Guess in getting up for 5:30am then. View quoted note →

Don't support things you don't want to see more of.

So, we're debating paying kids pocket money in sats. Since we're talking a few dollars a week, I'm thinking ecash, using

Century Metadata Cashu Mint

But what client? They have Android devices...

#CLN We're finally deprecating pay (in favor of xpay) in the next release: Greenlight has conclusively demonstrated that it's more effective across the board. That begins the 12 month window to removal. We've long had `xpay-as-pay` for xpay to take over pay commands. Flipping that to default true and running the tests has been eye-opening. Given our commitment to not breaking users, I'm re-learning things about pay. For example, if you try to pay the same invoice twice, pay "succeeds", whereas xpay says you've already paid. So when acting as pay, xpay needs to do that too. Mostly, the xpay error messages are much more informative and readable. But in a couple of cases they didn't use the correct error *code* (eg. There's a specific one for "route too expensive") so that's fixed. After this, I'll get back to my new "repeatpay" command and plug-in, which is a higher-level way to deal with recurring offers (an experimental option for now).

I've been through tech hype cycles before. They always have a grain of truth in them (otherwise they're trivially refuted) but they don't always work out. I have been through three VR waves, for example. I can't tell where Quantum Computing will land, though it has all the signs of needing a few more decades of occasional hype cycles. But I *can* tell that all the proposed mitigating signature schemes for Bitcoin suck hard: they're technically impressive because they're 10x better than I expected, but they're still 10x worse than what we have now. This means two things: I applaud and support the continuing research. And I won't support a soft fork any new cryptographic schemes until the someone demonstrates an extant QC that can factor faster than a classical one.

"Also Bitcoin Core, but in blue" Send $$ NOW for my new project!

I keep hearing about all the billions left on the sidelines, which will come rushing into Bitcoin when some legislative or regulatory event occurs. Here's some history: - Bitcoin futures ETFs. October 2021, price $61k - Bitcoin spot ETFs. January 2024, price $42k - March 2026, price $70k Now, maybe it's still coming, but at this point you might want to start doubting this narrative.

Now I serve a web page at that URL. Probably presents too much info. @calle might have suggestions for what I should put here? View quoted note →

Fired up a cashu mint today: should exercise my CLN node a bit more!

Century Metadata Cashu Mint

Finally read BIP-54 (mirror at https://bips.dev/54/) and it is straightforward,minimal and thorough. At this point I can endorse it as a good idea and worth doing. There's no rush, but I am looking forward to activation.

JSON5

JSON5 – JSON for Humans

JSON for Humans

I *want* JSON5 to take over the world because it allows trailing commas. But I have to accept that most people are just excited because it sounds like a boy band.

GitHub

BIP440: Varops Budget for Script Runtime Constraint, BIP441: Restoration of disabled Script (tapleaf 0xc2) by rustyrussell · Pull Request #2118 · bitcoin/bips

The full revision history is available in a separate branch (https://github.com/rustyrussell/bips/tree/guilt/varops): this is a clean one to submit...

Finally, the PR to assign BIP numbers to the first two BIPs of the "script restoration quartet". Here's the corresponding bitcoin-dev the mailing list post: Hi all, I've submitted a PR to the BIPs repo to merge the first two drafts of the previously posted[1] "A Bitcoin Scripting Proposal BIP Quartet":

GitHub

BIP440: Varops Budget for Script Runtime Constraint, BIP441: Restoration of disabled Script (tapleaf 0xc2) by rustyrussell · Pull Request #2118 · bitcoin/bips

The full revision history is available in a separate branch (https://github.com/rustyrussell/bips/tree/guilt/varops): this is a clean one to submit...

The only substantive change since the last discussion is that the costs have increased for some operations (hashing and copying bytes), as a result of benchmarking on a wider array of machines[2]. This follows our conservative approach to make the worst-case validation times no worse than they are presently, on any viable hardware. The remaining two BIPs (OP_TX, and new opcodes) are not submitted: they are mainly useful to provide a roadmap what functional gaps remain after the script extensions, and do not have full implementations. Cheers! Rusty & Julian. [1] https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/GisTcPb8Jco/m/8znWcWwKAQAJ [2]

GitHub

GitHub - jmoik/varopsData: Collection of csv files produced by the bench_varops bitcoin core benchmark.

Collection of csv files produced by the bench_varops bitcoin core benchmark. - jmoik/varopsData

You will not be at peace until you understand the truth: every non-coinbase bitcoin transaction which does not eventually send funds to me is spam.