OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
ODELL16d ago
my investment firm ten31 has provided over $250 million to great bitcoin companies building great bitcoin products that make it easier to use bitcoin as money. we have zero interest in shitcoins or arbitrary data on bitcoin and are the only major firm that can say that. we are all in on bitcoin. https://ten31.xyz
šŸ’¬ 71 replies

Replies (50)

ODELL16d ago
retarded conspiracy theory do better
0000 sats
sats>bits16d ago
Go make some more puzzles you fucking weirdo
0000 sats
ODELL16d ago
thriving, thanks for asking
0000 sats
Rusty Russell16d ago
Great, enjoy. Wasn't talking or thinking about BIP110, but you do you.
0000 sats
BitcoinIsFuture16d ago
Thanks. You too.
0000 sats
BitcoinIsFuture16d ago
🤔
0000 sats
Iihsotas16d ago
Yes that’s how I picture him without the beard. Thank you.
0000 sats
BitcoinIsFuture16d ago
You have mental issues. Seek help.
0000 sats
GFY16d ago
šŸ¦—šŸ¦—šŸ¦—
0000 sats
ODELL16d ago
opensats never funded gloria and tftc is marty’s company dumbfuck
0000 sats
BushRat16d ago
Financial transaction data is not spam on a financial transactions database. Childporn and dickbutt memes are spam. Hope that helps clear it up for you and all the other retarded pedophiles
0000 sats
Rusty Russell15d ago
OpenTimestamps transactions aren't financial data, nor memes. So are they spam?
0000 sats
JackTheMimic16d ago
Oh, did we recently expand those fields by ~100k bytes too? Quick answer: LN commits- No (those fields have to be there) OTS- No (also mischaracterized description They hash their message into their transaction ID, the ID length doesn't add more data) Samurai- No (a transaction to predicate, another transaction is very common, like a deposit) Taproot- yes It's not that hard to determine: is data being added to the txn that would not be necessary for the same transaction to be spent?
0000 sats
Rusty Russell15d ago
OTS transactions only exist to put non-financial data in the Bitcoin blockchain. Is that ok?
0000 sats
mdubore16d ago
He won't reply to this. Just like back in the day, him talking shit an Saylor, then softball interviews him during the Nashville Shitcoin magazine conference.
0000 sats
Justin Moon16d ago
What does your charity think about bitcoin?
0000 sats
ODELL16d ago
we like the coin
0000 sats
Bitcoin orphanage iganga16d ago
lnbc1p5e55kdpp520w7f6v2tk2veaykk44ul942e7myxanlj5va98y28xysljmlkvtsdqqcqzzgxqyz5vqrzjqf0wu22xsefd8gzu0m9n93g2khea86l6yy26en9v46g9e6hk7v9z8efmpx7z45ml2cqqqqryqqqqthqqpyrzjqfwdd2w9y5ra5z3m4qetfa5ccu6432xfuvk6zrvg9vxwltvukd48defmpx7z45ml2cqqqqryqqqqthqqpysp57qtxvkzzpjw8kmrndz2xt7clegmefwu7ntvgcgag47e6l0m808vq9qrsgqvtjvu9vawdeqsnwt7gdgn9kqyka9xzcr823njfw09y2s4a467ltsp6mja4ed6u5lvvp044h04ekr557ya2qn36yl9rhshk5ak20q8pgpxxugum Donate any sats to get food for the kids at the orphanage
0000 sats
ODELL16d ago
i dont think you watched the video and thanks for proving my point
0000 sats
Jake Woodhouse15d ago
I’d love to know the funds actual returns Totally agree
0000 sats
Michael Dunworth15d ago
Can’t claim deploying other peoples capital without providing the ROI. Thats the rules, and that is fair if one is trying to flex on others IMO.
0000 sats
Jake Woodhouse13d ago
Although ROI on illiquid positions is kind of pointless Until those businesses exit, the ROI isn’t real So time will tell Interesting place to be batting though
0000 sats
jgbtc15d ago
Especially ironic coming from the same crowd who claimed the technical high ground when removing op_return limits was first proposed, along with plenty of condescending credentialism and "trust the experts" mentality. But now when there's a alternative proposed it's nothing but personal attacks and fud from the same people.
0000 sats
š–‹š–Žš–†š–™š–‰š–Šš–“š–Žš–Šš–— (ĀÆ`◕‿◕“¯)15d ago
Anyone who disagrees with you is a part of the lynch mob. THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID šŸ˜‚
0000 sats
ODELL15d ago
nope
0000 sats
notstr15d ago
Want OP_RETURN to continue to be consensus valid. Miners running reasonable defaults should not be punished.
0000 sats
ValderDama šŸ”‘šŸ‘½šŸŒž14d ago
Man, you are like a bot. Maybe it would easier for you to create one šŸ¤–
0000 sats
BitcoinIsFuture14d ago
We need to expose the lies of the Coretards. Bitcoiners deserve the truth and Bitcoin Freedom Money. Not spam inscriptions via exploits or large OP_RETURNs forced from compromised Core devs.
0000 sats
ODELL13d ago
changing the local policy default limit back wont have a major effect because 1) its not a protocol rule, but rather a local node one 2) these transactions started getting propagated around the network more effectively due to librerelay, not core, which is a node implementation that is basically the opposite of knots 3) bip110 is not about spam but rather ego and control
0000 sats
ODELL13d ago
for someone who pretends to be against spam, you sure spam nostr a lot
0000 sats
BushRat3d ago
Remember kids, every accusation is a confession. When a zionist says you are controlled by Peter Thiel for no reason, what they're doing is telling you that they actually work for Peter Thiel. Projection is their only coping mechanism
0000 sats
sats>bits3d ago
So exactly what kratter has done for like 6 months now? You fell for the bait
0000 sats
BushRat3d ago
projection seems to be your only coping mechanism šŸ¤”
0000 sats
sats>bits3d ago
I genuinely love my life. I am beyond blessed to live the life I have. No projection or cope, just genuine thankfulness for the life Christ and my parents have given me.
0000 sats
Rusty Russell15d ago
And does this mean you're okay with transactions that transfer NFTs? Because that's a financial transaction?
0000 sats
BushRat3d ago
Why do you need a picture of a monkey printed on your receipt? If the nft was text only, proof of purchase, like they were originally before the money laundering fake art scams changed the meaning. But I think it's too late for the term nft, just call them decentralised proof of purchase or something.
0000 sats
quietstacking15d ago
hm, rare signal
0000 sats
JackTheMimic15d ago
I reject the question of "is that okay?" I only submit whether the definition of spam is accurate. Your characterization of a transaction that is Open time stamped is not accurate. It is a financial transaction that is used as a timestamp proof. Like using a decentralized checkbook to prove you were in the store writing the check at a given time. The transaction is a transaction, the OTS correlated is coincidental. Again spam is when a field is exploited beyond the necessary data to make the transaction. OTS embedding doesn't add extra data and therefore burden on others.
0000 sats
Rusty Russell15d ago
It adds an entire transaction! Every time it does that, it uses up farmore space than an 80-byte OP_RETURN. So your conclusion is that it's not spam if it looks like a normal transaction to you?
0000 sats
JackTheMimic15d ago
If we are not conflating spam (content) with spam (quantity), yes. Data hidden via stagnography is not a future IBD issue. I am not a reactionary here, I just don't like the intentional mischaracterization of a reasonable approach. Creating more of a validation burden on future nodes is the threat, in my estimation.
0000 sats
Rusty Russell14d ago
So, OP_RETURN is fine, as is annex data which don't increase validation burden? And cutting off OP_RETURN and driving those uses to fake pubkeys, which does increase future validation costs, is a threat?
0000 sats
aj12d ago
If OTS ever implements sign to contract, it could just be an ordinary 1in 1out payment, which would be less than a tx with a 40 byte opreturn. https://github.com/opentimestamps/python-opentimestamps/p…
0000 sats
JackTheMimic14d ago
OP_RETURN and taproot annex both expand the data burden on future nodes so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. (A pruned node can't be used for an IBD.) Fake pubkey outputs are still pubkey length and therefore not any harder on validation than a normal transaction. They are also a pro rata donation to the rest of us because they will never be spent. Also you are not " driving those uses to fake pubkeys." I'm not driving the thieves to my neighbor's house by locking my own doors. Steganography is not the issue here. If it looks like a normal transaction, the whys and wherefores are not up for debate.
0000 sats
Rusty Russell13d ago
You only have to download and hash: you don't have to check extra signatures (our most expensive operation) or put them in the UTXO set (our most constrained memory resource).
0000 sats
JackTheMimic13d ago
Initial block download you check: Block- Syntax, PoW, timestamp, blocksize, and Txn- Syntax, signatures, inputs, and outputs So, I am not sure what you mean by "download and hash"
0000 sats
Rusty Russell13d ago
To check the signature, you hash the transaction. So the only cost that OP_RETURN is doing is the cost to download and hash it. If it's data in the annex you don't even need fi hash it, just download it.
0000 sats