if you scan one of those bitcoin .rocks QR codes people are putting everywhere, you still need to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to learn about self-custody. View quoted note →

boomer world stickers next to next-generation technology is quite the contrast View quoted note →

1% holding the keys of everyone else sounds about right. It does not have to be this way. But if writing down 12 words is too much for most, we did our best View quoted note →

by some accounts, we’re as free as it’s going to get View quoted note →

Likely, something like 1% of the world’s population will use Bitcoin as freedom money. ≈80-90 million people You don’t know when you’ll be one of them with truly global citizenship. The rest of the time, it’s NGU fiat gains and what your government says.

never knowing when a replay will delete your posts is a great feature imo

🤣 awwwwww View quoted note →

be nice to @jack or he’ll erase your legacy View quoted note →

We don’t *really* like telia. But they are making this personal View quoted note →

Those who want to limit free speech mention it the most and pride themselves on making some change. nostr is more significant than a single issue. It is a new fabric for markets. View quoted note →

I like how we’re on nostr reading mastodon just because they don’t like bitcoin. enjoy 4 years of trump without a way out View quoted note →

LFG, stock bros 💪 Freedom awaits View quoted note →

The block clock drama still going. Don’t they need a patent? Trademarks are just for the name, logo? Won’t be a good look if all of this is groundless. Comment if you’re already an expert on this.

“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” - Thomas Sowell A beautiful trade-off might as well be considered a solution. It’s the first thing to check for. Are you giving up something that is not all that important in the long run to gain something inspiring? Or are you hiding your ugly trades behind a wall of maths?

chat .com: “While Message Layer Security (MLS) offers significant advantages for secure and scalable group communication, it comes with some tradeoffs and limitations: 1. Complexity in Implementation • MLS introduces additional complexity in managing cryptographic keys, especially in dynamic group settings (e.g., when members join or leave). Maintaining forward and backward secrecy across multiple devices and users requires sophisticated key management systems. • The protocol must ensure secure synchronization across potentially hundreds of devices in large groups, which can increase the risk of errors if not implemented correctly. 2. Scalability vs. Performance • MLS is designed for scalability in large groups, but this comes with computational overhead. For instance, every member needs to process updates to group states (such as when someone joins or leaves), which can be resource-intensive, especially on less powerful devices. • While MLS optimizes certain operations like key updates, large group messaging may still introduce latency compared to simpler encryption protocols used for one-on-one communication. 3. Trust Dependencies • MLS relies on trusted delivery of public keys during initialization and group changes. If this process is compromised (e.g., via a man-in-the-middle attack), the entire group communication can be vulnerable. • Implementations must be paired with robust identity verification (e.g., certificate pinning or device fingerprints) to ensure no unauthorized entities infiltrate the group. 4. Backward Compatibility • Many existing secure messaging platforms, such as Signal or WhatsApp, use their own protocols (e.g., the Double Ratchet algorithm). Integrating MLS may require significant rewrites or interoperability layers, leading to compatibility issues and delayed adoption. 5. Dependency on Standards and Adoption • As an emerging protocol, MLS depends on widespread adoption for maximum impact. If only a few platforms implement it, the interoperability benefits may not be fully realized. • Early adoption may also reveal unforeseen vulnerabilities that could compromise security until patched. 6. Limited Offline Support • MLS assumes online availability for dynamic group updates. If members frequently go offline, synchronization and key updates may fail or cause delays, creating usability issues. 7. Auditing and Verification Challenges • While MLS is an open standard, the complexity of its cryptographic operations makes it harder to audit comprehensively. Misimplementation by developers could lead to security vulnerabilities despite the protocol’s theoretical guarantees. Conclusion MLS provides strong cryptographic guarantees and scalability but at the cost of implementation complexity, performance tradeoffs, and reliance on robust systems to manage key distribution and state synchronization. Developers must carefully weigh these factors when deciding whether to adopt MLS in their applications” View quoted note →

Learning more about #MLS now. Anyone without a PhD wanna tell me what the tradeoffs with it are? We’re still not done with the #ChatControl agenda, not sure how this fits in coming from Big Tech

@Cake Wallet has been cooking 🧁 How is #Cupcake cool? 🤔

👋

Giving the #Olas app a spin View quoted note →

😵‍💫 View quoted note →