0 sats \ 0 replies \ @dash 18 Jul 2023 \ on: If Bitcoin’s price would go up to $500k in 2 years. Would you sell? bitcoin
You're on a lifeboat. The ship you are escaping from is sinking. Someone on the ship approaches you as the lifeboat is being launched, offering to buy your seat on the lifeboat. How much would you sell it for? For me, anyone who is planning to sell bitcoin at any price for US dollars (pieces of paper) doesn't understand bitcoin and was just an NGU tourist the whole time. I'm not talking about someone buying a house or paying off debt during a bull run. I.e. they needed to make those purchases anyway and chose to do it during an advantageous market timing. I am talking about anyone who would sell bitcoin into fiat without a concrete need of that fiat. I view the USD exchange rate as a siren call that will wreck many so called bitcoiners. You can read all about people selling gold or property during the Wiemar inflation, for example. With hindsight it should have been obvious to everyone what was going on. It should be obvious to us all now that the USD hegemony is doomed. (at least, the backed-by-nothing fiat version). 1 million pieces of paper is just paper. It's all monopoly money.
Do you really need a modern spec? I ask because I found recently you can build a half decent machine for ~500USD using a used T440p Thinkpad. You can upgrade to the following specs:
- i7 4700mq 2.4Ghz 4 core CPU
- 16GB DDR3 RAM
- 1920 x 1080 full HD IPS screen
- Up to 5TB storage
Pros
- Supported by Coreboot
- Intel ME can be disabled
- Easy to open up and upgrade, repair etc.
- Sturdy, well documented online with an enthusiastic community of users
- Cheap
- Works fine and is even quite snappy for browsing, email, Sparrow Wallet, simple programming, Libre Office docs, simple virtual machines
Cons:
- Not going to work well for generative AI, advanced virtualization, modern games
- Bulky and noisy by modern standards
- SD card reader appears not to be working in Coreboot.
You can get the parts easily on ebay, aliexpress, Amazon.
You will need a programmer to flash the BIOS chip to install Coreboot.
Recommend upgrading the touchpad to a Synaptics T450 touchpad.
Here are some good online resources:
Unofficial guide to install Coreboot:
https://blog.0xcb.dev/lenovo-t440p-coreboot/
Ultimate buyers guide for T440p
https://octoperf.com/blog/2018/11/07/thinkpad-t440p-buyers-guide/
Another upgrade guide:
https://seiba.gitlab.io/thinkpad-t440p-upgrade-guide/
Buy ready built machines from the UK:
https://minifree.org/product/libreboot-t440p/
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @dash OP 22 Jun 2023 \ parent \ on: Coldkite Coldcard Reproducible Builds bitcoin
I would disagree. Coinkite is a fantastic bitcoin only company making some of the best products in bitcoin. I believe their hardware are software is of the highest quality and should be in the toolbox of all bitcoiners who want to protect their funds. If the reproducible build stuff was taken a little bit more seriously by Coinkite it would be helpful though, I think, especially concerning the MK3.
Thanks for your reply. Yes I was also able to successfully build the latest MK3 and MK4 builds. I quote myself below.
For M4 5.1.2 I got SUCCESS from make repro The binary on the webpage 893,237 bytes and the build file in ~/firmware/stm32/built/firmware-signed.dfu was also 893,237 bytes.
For M3 4.1.8 I got SUCCESS from make repro The binary on the webpage is 753,981bytes, yet the build file in ~/firmware/stm32/built/firmware-signed.dfu was 722944 bytes
The issue is that older builds of MK3 fail with
error 1, or else fail to build entirely.It seems related to the build date being included in the build file, thus showing up in the diff. If it's just this, it seems minor to me and not anything to be concerned about. But it does cause the error 1 which is confusing to people and there is no documentation on the Coinkite site as to why this is the case.
What is particularity frustrating about NVK's response to this is that he's responding with successful MK4 5.1.2 and MK3 4.1.8 successful builds although that proves the process is working fine and that people who are finding problems must be doing it wrong or else malicious. But as I say, I am able to replicate the success of the videos people have posted with latest builds. The issue is about older MK3 builds. Also I am not sure how to explain the file size difference between even the successful MK3 4.1.8 build between the built file vs the binary on the webpage, although that may just be me misunderstanding something.
Thanks for your reply. Yes I used a clean Ubuntu 22.04 system in a VM.
I started with a vanilla Ubuntu 22.04 VM running on QEMU/KVM (virt-manager)
It's very possible that the 4.1.5 builds and below failed because of an issue with my local environment. But the 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 builds failing with error 1 are I believe due to the MK3 build process including the build date in the build file which causes the
make repro to fail with error 120 sats \ 0 replies \ @dash OP 22 Jun 2023 \ parent \ on: Coldkite Coldcard Reproducible Builds bitcoin
Thanks for your reply. Yes I was also able to successfully build the latest MK3 and MK4 builds. I quote myself below.
For M4 5.1.2 I got SUCCESS from make repro The binary on the webpage 893,237 bytes and the build file in ~/firmware/stm32/built/firmware-signed.dfu was also 893,237 bytes.
For M3 4.1.8 I got SUCCESS from make repro The binary on the webpage is 753,981bytes, yet the build file in ~/firmware/stm32/built/firmware-signed.dfu was 722944 bytes
The issue is that older builds of MK3 fail with
error 1, or else fail to build entirely.It seems related to the build date being included in the build file, thus showing up in the diff. If it's just this, it seems minor to me and not anything to be concerned about. But it does cause the error 1 which is confusing to people and there is no documentation on the Coinkite site as to why this is the case.
What is particularity frustrating about NVK's response to this is that he's responding with successful MK4 5.1.2 and MK3 4.1.8 successful builds although that proves the process is working fine and that people who are finding problems must be doing it wrong or else malicious. But as I say, I am able to replicate the success of the videos people have posted with latest builds. The issue is about older MK3 builds. Also I am not sure how to explain the file size difference between even the successful MK3 4.1.8 build between the built file vs the binary on the webpage, although that may just be me misunderstanding something.
Thanks for your reply. Yes I did. I was also able to successfully build the latest MK3 and MK4 builds. I quote myself below.
For M4 5.1.2 I got SUCCESS from make repro The binary on the webpage 893,237 bytes and the build file in ~/firmware/stm32/built/firmware-signed.dfu was also 893,237 bytes.
For M3 4.1.8 I got SUCCESS from make repro The binary on the webpage is 753,981bytes, yet the build file in ~/firmware/stm32/built/firmware-signed.dfu was 722944 bytes
The issue is that older builds of MK3 fail with error 1, or else fail to build entirely.
It seems related to the build date being included in the build file, thus showing up in the diff. If it's just this, it seems minor to me and not anything to be concerned about. But it does cause the error 1 which is confusing to people and there is no documentation on the Coinkite site as to why this is the case.
What is particularity frustrating about NVK's response to this is that he's responding with successful MK4 5.1.2 and MK3 4.1.8 successful builds although that proves the process is working fine and that people who are finding problems must be doing it wrong or else malicious. But as I say, I am able to replicate the success of the videos people have posted with latest builds. The issue is about older MK3 builds. Also I am not sure how to explain the file size difference between even the successful MK3 4.1.8 build between the built file vs the binary on the webpage, although that may just be me misunderstanding something.
What I find really strange is the file size of my build for 2023-06-19T1627-v4.1.8 is 722944 for the firmware-signed.dfu but the file downloaded from Coinkite is 753981 even though the result of make repro is SUCCESS
For the MK4 latest build I was able to confirm the file size was the same. The file size should be identical even if the hash is off (due to the signature difference), right?
I guess it's because I don't have the Coinkite key to sign the build. So, the docker process is masking out the signature part and verifying there is no diff other than that? Is there an explanation of this somewhere we can read? On the Coinkite site it says you can read docs/notes-on-repro.md but that file does not exist for me.
I can use the docker to get SUCCESS just like in those videos but the build files do not hash to the same values as those files downloaded from the Coldcard website. Is there something I'm missing?
Makes absolutely no sense to have a bitcoin etf. The only value bitcoin has is as a censor and seizure resistant money that can be transported at the speed of light, as a digital native bearer asset, and can be transported across borders by simply memorizing 12 words. It has zero value beyond this, and if you have "your" bitcoin in an ETF you don't have any bitcoin and you lose all of the benefits of bitcoin. So why even make this? It doesn't make any sense.
Thanks Ben. Why do you think it's far away? Is it because the improvements proposed to LN, fedimit/cashu etc., is all more low hanging fruit in terms of scaling? Why would these shitcoiners come out of the woodwork now talking it up? Is it because they have fallen for the Ethereum bs and they are just parroting what they've heard shitcoin devs talking about?
One thing I took from "the Blocksize War" is that the big blockers were all high time preference who felt pressure from the noise shitcoiners were making and thought a desperate and immediate response was needed to get "mass adoption" and continue "bitcoin dominance".
The core devs on the other hand knew that looking out enough moves on the board bigger blocks would just cause more problems than they solved. I get similar vibes from shitcoiners pushing things like zkrollups. What you said about "good to have eventually" is interesting to me because it sounds again like a time preference thing. There is no need to rush for a complex solution when there are so many smaller, more well scoped, incremental improvements that can scale us to where we need to be for the next 5-10 years or so.
By the way I might just be paranoid on this so very open if anyone has a link to a serious dev saying good things about zkrollups on bitcoin. Just that thus far have only seen shitcoiners say good things about it.
My host got back to me. I needed to change my php version in order for Apache to respect my htacess file. All working (for now. I changed my php version which did fix the NIP05 but then broke the site. I then reverted to the original php settings which fixed my site and for some reason did not break the NIP05). I will pay the bounty out to OriginalSize who I feel gave the most help. Thank you.
I think that CORS isn't working. I tried here https://cors-test.codehappy.dev/ and it said it's not working. I tried installing this wordpress plugin but no joy: https://github.com/easydns/wp-nostr-nip05/tree/2c0671664549e665cce6f4a469ccbe06e9bd10c4 I am going to email my provider asking about CORS support I think.
Thanks for the reply. I think this is what you mean? This is in the original .htaccess file on my server. I did not write these--I am just using the Wordpress template I got with the hosting provider along with Woocommerce.