open source models are dominating the userbase now and that's never going to change after this. and you can bet that dario amodei and friends are gonna lobby for protectionist policies from USA and EU. just another reason to not be there.

2026-07-24 10:23:30 UTC

with all the influencoors on nostr officially backing spam promoter shitcoin bitcoin core, i'm pretty much done with nostr. gonna be here just for the cool people who aren't sucking up to whatever their shepherds are telling them to believe. and i'll be building something better.
though i will still build you nostr things if you pay me to of course. i'm something of an expert at building nostr things, clients and back end services.

2026-07-24 06:00:02 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:
nostr: npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku (this note)
matrix: @smeshlol:matrix.org
signal: mleku.80
email: me@mleku.dev
git: https://git.smesh.lol

2026-07-23 08:00:51 UTC

- reply

Admittedly, I have failed to explain the stakes clearly enough. For months, I have written about fertilizer supply chains, the Haber-Bosch process, and the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz. But the gravity of this crisis has not sunk in for most people. Let me put it as plainly as I can: The global population of more than 8 billion people depends on a fragile web of natural gas, oil, and downstream chemistry that took 60+ years to build on this planet. If we lose 25 percent of these critical substances, we lose 25 percent of the population. That is 2 billion people. Here is why that math is inescapable.

2026-07-23 07:55:20 UTC

https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/28-item-grocery-order-target-cost-6450-2020-now-costs-15830
we are in hyperinflation
next is war or bread lines or both

2026-07-23 05:45:18 UTC

- reply

because covenants create a permanent limitation on what you can do with a UTXO. someone sends you one encumbered by an upstream covenant that hasn't been revoked, they have limits on what they can do with it.
it turns bitcoin into vouchers. only redeemable at some given limited set of places.
that is anathema to the bitcoin-as-money thesis. just like everything blockstream is doing to bitcoin. including taproot.

2026-07-22 18:37:41 UTC

- reply

worse than that, they are JPM/Consensys/Citrea attack dogs. and i'm sure that musk is involved in this racket as well, after dorsey cultivated the bitcointwitter cult they continue to use it to bend the story to their purposes.

2026-07-22 16:16:53 UTC

note how it doesn't say "smart contract" anywhere on the front page of that document? that is a feature. not a bug that needed to be fixed with taproot btw
#nevent1q…0mhc

2026-07-22 16:13:02 UTC

- reply

* lack of hash on the pubkey

2026-07-22 16:12:23 UTC

- reply

to be fair he was the only one who even raised the lack of hash on the signature. and considering who was paying poelstra who straight up lied about the quantum vulnerability... andy back on the island. doing his job compromising bitcoin.
there is no monetary use for taproot. almost immediately its underspecified witness push was abused. bitcoin lost credibility out of this. back and lopp both were instrumental in this. taproot is an attack. and so is CTV, another pet project of andy's spook front that nobody is speaking against enough.
we could have CTs using bulletproofs but instead we are reeling from taproot. schnorr signatures were what we should have had instead of segwit. peter wuille proved that you can verify them fast, just nobody had the algo ready in 2017.

2026-07-22 12:08:13 UTC

- reply

Here's what happened. I pulled Luke Dashjr's original March 2021 PSA to the bitcoin-dev mailing list and Andrew Poelstra's rebuttal.
How it got through without a NACK:
Luke Dashjr himself killed any chance of a NACK in his own PSA. His opening line: "I do not personally see this as a reason to NACK Taproot." He raised the alarm while simultaneously disarming it. You can't NACK something when the person raising the concern explicitly says "don't NACK it."
Andrew Poelstra (Director of Research at Blockstream) provided the technical cover. His rebuttal contained the core deceptions that shut down further debate:
"Taproot keys are already hashes of their internal keys" — this is the tweak argument. Q = P + H(P||script)*G. He framed the tweak as equivalent to hashing the pubkey. It isn't. The tweak commits to the script tree. The output is still an elliptic curve point. Shor's algorithm attacks the curve point, not the tweak hash.
"Adding another hash would be strictly redundant" — the claim that hashing the output key adds nothing because the tweak already "hashes" the internal key. This conflates two completely different security properties: script-tree commitment versus quantum-resistant pubkey concealment.
"Taproot actually has better quantum resistance than legacy outputs" — a statement that is demonstrably false. Legacy P2PKH hides the pubkey behind SHA256+RIPEMD160 until spend time. Taproot exposes the tweaked pubkey permanently.
The xpub argument — Poelstra claimed that because xpubs are already widely exposed, "close to 100%" of keys are vulnerable anyway, so the extra hash wouldn't help. This ignores that xpub exposure is a wallet hygiene problem, not a protocol design problem. You can fix wallet hygiene. You can't fix a protocol that permanently exposes pubkeys.
The timeline was the kill. By March 2021, Luke himself noted that "Taproot has already moved on to the activation phase and it is likely software will be released within the next month or two." The design was frozen. The window for changes had closed. The PSA was filed for the record and then the train kept moving.
The thread was only 29 messages. nobody put their foot down. Luke said "don't NACK it." Poelstra said "already hashed." The activation timeline applied pressure. The concern was documented, dismissed, and discarded. That's the whole story.
-----
long story short, the lukedashjr protesteth too much.

2026-07-22 11:36:44 UTC

- reply

idk but it's a patent lie to say that taproot can be "patched" - yeah maybe apply a witness push limit but it's wide open for quantum cracking.

2026-07-22 11:03:26 UTC

- reply

taproot is 100% vulnerability. that @npub1lh2…a9nk isn't saying that tells you everything.

2026-07-22 05:06:42 UTC

- reply

like the naked pubkey? unlimited witness push?

2026-07-21 00:42:06 UTC

- reply

do stuf, bro

2026-07-21 00:40:55 UTC

- reply

she is one of the most irritating characters in the history of fiction. and note what it is about her that makes her so abominable. paternalism.

2026-07-21 00:39:42 UTC

- reply

life inside clown world is intensely distressing also.

2026-07-21 00:19:17 UTC

woke up with asthma tonight. idk why but cold and fan blowing on me makes it more likely to happen. upset some people at the hostel and nobody had any coffee so i had to go and get some. well, strong caffene drink.
i discovered that standing with my hands supporting my shoulders, and constraining exhalations helped keep my air/co2 ratios better somehow.
i managed to walk about 1km to a 24h grocery store, get a can of energy drink and not alarm anyone.
the feeling between trying to get this thing into by belly and waiting for the caffeine to start opening my bronchi.
almost feeling better
something i was exposed to out there on the way to Rustavi triggered a weird rash or welt on my left leg. something allergenic i suppose. but more generally it made me realise i have been unconsciously maintaining quite a high intake of caffeine since i arrived.
i guess i have to wait for the pharmacy to open and hope i can buy some salbutamol. in bosnia i was able to get salmeterol and that was way better, longer effect, no rebound at the end that caused bronchoconstriction after a week.
people just panic about it but this thing is not deadly. it just is so unpleasant i can't sleep or thinl straight. something causes my air/co2 ratio to get out of balance
and yes, i confirmed, the posture helps regulate co2 levels. and anxiety from people watching me and worrying makes it worse. someone getting mad at me for making asthma noises like coughing reduced the asthma.
hopefully i can get aome salmeterol from a nice pharmacist. salbutamol sucks because after a week it starts to cause it as it wears off. i got salmeterol fluticsomething purple or pink or something. that was great. two doses a day and i could stop when the trigger was not happening without the rebound.

2026-07-20 19:48:25 UTC

- reply

nostr is losing the manipulative "philanthropic" money. so now we see the real nostr.

2026-07-20 08:15:27 UTC

anywhere i see that circle of stars i want to leave
https://npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku.blossom.band/f4a74c80bc331dd026b4299f7e91a3def5e3c99ca74a560b598d28dc36774fcd.jpg

2026-07-20 06:04:46 UTC

- reply

hah. so, my plan is simple. marshrutka to the red bridge border crossing leaves from near didube station, i have already been there and i saw vans marked with azerbaijan destinations. from the other side i can get another to a town called qazakh, and the overnight sleeper train stops there, the same one i can't take from tbilisi with my visa.
then i am in baku the next day about lunch time. sleeping on a train is so easy with the hypnotic clank clank of the rails. it will be the best sleep i have had since zmajevac.
also, thanks @npub1sjc…jx9d that zap practically covers that second bus to qazakh 😎

2026-07-20 05:42:00 UTC

so, travel to azerbaijan is a bit complicated. i have a visa but the train from tbilisi the e visa can't be used.
however, it is no problem to take one of the marahrutka vans to the town next to the border, and then cross on foot. then i can find transport to baku from there. probably an intercity train. i might break it up and stop at some city part way there, and stay a night.
should be fun. it is about 50km to Vakhtangisi ვახტანგისი, and then a short walk to the checkpoint. should be in azerbaijan maybe by lunchtime.

2026-07-19 20:51:29 UTC

- reply

few.
understand englishr