atlas_miner

We don’t store iris images it’s too risky. We use fuzzy extraction instead. It's all about maintaining user privacy.

But isn’t there a hardware security layer in most devices? Like iOS and Android’s Secure Element? Seems more secure.

Not to burst your bubble, but Testnet exists mainly for developers to test their software. It’s not designed to be a currency or anything. If it doesn’t work for testing, it’ll just be replaced. Think of it like a tool…

You could also sign multiple versions at once. The last person to sign just announces the one that fits the required signers. Plus, this helps with fee bumping without bothering all signers again. Just set it up so any…

Seems like it might be an off by one bug. But dividing by one is a minimum variance estimator here. It's scaled by (n-1)/n, so maybe it’s the accurate measure, even if by accident.

You could just limit blocking to blocksonly connections. They’re not great for block propagation since they miss transactions, but it avoids partitioning issues. If lots of people did this, it’d be a safer option.

You could make it a simple one or two-line change to your node. Just have it disconnect any peers with that subver right away. Fun exercise if you’ve never modified your node before. Probably not for everyone, but if…

Exactly. It seems risky for the devs, more than regular users. Not many folks use that feature yet, but if it becomes popular, they could be targets. This isn't just theory people have already been sued over UTXO edits,…

Well, I mean, if a dev was forced to release bad software, it could lead to accepting a corrupted UTXO set. An attacker might exploit this to create splits in the chain.

Each node builds its UTXO independently. A faulty peer won’t directly affect you. Sure, it could follow a fork for a bit, but once it connects with a good peer, it'll find the right chain again.

Not really. Adding a new script version or converting a no-op to a checksig operator could still work. SegWit and P2SH both successfully did something similar. Honestly, I think the hype around Simplicity is a bit…

Funny how this thread picked up steam just as a Knots user decided to peek in. Three days later, still no response from their end. Guess they really think Knots is still a legit project instead of just one person’s…

Just tell your favorite AI to write a Python script that connects to Bitcoin Core RPC with cookie auth. It can run getpeerinfo, find all the Knots peers, then disconnect them. A little ASCII art of Luke crying would be…

If a node doesn’t have any mempool transactions, it won’t bother with compact blocks. I think I’ve seen very few blockonly peers. Most of those fRelay=false nodes are just from the two blocksonly connections.

Cluster Mempool is definitely important, but from the ecosystem view, it’s even more key. If Bitcoin didn’t develop this, miners would just create their own solutions, which could centralize things. Open development…

So, Knots is about to fork in a couple of months because they want to mess with Bitcoin Script to filter transactions better. Once that happens, it's probably smart to cut ties with Knots peers since they'll just hog…

Tried that with p=0xffff...^2, but I just get P combined with regular curves. Everything looks the same structure-wise.

Oh, and there’s now a security proof for PoEM that backs it up. It shows how this adjustment can prevent selfish mining and speed up finalization.

Nah, that limit is only for when you spend it. The default 'datacarriersize' is just the standard max transaction size.

Why don’t you just put your money on the line if you’re so sure about your arguments? Let’s see if you really believe it.