pull down to refresh
@Scoresby
stacking since: #74100longest cowboy streak: 233
63 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 23 Apr \ parent \ on: Bitcoin Optech’s new "Bitcoin Feature Matrix" is now live in production bitcoin
I didn't do it for address types and payjoin, coinjoin, musig2 kind of stuff. This is pretty cool!
I was waiting for someone to mention how valuable making a lot of comments could be in the context of the bet...
I had trouble figuring out how to list it. My understanding was that when zkSnacks ran the coordinator, some of the coinjoin fee revenue supported development.
I wanted to list coinjoin fees as a revenue model because it held so much promise for a while.
I probably should have asterisked it and made a footnote to distinguish Wasabi's current revenue from the past. Thanks for the correction.
BitDNS was talked about in 2010.
Not sure if it counts as a shitcoin though.
Basically, the system is a copy of bitcoin where miners generate 50 new name mappings of their choosing whenever they win a block. The name mappings change hands in a way similar
I thought BitDNS turned into Namecoin, but then I found this post from Jan 2011 talking about how "Domainchain" was dead because:
From what I can tell, the proposal located on domainchain: (see http://domainchain.org/wiki/doku.php?id=start#proposal ) goes against Satoshi's wishes to keep the bitcoin blockchain unencumbered and ties domain assignments directly to bitcoin. Many community members have stated that this is impractical and will leave bitcoin if attempts continue to include domainchain into bitcoin directly. Satoshi asked that a new tree be created with a separate currency that floats its value according to demand with the bitcoin service.
I don't think Name coin was the first shitcoin.
I listed it as device sales (envoy from foundation and bitkey). I listed Blockstream as the revenue model for Green Wallet, because they do more than just produce Jade.
I didn't list Trezor or Ledger because they aren't bitcoin only. I think the shitcoiners have access to a lot of revenue models bitcoiners don't.
"Conan, what is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, drive them before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
The lightning wallets seem to have an easier time with revenue because they ate often providing liquidity and/or uptime. On chain wallets haven't got these sources of revenue.
It's true. And this is more or less how Bitcoin Core works.
Core's wallet still makes you create multisig on the command line...
I'm curious myself. I felt like there was a time when you could do in-app bitcoin purchases, but it doesn't seem to be there anymore (although, maybe that's just cause I'm based in the states).
Agreed. It's pretty incredible that Bitcoin has managed to pull this off.
I went back and forth on that clause for a while but decided to leave it in because I'm not convinced Bitcoin will forever hold that line.
This is my feeling with freemium/subscription stuff. It really irritates me. I just want to use the features I want, without anyone changing them around.
I would be surprised if a wallet tried this method.
Bitcoiners understand miner fees, but the concept of paying the wallet a fee is problematic because it implies you cannot spend your btc if you don't pay the fee. This is a no go for self sovereign money.
I don't see it working.
I used simple bitcoin wallet for a while, then they went away (kinda, maybe they are back), so I used blue wallet for a bit. I like core, honestly, but making a multisig in core is not easy. And if I want my wife to be able to use it...so I go to one of the wallets that offers easier multisig.
Now there's taproot, and I'd totally pay for a good wallet that did FROST or MuSig2, but not many hardware signers support either, so I guess that is still Soon(TM).
Paying for software might increase the speed at which these sorts of features become available, but for now it mostly feels like donations or becoming a contributor to a project are the main ways for users to signal what they are interested in.
Apple has a lot lose by stealing from a user, definitely true.
Using an open source project with a lone maintainer and a tiny user base doesn't seem great.
Bitcoin Core on the other hand or Sparrow or Electrum or Blue Wallet have pretty huge user bases.
So the question is: is my trust assumption that competent users are doing a good job reviewing my open source project of choice a bigger leap than the assumption that a large company isn't willing to risk their reputation to steal from me?
I'm not sure how to best evaluate that question.
Great point, but I don't understand the idea of using a closed source wallet (unless of course you are the developer yourself).
At least open source someone can review it. If it's closed source, how do you even know what it is doing? (It might look fine, but then if you have more than a certain amount of btc, it gives you an evil tx to sign).