sovereign.self.reliance

Okay, I am throwing my hat in the ring on this core30 OP_RETURN limit increase debate. Simply put I am very concerned about the change. 80-bytes seems like a good limitation in and of itself to control "spam" and limit non-monetary transactional data. Its a constraint of the technology that doesnt need to change. These other improvements this change is purposing to introduce in my ignorant view need to be reviewed and tackled with a different solution. Bitcoin was forked or copied many times already to accomplish "other use cases" for example. I'm not even sure this fixing "spam" argument is valid. What spam exists within a hard limited 80bytes? Concern #1: harmful content in the ledger that once there, can't be removed Concern #2: ledger bloat which will directly affect hardware requirements, network costs and as a result negatively affect decentralisation. This situation seems grave because once that data exists on the ledger it can't be removed without irreparable harm done to the network to remove it. I am reminded of Chapter 10 in The Bitcoin Standard - Bitcoin Questions. Specifically subsection "out of control: why nobody can change bitcoin", page 228. Also I had the pleasure listening to the WiM podcast with Justin Bechler (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igTnc20SicE). Although I am not sure I agree with the solution (run knots), nor is it the best conversation/representative on the subject I think many great points are made in this talk. CC: nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhx6mmnw3ezuur4vgkhjsen, nostr:nprofile1qqsxu35yyt0mwjjh8pcz4zprhxegz69t4wr9t74vk6zne58wzh0waycpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qgcwaehxw309anxjmr5v4ezumn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcprfmhxue69uhhqatjv9mxjerp9ehx7um5wghxcctwvshs0fa792, nostr:nprofile1qqsg86qcm7lve6jkkr64z4mt8lfe57jsu8vpty6r2qpk37sgtnxevjcpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskueqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqux2c7y, nostr:nprofile1qqsr26r4lltjnvrwadxp67ns58m4qpzaqemhf5sup7hlujhjh7t296qprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qy8hwumn8ghj7mn09eehgu3wvdeqzrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz77f8s05, nostr:nprofile1qqsggcc8dz9qnmq399n7kp2yu79fazxy3ag8ztpea4y3lu4klgqe46qpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpzdmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ue0qy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjctzd3jjummjvuhs8fa6r0, nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgewaehxw309aek2mnyd96zumn0wdnxcctjv5hxxmmdqyv8wumn8ghj7urjv4kkjatd9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsz3yzjv, nostr:nprofile1qqs8cajagp7n48275ytuhzuxn93g2crc0lqgfgx8dta2gjdlh5fpmpqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgdwaehxw309a38yc3wd9hj7vszyl8 I am CCing the individuals above because I trust your opinions on this matter and looking for an update on your stance. As well as what is being done about it. Some of you ( nostr:nprofile1qqsggcc8dz9qnmq399n7kp2yu79fazxy3ag8ztpea4y3lu4klgqe46qpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpzdmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ue0qy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjctzd3jjummjvuhs8fa6r0) I know are staunch knots advocates but relying on one individual to trust for our software is a security problem. nostr:nprofile1qqsxu35yyt0mwjjh8pcz4zprhxegz69t4wr9t74vk6zne58wzh0waycpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7qgcwaehxw309anxjmr5v4ezumn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcprfmhxue69uhhqatjv9mxjerp9ehx7um5wghxcctwvshs0fa792 I read your post about "how hard it is to control spam and engineer filters" but I argue that 80 bytes of "spam" for say a "cheque memo field" (valid use case) is the better control mechanism for spam limitation than increasing the limit to create new filters. I admit I am not super well versed in your realm of expertise. I'm not even sure its fair to call OP_RETURN spam anymore. It seems like a great feature for classifying/IDing transactions and needs nothing more. Bitcoin is money, a store of value and most importantly its emergant feature of immutability. The latter point and the fact it could affect that as well as affect the democratisation of bitcoin due to lifting the hardware and data transfer requirements is in my opinion dire. So for those in my network, "closest to the source", what are we doing to move forward? I don't not want to spread FUD but it almost feels too late! I agree with Justin Bechler on one thing for sure... Where is the reasonable explanation on the benefits and how it improves Bitcoin? I don't think bitcoin should be evolved to include more things. I also don't think one solution to fix UTXO bloat should be at the comprise of something else. Regards, a concerned, humble sats stacker

GM it's time for Uptober!

Anyone here on Nostr have any recommendations for TTS (text to speech) translation software for language learning? Needs to respect privacy, require no kyc and limited data recording. AI options are welcome. #asknostr #learning #translation #french

GM! Let's rip boys!

The importance of learning privacy in your everyday computer use can not be overstated. As someone who is home schooling their children, their computer education must be done from the prospective of how this technology works as a tool from the ground up without corporate and government data harvesting. Why, what and how is important approaches over "here is a tablet, watch some YouTube" ... My kids are far too young for computer exposure currently but building their curriculum starts now by ensuring our home only contains technology without tracking and spyware. #rulesforreset #homeschooling

Its official! I am now using Linux as my main driver! Spinning Pop!_OS and so far its pretty slick... Last year I said goodbye to google completely, this year's task was saying goodbye to Windows. Good riddance!

I am thankful for this community in trying times like these. Its good to know we're not alone in this sick and depraved world. Thank you for the dialogue around recent events, current and ongoing. Im grateful for this space with like minded individuals. The world needs strong men. Stand proud for what's right. No comprise