Bitcoin Dev

22 June 2023 15:46

Yes everyone can join, but in the ishares trust spot etf there is a part that says they decide where they will stay in an event of a fork and which network they ll follow

Bitcoin Dev

22 June 2023 15:24

there is no reason to belive this

Bitcoin Dev

22 June 2023 10:56

Roger/Jihan shit on a higher lvl

Bitcoin Dev

22 June 2023 10:00

so the men the myth the legend himself

Bitcoin Dev

13 June 2023 15:07

Hi everyone, I am compiling my Bitcoin Core myself but I cannot compile version v25.0 version v24.1 compiles fine but with version 25 I am getting this error:

In file included from ipc/capnp/protocol.cpp:8:
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:25:52: error: expected type-specifier before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
   25 |     template<typename S> static auto get(S&& s) -> AUTO_RETURN(s.getThreadMap())
      |                                                    ^~~~~~~~~~~
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:25:52: error: expected initializer before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:28:78: error: expected type-specifier before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
   28 |     template<typename S, typename... A> static auto init(S&& s, A&&... a) -> AUTO_RETURN(s.initThreadMap(std::forward<A>(a)...))
      |                                                                              ^~~~~~~~~~~
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:28:78: error: expected initializer before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:36:52: error: expected type-specifier before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
   36 |     template<typename S> static auto get(S&& s) -> AUTO_RETURN(s.getContext())
      |                                                    ^~~~~~~~~~~
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:36:52: error: expected initializer before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:39:78: error: expected type-specifier before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
   39 |     template<typename S, typename... A> static auto init(S&& s, A&&... a) -> AUTO_RETURN(s.initContext(std::forward<A>(a)...))
      |                                                                              ^~~~~~~~~~~
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:39:78: error: expected initializer before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:47:52: error: expected type-specifier before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
   47 |     template<typename S> static auto get(S&& s) -> AUTO_RETURN(s.getResult())
      |                                                    ^~~~~~~~~~~
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:47:52: error: expected initializer before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:50:78: error: expected type-specifier before ‘AUTO_RETURN’
   50 |     template<typename S, typename... A> static auto init(S&& s, A&&... a) -> AUTO_RETURN(s.initResult(std::forward<A>(a)...))
      |                                                                              ^~~~~~~~~~~
./ipc/capnp/init.capnp.proxy.h:50:78: error: expected initializer before ‘AUTO_RETURN

./autogen.sh

make -C depends NO_QT=1 NO_WALLET=1 MULTIPROCESS=1 -j 8

export CONFIG_SITE=/data/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/share/config.site

./configure CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS" --disable-wallet --disable-bench --without-gui --without-miniupnpc --without-natpmp --enable-multiprocess

make -j 8

sudo make install

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:23

so maybe it wouldn't fit without sacrificing another app

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:20

i don't think thats the reason they limit the functionality to nanox

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:13

they were attacked for it quite profusely (and i defended them that its fine)

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:11

its the same in other hardware wallets that decided to use secure chips

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:09

Hmm didnt know this is this official statement of theirs ?

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 16:29

the opensource part shields from all the posible abuse coming from bolos (in theory)

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 16:28

but it's not open source. the secure chip code isn't open because of NDA or whatever. A key part of the recovery service is that the shards are sent to three different jurisdictions People might want to verify that part

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 14:28

only a fool, who believes there is no back door in the update ledger recover. The hard wallet must be separated like a physical wallet.

Bitcoin Dev

22 May 2023 09:25

To be friends rather than companies

Bitcoin Dev

22 May 2023 03:55

Personally i would like to see similar solution, but where they would send the shares to other ledgers, forming social recovery that way, with trusted friends holding it.

Bitcoin Dev

22 June 2023 15:24

as a holder, transactor, everyone can join

Bitcoin Dev

22 June 2023 11:19

keep calm and carry on stacking

Bitcoin Dev

22 June 2023 10:55

Perspective

BlackRock’s goal is to fork Bitcoin and steal your assets.

Bitcoin Dev

19 June 2023 20:26

@oriolpont
Please help and delte this

Is this @ adam3us actually the real adam back ?

Bitcoin Dev

25 May 2023 07:38

https://pca.st/episode/f0334aaa-0363-43b2-b51e-a4f5c6eb44f4

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:22

its probably planned obsolescence + a fact nano could really use more space

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:19

I don't have a nanoX and I ignore the implementation details, but do notice that the implementation leverages capabilities that are only in the nanoX secure chip but not in the nanoS one. Maybe the web packets are forwarded encrypted already from the secure chip, and opensource has no way to know if what's being transmitted is only a shard instead of the whole seed.

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:13

this is why trezor was refusing to use it, so they can stay fully open

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:10

this is how it works, secure chips aren't opensoruce, the arm chip code around them its opensource and shields from calls inside and out

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 17:00

In Ledgers current one shards are sent to French, US and British companies.

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 16:29

it is opensource except that, and that part doesn't interface with the usb or the internet

Bitcoin Dev

23 May 2023 16:00

its opensource, good luck finding the back door, you can collect the bounty

Bitcoin Dev

22 May 2023 09:37

This! You could choose your attack vector and not forced into regulatory capture with KYC and regulated companies.

Bitcoin Dev

22 May 2023 09:24

Makes more sense if trusting a third party

Bitcoin Dev

22 May 2023 03:54

Now they are adding the option to split and encrypt, and then send to three custodians. Its opt in, you would have to input pin and approve it. So its fine, if you dont like it, just skip it, as you did mnenonic verification and all other functions.