can’t disagree. thanks for publicly defending your pro-core stance. it’s convinced me. it’s really refreshing to see a side make logical arguments rather than state that if you run core 1) you’re killing a thing you personally care about and 2) you’re going to prison. hopefully over time we’ll be able to align the economic incentives with using op_return for spam.

like all of us have been, I’m considering the core/knots debate. I think Adam Back is making reasonable arguments against knots from a legal perspective. if you try to get a tighter leash on what unconfirmed transactions get broadcast, it stands to reason that the legal attack vector grows. also, core obviously doesn’t allow blocks to exceed 4mb, so this doesn’t make it more difficult to run a node. here’s the thing I can’t quite understand, though: if core wants spammers to use op_return, something 4x more expensive than other avenues, what is the economic incentive there? it seems like another avenue that spammers *could take*, with no economic incentive to get them there. tagging here bc he has been instrumental in helping me at least understand core’s position

yeah, it’s a novel app. good luck sending sats over lightning to receive on Ark, though. it still says my payment is confirming and it was done earlier yesterday.

did this release harm the api proxy functionality? not having any luck using it.

trying maple's api proxy with codename goose and I consistently get a 404. I've restarted the proxy and changed api keys many times. is this a skill issue on my part or a known maple proxy issue? haven't faced it with any other configured goose provider

don’t think we’re in alignment here. op returns are unspendable, so they can be pruned. “paying 4x” isn’t a vector for attack. it’s just nonsensical to pay 4x more to do something you were already doing (my original point). “the long prison sentence” boogeyman comment is what moved me away from the knots camp in the first place. knots nodes have to relay confirmed blocks, so they’re not actually doing anything

, couldn’t this be fixed by having a configurable amount of beneficiaries? any reason why it is fixed to a single individual atm?

, your wallet is probably the best UX for normies. however, imho a couple scenarios prove worrisome for all Bitkey users. am I missing something in the following scenarios? scenario 1, spouse as beneficiary: - you die, spouse gets bitcoin ✅ - you both die, bitcoin is lost ❌ scenario 2, family member as beneficiary: - you die, family member gets bitcoin. spouse and children may never get the bitcoin based on family dynamics 👎🏼 - you and your family take a trip together and die, bitcoin is lost forever ❌

slightly less gains historically

glad to hear that!

oh yeah! not upset. just wanted to give some people a heads up that they may lose some sats. no idea who is behind it, sadly. they have done a pretty nice job with the app.