you start a topic about how risky NON bip 157 litewallets are

and while i state about them you cry, whinge moan about the privacy leaks at the block/utxo sync, you are ignoring there are other privacy leaks
it seems you are not thinking about privacy leaks but just trying to promote that you think bip157 is the be-all end-all solution to litewallet privacy leaks

you obsess about IP addresses yet the topic post was about bitcoin address associations
tor is tor so yes tor users dont have to think about IP issues. thus not part of the conversation..

but when it comes to details of what wallet has what keys. there are many many leakages of using a lite wallet. which 157 does not solve

so how about formulate your problem again. if its about bitcoin address associations.. talk about that
if its about privacy leaks of bitcoin address associations: dont just think about one narrow use case but realise litewallets have far more leaks

your meandering to now talk about IP addresses has nothing to do with the UTXO stuff you were talking in the topic post. so why keep thinking that people are not understanding it if they are not talking about IP addresses..

i am and was not talking about IP. neither was your topic post. so take the meander of IP out of the conversation and realise i and you were talking about privacy leakage of bitcoin address associations

there are many. realise that litewallets sacrifice privacy for convenience and even with the bips you mention a lite wallet still has many leaks

YOU were the one talking about all the wallets that dont use the bips, ill remind you

and i responded

the wallets which your first sentance of topic eludes to are the ones that would just send out a bitcoin address to a server/peer and in receipt grab utxo of the wallet keys.. which yes is privacy concern
for litewallets that do not download the entire blockchain(their main feature of being different to full nodes). if you were to send a request to any peer or server of 999 random addresses, the wallet cannot establish used random addresses to obfuscate away from the wallets true addresses.. thus any receiver of such request would get 999 addresses of empty unused addresses(because the wallet had to make them up) and then one valid used address which the peer or server would then know thats the significant/intended address trying to hide.

its the needle in haystack game in reverse.. say you have a needle but want to hide it. but you dont have access to the full utxoset to grab 999 other needles of other peoples funds to hide your needle. so you make up random 999 straws of unused addresses.. thus when parsing you the data peers see 999 hollow straws and one needle. they find the needle because its not a straw

..
the other thing was even without the address/utxo grabbing privacy leak whether via peers/servers... any intercepting node can just connect to you, knowing you are a litewallet that does not relay all pre-confirm payments of the network, but instead just your own. and just waits until you make a spend to know the addresses you have control over

there are many many many other ways to leak data whether a litewallet linked to a branded server of same brand as the wallet software.. or a litewallet that has some capability of random node connection

the thing is.. light wallets are light for a reason. they dont receive or send all blockchain data, nor all network transactions.. so by default of their feature of being light there are many ways connected peers can learn more about a litewallet user than a full node user.

litewallet users sacrifice privacy for convenience

all wars, if you follow the causes back. all lead back to the bankers


ill let you follow the rabbit hole of the british mandate and the politics of <1947

he is asian. the screenshot above is not jimmy.. jimmy in the screenshot is hiding under a black jacket. the guy in blue is someone else

comments for proposals should be to make bitcoin a private property again not a legal currency. then all these financial jurisdictions cant gain traction
(EG auctioned art is treated differently than currency)

there is no point playing whack a mole of certain definitions of certain niches whist still within the currency jurisdiction., if the overall definition of the whole still gives governments chances to change currency definitions 90 days after x or y.. you just end up in a endless loop of fighting

this also goes towards certain idols of a subnetwork. if they define their units of account as currency. and route it for a fee. they too become a MSB/MTS needing MSB/MTS licence

so redefine your unit of account to not be currency, but instead property. and define the utility of routing in a way that does not fit the definitions of a MSB/MTS

there were good reasons why governments were helpless and unable to do anything with bitcoin in 2009-2013... LEARN WHY

patriot does not support "freedom"/individualism
patriot does support the country. aka government

EG an ex-pat american considers themselves american. but lives in another country. so is not supporting the american economy nor paying american tax nor voting nor many things

an ex-pat supports freedom/individualism more than a patriot

when you notice patriots singing to a flag and declaring their allegiance to the government.. you soon see what patriot really means

the reason the mixer dev (as you want to pretend its all he was) was in legal dispute not simply for "just writing code" it was that he was financially benefitting from the proceeds of crime because he received funds from criminals that used his code.
also he offered a service and he took a fee per transaction, which made him a MSB/MTS, which comes with regulations.. it really does and should benefit you if you read regulations and court documents, instead of misinformed bias blog posts..

if you want to offer a service and publicise it to customers/clients. you are running a business
if you are running a business, you need to be business savvi to limit your exposure to customer liabilities and laws
if you want to offer a service but not be defined as a operating a business. you need to be extra savvi to operate in such a way that does not meet the definitions of such business

and banks do get penalised. its just the maximum penalty is:
for a bank: just X days fees 0.x% of liquidity
for an individual: more then they can ever afford to pay the court fine

also individuals do not set themselves up as legit businesses to shift the liability away from the operator. so by operatng a business but not doing o officially is a double hit personally

which is why individuals operating as MSB/MTS get hit harder because they are personally made responsible rather than the debt/claim/penalty/charge being pushed to the 'business'

best way i calculate it.
imagine a comfortable living status of income.
calculate that income with an average 3% increase per year until the standard "life expectancy" of years left of your current age

and the total is "rich" enough to never work again or never live below a healthy happy lifestyle status

..
these days in western countries. where a living wage is £$10-15 of basic survival lifestyle.(£$20k-£$30k a year)
some used to think that a 20year old getting $£1m cash upfront would be "rich"
however doing the math for that person living work free for the next 65 years(85life expectancy) that £$1m wont last throughout their life comfortably

these days £$4m is considered the lower class(min wage) income requirements for a basic lifestyle to be work free as a minimum standard

yes to all points
supermarkets that interview employees are the local instore supervisor(untrained in HR).. so trying to make salary demands at the interview stage falls flat against a supervisor who does not have any discretionary control over salary adjustments. they are there just to evaluate the applicant and get them to sign a template strict contract they printed from HR. a standard contract with set details the supervisor cannot touch or alter

usually if a supervisor has 20 applicants and a interviewee  is questioning even the 15 min start and end addon of time unpaid. the supervisor will just not get the interviewee to sign a contract and instead give the opportunity to someone that doesnt question the math

you would be surprised how little discretion/decision making ability a local instore manager/supervisor has over their employees/applicants.

its for the HR department of the HQ of the company that can handle salary discrepancies. and usually with any industry, its a headache to negotiate a pay rise or adjust an employee contract(customise it) compared to the standard template that all employees are locked into

usually it ends up with employees having to form a group action such as a strike or a union to push the HR to adjust all contracts. for the HR to even consider changing their template.

the problem is that there needs to be a legal push to the HQ to meet its legal obligations of labour time

so the appeal happened.
the deadline to appeal happened
the 7 day consultation period happened

and now the courts finally release the mandate formalising the court decision
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.38827/gov.uscourts.cadc.38827.1208564168.0_1.pdf


now the SEC has to officially reconsider grayscale application

initially yea. but these days majority of the liquidity is linked to 3 large companies. and they will want to further protect their locked liquidity by disavowing its customers control of the agreements/commitment states.

this topics flaw is not even a major problem but when lightning devs admit they cant fix something within their own network and resign. it shows not only they need to want bitcoin to fork to fix THEIR error. but also that when the other flaws get publicised which also cant be fixed. more and more will start to realise its time to break their sponsored contract. and try something new

knowing there are many SEC applications. but only blackrock has ticker. is a sign of something. it doesnt reveal when. but a sign of whos first

no he didnt get all them coins. he only got 643.. as said by me and others.

the more interesting parts of the story is that mtgox itself only had ~500k total coins for all users and no single user had even close to 260k coins on their balance to sell. so it was an insider that when the ATH of 2011 hit $32, the insider done a flashcrash down to 0.01
mtgox reversed the transactions so toasty did not benefit from the 259k, the market then settled to ~$3

since 2011 no one really talked about, reposted or mentioned again that "toasty got 260k btc.." because he didnt

try reading your link, he only withdrew 643coin

funny part
lightning advocates wanted RBF enabled on the bitcoin network to make pre-confirm transaction handling non-trusted on the bitcoin network, just so they can advertise a pre-confirm transaction handling feature on their crappy subnet.

now they admit their desire for RBF is causing people to scam scheme and steal funds from their crappy subnet and they cant do anything about it just within their crappy subnet without forking bitcoin again

..
i predict the next part will be having to raise crappy subnet fee's to sway people from starting low and RBF'ing until theft... but then want to demand bitcoin network fee war to make bitcoin fees extremes just to make crappy subnetwork seem discounted

sounds like an endless snowball avalanche of bad work arounds rather than having a subnetwork that simply does as advertised/promised in a secure way in-of-itself

time for them to scrap it and start afresh, new model, new method. les flaws, less bugs

we should not be forking bitcoin just to make a subnetwork function.. a subnetwork should function prebridge.. and then program itself on its side to interact with bitcoin

if they cant even have a working prototype thats secure. they failed at the first post

YOUR point is you think that syncing to a server via a lightwallet risks the server knowing your bitcoin addresses only via block-sync/utxoset.. where you think filters/random requests will give you privacy..
MY point is you are still not private because there are many other ways the server can learn of your addresses and i mentioned just one.. hint: there are many

extra point, light wallets are programmed to speak to specific servers and only send YOUR transactions to them.
full nodes send thousands of NOT-YOUR transactions every 10 minutes. thus peers wont know which one is yours. plus you can blacklist/disconnect peers and change your peers easily, thus not stuck to a certain monitoring peer all the time.. thus fullnodes are safer

32000PKR is one month minimum wage in pakistan
bitcoin: 8,841,600PKR($30,700 * 288)

8,841,600 / 32000 = 276 months = 23 years of minimum wage

---

12400 is one month minimum wage in Philippine Peso
bitcoin: 1,749,900($30,700 * 57)

1,749,900 / 12400 = 141 months = <12 years of minimum wage

---

is 11-23 years of minimum wage.. rich?

i do understand.. what you dont understand is you are narrowly thinking of the block-sync aspect.. i am talking about the later spending session
when you spend funds.. your wallet only sends out transactions made by YOU. so the only transactions a litewallet server host receives from you are your transactions you signed. meaning they can learn what bitcoin addresses you control via just waiting for you to spend funds, they then look at what the possible "change"(return remainder funds) address is, and other such things

again if you are concerned with the "third party servers" (peers intercepting your data) they will learn what bitcoin addresses you control simply by waiting for you to spend your funds through their servers as they are the host server to your wallet app.

define rich
lets say this, would you consider yourself rich if you lived the all of your working life (20yr->85yr) on minimum wage?.. no? ofcourse not.

now take your countries minimum wage and multiply it by 65. and the total amount is NOT rich..
if 1BTC is not above this amount, you are not rich