tick tock next block https://t.co/WQJCVfWkIB #Bitcoin

MARA Pool recently mined their first ever empty block. mistake, or change of policy? 🧐

this doesn't actually work, btw it doesn't match the ordiknots spec, so the "fake pubkey" rule never triggers which means all this filter does is ban segwit multisigs with >10 keys do you really want your node to automatically download and run this kind of garbage-tier slop?

with this method, you can embed up to 19x32=608 witness bytes per OP_CHECKMULTISIG operation, with an overhead of just 76 bytes, plus the weight of the input itself. however these large multisigs have a high sigop cost, which means they can't fill an entire block by themselves.

and of course the taproot wizards are behind it https://t.co/kNAiYBoyoU

it's a 2785 byte jpeg of a dickbutt, securely embedded in 88 fake pubkeys via a bunch of p2wsh multisigs. yes, it's completely standard. yes, it gets the witness discount. no, bip444 doesn't fix this.

Would the miscreant responsible for this like to come forward?!?

Halving Progress 🟧🟧🟧🟧⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️ 40.00%

someone just put this 964 byte webp Ocean Mining logo in a taproot annex

@crypto_0ptimist it's quite simple. if you used the taproot miniscript wallet descriptor feature that ships in Bitcoin Knots, you should have realized that under the hood it compiles your policy to an "obviously wrong" OP_IF script and deserve to have your coins seized. https://t.co/Jgw2fVtIEy

as far as I can tell, this kind of taproot miniscript wallet is possible to create in consumer software today. for example, here's what it looks like to set this up as a custom miniscript wallet in Nunchuk's mobile app.

when they pass away, the heir gains unilateral access to their inheritance as soon as the second timelock expires. however, RDTS freezing the wallet risks preventing the owner from refreshing their coins in time, leaving them vulnerable to premature theft by the other keyholder

as long as they're alive, the owner can periodically refresh the timelocks by sending the coins back to themselves, retaining sole control of the funds. if they lose a key, they can either wait for the first timelock to expire, or ask the other keyholder to help restore access.

consider, for example, that this kind of miniscript policy might be used for an inheritance scheme or collaborative custody model. e.g. the owner holds three keys, and passes the fourth to an heir or recovery key service provider.

since this is a tapscript using OP_IF, any funds received by such a wallet after RDTS activation would be frozen. the owner would also be unable to move their coins to refresh the relative timelocks, perhaps forcing an unintended and catastrophic reduction in security.

there are two related spends in close succession, each exercising one of the timelock spending conditions. exactly the sort of activity you might expect from someone conducting final mainnet tests before loading real funds into a wallet that relies on this locking script.

this taproot OP_IF example is much more worrying for the RDTS proposal than I first realized. it's actually a miniscript wallet policy: thresh(3,pk(A),pk(B),pk(C),pk(D),older(T1),older(T2)) meaning "a 3-of-4 multisig, decaying to 2-of-4 after time T1, and 1-of-4 after time T2"

Learn why people who are blind and have low vision are calling Waymo’s fully autonomous driving technology a ‘game changer.’

It's absolutely bizarre that @mononautical has had to do that because Luke didn't bother.

This slide summarizes the fundamental reason why forbidding data embeddings on-chain either: - fails miserably, or - destroys Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn't work without entropy. But entropy implies information content.

the insanity of debating a contentious anti-spam soft fork while the mempool looks like this.

It's frequently overlooked that OP_IF isn't actually required for data embedding - the "inscription envelope" is more of a courtesy to nodes to reduce the validation burden by keeping data pushes unexecuted. You can embed data just as easily using various push-and-drop schemes.