Ocean hit a new personal best of 17 exahash today They've never had more hashrate than they do now

Every cpu cycle you spend relaying spam is wasted If you want to be less wasteful, consider running Knots

Excellent question for the "filters don't work" crowd: Why are 81 byte op_returns three orders of magnitude less common than 80-byte ones? Filterers know why: a filter filters out 81 byte op_returns but not 80 byte ones. But y'all say they don't work. Do you have *any* explanation?

X (formerly Twitter)

Chris Guida | ⚡🪢 BIP110 (@cguida6) on X

@GoldLeader89 >I think you’re being disingenuous in implying this reduction is wholly attributable to filters Really??? You have some better ...

waxwing seems to like my latest privacy idea, whose goal is to hide the amount sent in L1 transactions. It's a bit like to payjoin, but has lower liveness assumptions he says: "i think that ticks all the boxes...a lot better than status quo...Good call"

Threads

Here's an idea for hiding amounts on bitcoin with reduced liveness assumptions compared to payjoin. Suppose you want to send someone 1000 sats without disclosing the amount on the blockchain, and you know your recipient's pubkey. Create a secret, hash it, and set up a script like this: [ //branch 1 [ op_sha256, hash, op_equalverify, recipients_pubkey, op_checksig ], //branch 2 [ 2016, op_checksequenceverify, op_drop, senders_pubkey, op_checksig ], ] Deposit 100k sats into the address and send the recipient a lightning invoice for 99k sats, locked to the hash in branch 1. If they pay your invoice, they learn the secret, and sweep all 100k sats via branch 1. Outcome: your recipient nets 1k sats, because they sweep 100k sats from the address, but send away 99k sats on lightning. If they don't pay your invoice, you wait for the timelock to expire and take back the money via branch 2. Outcome: your recipient gets nothing. Either way, chain analysts just see 100k sats go into the address and come out again, but do not know how much was really sent. And, unlike a payjoin, your recipient did not need to be online when you funded the bitcoin address.

Knots is Number One

Did you know that the Department of Veterans Affairs ran out of money during the government shutdown of 1995, and had to halt operations? In 2009 they lobbied for a law, which passed, that funds their budget *two years at a time* so that it's unlikely to happen again. The president at the time said this law “ensures that [this department] will no longer be held hostage to the annual budget battles in Washington.” source:

Advance Appropriations: A Victory for Veterans | Vietnam Veterans of America

So now, other government services are lobbying for the same exemption. For example, in 2019, Senator Merkley proposed doing the same thing for the Indian Health Service, and his bill (the Indian Programs Advance Appropriations Act) passed in 2022 after years of lobbying by Indian groups. Thus that service is also one of the “essential services” that may continue operations during a government shutdown. Basically, every government service has an incentive to lobby Congress to put them on the list of "essential services" so that government shutdowns don't affect them. And thus, nowadays, government shutdowns just don't do much.

Yay, op_codeseperator finally does something! The L1 cost of creating a groth16 garbled circuit, and publishing its inputs on bitcoin for validation, is only 1800 vb. A standard bitcoin transaction is about 300 vb, so with this op_codeseparator trick and groth16, you can validate anything on bitcoin for the cost of about 6 standard bitcoin transactions. Which, at current costs of 4 sats per vb, is about 7200 sats, or a bit less than $9.

Gist

Optimizing On-Chain Costs of Publishing Proofs for BitVM3-Style Bridges

Optimizing On-Chain Costs of Publishing Proofs for BitVM3-Style Bridges - publishing-proofs.md

Does "measure twice, cut once" have an equivalent in software design? Something like "Spec it out twice, code it once"

This an excellent facts-first reply to @calle and other people advocating for spam-friendly mempool policies

X (formerly Twitter)

Chris Guida | ⚡🪢 BIP110 (@cguida6) on X

@callebtc Hi Calle! Cool to see you posting thoughtful reasoning instead of insults and other noise. Hopefully this can serve as a jumping-off-poi...