ncklr
@n1ckler
Followers
8K
Following
6K
Statuses
2K
Bitcoin research @Blockstream, bitcoin/secp256k1 contributor, @nixbitcoinorg maintainer, @donnerlab1 resident 36C7 1A37 C9D9 88BD E825 08D9 B1A7 0E4F 8DCD 0366
Joined April 2013
RT @AaronvanW: Developer @0xB10C recently published research showing that @f2pool_official is censoring OFAC-sanctioned transactions again.…
0
40
0
RT @dimahledba: Cashu x STARKs ? Spending conditions in Cairo @callebtc ? Yes. Here is a video showcasing the generation of a STARK proof o…
0
30
0
@Polyd_ @murchandamus I had mentioned to @1440000bytes in private that I think it's a problem that the table does not distinguish between the proposal in isolation and combinations with other proposals, and that I don't know how to best fix that.
1
0
10
RT @1440000bytes: We have been discussing the objections shared by Jonas Nick. Feel free to comment (gist) if you want to add something.
0
1
0
@Polyd_ @1440000bytes @salvatoshi @theinstagibbs @TheBlueMatt @p0stc4p0n3 @reardencode You don't need to bridge into a system that aggregates transactions. In transactions are 64 bytes, can be published by anyone and provide full privacy.
1
0
3
@Polyd_ @1440000bytes @salvatoshi @theinstagibbs @TheBlueMatt @p0stc4p0n3 @reardencode Fair except that bridges don't require a sequencer/publisher. Where can I read more about ball lightning?
1
0
2
@Polyd_ @1440000bytes @salvatoshi @theinstagibbs @TheBlueMatt @p0stc4p0n3 @reardencode I can imagine that applications like practical multiparty channels and post-quantum, as well as bridges (e.g. to Shielded CSV) could meet that bar. But that has only been demonstrated partially as far as I'm aware. The great consensus cleanup should meet the bar too iirc.
1
0
1
@Polyd_ @1440000bytes @salvatoshi @theinstagibbs @TheBlueMatt @p0stc4p0n3 @reardencode I didn't put "weak" in the table because that would mean there are no objections. The review in the scope of LNHANCE would be different because it would consider different applications. I don't see what this has to do with politics.
1
0
2
@Polyd_ @1440000bytes @salvatoshi @theinstagibbs @TheBlueMatt @p0stc4p0n3 @reardencode Disagree. Softforks carry risk and require work. The return not outweighing those downsides is a technical concern.
1
0
2
@SomsenRuben @bergealex4 @stevenroose3 It seems like requiring signatures from all participants makes the protocol impractical in the real world because the participants need to be online and cooperative.
2
0
2
@bergealex4 Unfortunately I don't understand Ark well and appears to contradict that OP_CTV is helpful. Would be interesting to have a more in detailed argument.
@darosior Its significance for Ark is overstated. It reduces tx size (obvious, as it eliminates signatures) and slightly reduces the number of communication rounds, but the number of people that need to interact remains unchanged over my non-covenant Ark variant:
4
0
4
@pwuille @FinneyPrize @HRF @halfin You received the prize for technical contributions, but you also enormously contributed to Bitcoin development philosophy and are inspiring generations of devs. Eternally grateful for how you and Greg took me in and supported me in the early days. I cherish those memories.
1
1
24
Although this review feels limited (despite having consumed quite some time), I can recommend this exercise as a good way to organize thoughts on softforks in 2025 and the years to come.
0
3
12
RT @lightcoin: Aside from the halving, which was predictable: Among the good news events it is a tie for me between the BitVM2 paper and th…
0
2
0