Maybe

Cryptography scares the shit out of corporations, governments and institutions everywhere. Cryptography, when used by individuals, is a very powerful tool for securing one's rights, rights that are presently protected by the 3 aforementioned entities. The powerful entities in the first sentence I wrote don't want less power or less relevance, and so they're literally desperate to make sure crypto systems for individuals are designed and centrally administered by them.

This goes all the way back to encrypted email tech in 1992; US gov tried to stop people using crypto tech that they as an individual could control on their own, and they threw almost everything they had at it (this backfired hilariously, US gov claimed email encryption was "weapons grade technology" and therefore subject to export control. There were legal rulings, and the US gov lost).

This is a real moment in history here. There will be those that stand up for the rights that crypto tech bestows them. And those that bend over. I will be standing.

not sure, didn't actually check (never used armoryd). Preview in online 96.4.99 shows a P2PKH address in place of bech32 address and script type as PKH, but only if signed using 96.4.0. If bech32 is signed using 96.4.99, address and it's script type is bech32 as expected. Well, it actually says P2SH segwit for the script type, but I assumed that's just cosmetic.

Signing to bech32 addresses with 0.96.4.0 succeeds, but the transaction it signs substitutes P2PKH for the intended bech32. Presumably this can't be worked around, as you can't force 0.96.4 to understand it's doing something wrong. I'm assuming the result won't be what the user wanted.

Well, that case law precedent doesn't sound very safe in the age of all digital assets. If cryptocurrencies don't exist and are hence impossible to legally possess, then neither do website authenticatation certificates, which exist in the exact same way as cryptocurrencies do: cryptographic keys.

I'm not surprised lawyers are attacking cryptographic tech, as it's a threat to their notarising business. Someone should remind these hot-shot lawyers of possibly one of the oldest legal maxims; possession is 9/10ths of the law. For cryptographic keys, it's the whole of the law, all 10/10ths. If someone refuses to give up the keys to a well-secured cryptographic secret, lawyers or whoever else can talk as much as they like about it, their so-called laws are powerless to reveal the key. Maybe they can waste some time and money doing a test case to discover the obvious truth of the matter.

Doesn't matter much. If people continue to use services/merchants without segwit, blocks will be smaller, that will drive lightning use. If people switch from services/merchants who don't use segwit, then we have some onchain capacity too. I expect the latter, as people will more likely act to do what's good for them.

And remember that everyone can just use backwards compatible segwit addresses whether other people use segwit or not. This costs the business extra transaction fees, not the customer. In Bitcoin, the sender pay the transaction fees, so the receiving address makes no difference.

Do you mean this: --dbdir="G:\armory_data/database_dir --debug --satoshi-port=8500"

The quote marks for --dbdir aren't closed, so you end up with
"G:\armory_data/database_dir --debug --satoshi-port=8500"
as the entire argument for the --dbdir parameter

Edit: sorry, that's clearly exactly what you meant.

And that's even better of course, although I should really have realised that the --satoshi-port option solved the problem in itself. Looking at the code for your patch, it's incredibly obvious

438 BTC isn't much.

But it's 438 BTC that literally cannot be sold on exchanges while the channels holding it are open, and closing channels takes time (the worst case scenario is on the level of several weeks, the markets move too quickly for that kind of timescale to be useful).

And the higher that figure for total public BTC in channels grows, the more likely that exchanges are going to want to tap the stored up liquidity, forcing them to accept lightning deposits. Which makes chain analysis so much more difficult. And decentralised exchange becomes easier. All that's needed is a stable coin that can be exchanged in atomic swaps for BTC, and then a whole new paradigm for crypto trading could be viable; 3rd party risk when depositing to fiat exchanges is the real issue with cryptocurrency trading, that could be gone altogether, with exchanges only providing fiat liquidity. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but the tech and the incentive is there to do it.

And so you're advocating that the group I was born into can do anything they want with me (or anyone else), as long as some of them agree that it's ok?

Conversation over.

Have fun in your dictatorship, sorry, commune. I hope everyone else chooses to do something nice to you

That's true. Communism was promised many times, and autocratic dictatorial tyranny was delivered instead.



Right. Voluntarism, liberalism, libertarianism and anarchism all say that too. People should own everything, not the state.



So that's where the problem with Marxist influenced communism starts.

To change a situation where big infrastructure (including manufacturing) is owned socially, there's no way to do it without overwhelming force. For that, you need organisation too, so a government was always there to say "you can own an equal part of everything, if you give us the power we need to enforce it". Enough people accepted that, then the government stole mostly everything, and used groupthink and propaganda to cover it up.

And that happened every single time communism was implemented (well, attempted).



"Scientific" or "algorithmic" communism isn't realistic either. Someone needs to writes the rules for the algorithms and design the scientific models. If everyone were equal participants writing the rules, no rules would ever emerge from the ensuing arguments. The temptation for very smart, but very selfish, people to corrupt such a technocratic system is too great, the concentration of power will inevitably attract corruption, just like any government.


The real answer is for people to use powerful tools to make themselves more powerful, and to form strong groups that people can leave if they choose.

We're probably arguing more or less for the same thing, except I want to choose which group I belong to, and how much of my stuff is owned by others in the group. I'm likely to lean towards "not much", and people like you (who want "real communism") will have to accept that, or become the new tyranny. And how respectful I am, to give you such a choice!

yeah, that works. The log tells you loud and clear what the error is, who would've guessed that would happen!

works on mainnet, but ArmoryDB doesn't connect to testnet bitcoin nodes. Maybe something to do with the satoshi-port option?

Yeah, I was just worried people might accidentally remember your last sentence instead of the first two.

For the record: Mocacinno and I agree that combining spam should only be done when the spam was sent to 1 address Don't combine spam together that was sent to 2 or more addresses, or your privacy suffers

I think if you used the python-trezor CLI tool, you could spend your own coins without spending the dust. Electrum could also do it, but with a privacy loss.


An additional step could be to spend only your outputs at the spammed address, but specifically use only the dust for the transaction fee There would be no privacy loss, as anyone analysing the transaction already knows you can spend both your output and the spam/dust output, but the tainting would happen to the miner that accepts the transaction instead of to your own money. Probably best to use the entire spam amount as fees

That last idea, python-trezor probably won't let you do directly, the options would be to use:

• Electrum (easy, low privacy)
• A raw transaction using python-trezor and bitcoin-cli together (much more difficult/error prone, high privacy)

If you wanted to practice the 2nd option (python-trezor + bitcoin-cli), you could put some testnet coins on your Trezor to simulate your circumstances, you'd be more confident after that (mistakes can cost you badly, be careful).



_Do not do that_ IF the spam is from different addresses. It's an assumption, but a reasonable one, that the person who collected all those separate spam dustings together owns all the addresses the spam was sent to. That harms your privacy.

If you spend a bunch of spam outputs that all get sent to just one address, your privacy cannot be harmed (although the resulting tainted outputs are somewhat unique, if they had been sent in different rounds of dusting from different original addresses). I'd be surprised if a dust spammer did that though.

do you have sufficient disk space available for the databases?

\Armory_home_dir\databases

If you didn't specify Armory home directory, it will use the default directory on your platform

Armory uses ~ 1GB for the databases on mainnet bitcoin.

"Smart", the most disingenuous marketing adjective of recent times. If it's marketed as "smart", you almost certainly need to be a complete idiot to buy it

China is an authoritarian dictatorship, it's not possible to actually be in charge of your own business there, unless the business is very small. Jihan Wu has been taking his instructions from the Chinese Communist party the whole time, and still is. He was never in charge of Bitmain in the first place.


And if I said what I said above in China, I'd get negged on the Social Credit system. And so would everyone who knows me, as punishment for not keeping me in check. "Coming to a government near you" apparently, the EU/US ruling class love the idea of a Social Credit system. Fuck that, never ever will I participate in that sort of disgusting scheme.

Yes, port forwarding makes a difference. But lightning doesn't need lots of listening nodes to add resilience to the network in the same way bitcoin does, but setting it up without port forwarding/listening only really benefits you (you will basically have a node that only your manual connected peers will see, the rest of the network will be unaware your node exists, so you won't be routing any payments). This is still useful; you can still set up channels, and monitor those channels.


Not sure if any of the lightning clients (clightning or lnd) allow this yet. Same applies, you can't accept incoming connections without port forwarding.

One solution is to use tor and a hidden service IP. The tor onion IP will be static, and tor client forwards ports. You can do the same for your own bitcoin node too, probably a good idea to investigate if it's better to use separate .onion IP addresses for the lightning node and the bitcoin node (I would expect the answer is "yes", for the sake of the privacy of people who would route payments through your lightning node). That would help both networks.