I'm watching several videos about health and diet, and I'm more shocked than when I encountered Bitcoin and studied money and economics. If this is true, the corruption of modern medicine is beyond the malice of the Federal Reserve in economics. The problem is, unlike economics, I don't have the ability to verify the claims made about medicine and diet.

Here’s why you shouldn’t ask AI about finance or cryptography, and most notably, the technical aspects of Bitcoin. I asked because it didn't make sense to me, and the AI responded with a lengthy and complex explanation. If you just go along with it, it sounds plausible, but no matter how much I thought about it, the answer didn't seem right. Eventually, I asked someone knowledgeable, and they said there probably wasn't a special reason for it. It was just one of Bitcoin's many oddities that was originally designed that way and now can't be changed. If these AI systems don’t know, they should just say so. Instead, even when they don't know, they throw out all these sophisticated words, making it sound convincing.

I asked that person about the question, and he also didn't think there was any particular reason it had to be that way. It seems likely to be one of those things in Bitcoin’s history that weren't technically necessary, but were simply implemented by Satoshi that way—and now it can't really be changed, so it's just left as-is. Looks like my guess was right.

Don’t rush. I still haven’t gotten an answer, lol.

Right, I’ll follow your suggestion and ask by email. The blog looks very professional, and I think he’ll be able to answer my question well. Thanks for recommending

I read the blog post you linked, but I still don't understand. In the attached screenshot, the blog states that the reason for putting the previous locking script in the empty signature space is to indicate that we recognize the original locking script. Does that make sense? It's not hidden information; anyone can find it since the txid and vout are specified.

When signing a Bitcoin transaction, there's a space within the transaction data reserved for the signature itself. Obviously, since the signature hasn't been created yet, we can't fill in the actual signature at this point—we create it later and insert it. The issue is that instead of just leaving this space empty, it's filled in with the locking script (scriptPubKey) of the UTXO being spent. Does anyone know why it's done this way? Is there some vulnerability that would arise if we left it blank when signing, or did Satoshi just design it this way arbitrarily, and now it's too late to change? I asked an AI, but either I asked poorly or it just gave me nonsense answers. #asknostr #devstr #bitcoin

I've been wondering why many Nostr web apps that support NIP-46 "Bunker Login" only seem to support the case where the bunker initiates the connection. When a user isn't logged in, there's no easy way to transfer the token created by the bunker (unless you use an external messenger or email, which is a clunky solution). It seems much more convenient for the client to create the token, display it as a QR code, and have the signer() scan it. I recently learned while working on Jumble's code that the reason for this was a lack of support in nostr-tools for the client-initiated token creation method. Now that nostr-tools supports this feature, supporting the login flow to allow the client to create and send the token to the bunker would make the entire process much smoother.

she will regret it within ten years at the latest. If it's sooner, it could be within five years

I don't even understand why this is newsworthy. Maybe for normies, fine—but on Nostr? Anyone who understands what Bitcoin is and what a nation-state is should immediately see that the idea of a "Bitcoin president" is contradictory, and that it makes no sense for any president to "support" Bitcoin. There's nothing surprising when it's inevitably revealed to be false, and more importantly, they should know that we don't even need any president to support Bitcoin.

Isn't there someone who would create something to effectively destroy surveillance cameras remotely? Haha

Although I have changed my ID due to involuntary reasons and have been managing it without putting any plain text anywhere except for the main phone's amber, I cannot shake off the suspicion that it might have already been exposed due to hardware vulnerabilities. Ever since I learned about cryptography, I seem to have developed a bit of obsessive-compulsive tendency.

The connection URI used for an NWC connection is not typically transmitted through a relay. The NIP itself doesn't define 'how' that string should be transmitted, but because it's 'usually' passed via something like a QR code, the relay doesn't handle the secret key information—not even in an encrypted state—that the wallet service and client will use to communicate. Of course, this applies to the recommended use case. If you do transmit the URI created by the wallet service through a relay (for instance, in a DM to yourself), then it would be exposed.

Oh, really? I didn't know that. Come to think of it, it wouldn't be done so carelessly. If we can distinguish the details that could be copied just by looking at it, then it can certainly function as a signature.

While we can't simply peel off a stamp and attach it elsewhere, since a stamp's appearance doesn't change with its content, couldn't you just recreate an identical stamp by looking at its impression and then stamp it on another document?

While that's a valid point, digital signatures created with public keys are not entirely analogous to real-world signatures because they are only valid for the specific content they sign, which eliminates the risk of unauthorized reuse. This means neither a physical stamp nor a key are truly appropriate metaphors. The secret pen analogy, which seems the most suitable so far, is also imperfect because the fundamental principle of how it 'proves' that it's specifically me is not intuitively comprehensible. The core challenge is that the cryptographic mechanism of proving identity and intent through a mathematical signature is so fundamentally different from any physical world analog that we're struggling to find an appropriate metaphor. The current metaphors fall short because they cannot fully represent the cryptographic principles of digital signatures, which operate on a fundamentally different logical plane than physical authentication methods.

😇