Indeed.

Also hard work happening in Core at the moment on making maintaining it way more efficient.

No.

I only mention Core, because it uses the same bootstap chain, that you could use for LDK, LNDK, Ord, etc. Maybe it would have been better to mention Liana wallet, which is Rust-based and uses this bootstrap chain too.

I wouldn't trust anything that guy is saying. As far as I know there is a bootstrap for Rust through mrustc, gcc, and finally stage0. Bitcoin Core takes a lot of in pride in only shipping a binary that is built from a fully transparently bootstrapped toolchain using a similar chain of tools.

Thanks for the summary :)

I don't know, I've never lived within either :)

The townships in the western cape are probably the worst in the country. And the reason for that is simply space. During apartheid far less space and far fewer services were allocated to people here. The internal migration outpaced their willingness to zone new areas, as done for example eventually in Soweto. This is why I think it is so assinine for the government to focus on rural land use, when the much bigger problem in large parts of the country would be formalizing informal settlements and providing basic property rights and services to them. If you have a shack in a township it is not unheard of that your community just strips you off your property, or that a previous tenant just takes it over again. The land on the edge of the cities is often privately owned agricultural, or a national or provincial park, making land invasions likely and rezoning so difficult.

The playgrounds growing up in SA were awesome! Huge open face slides, big jungle gyms with decent height differences, obstacles that actually cost a big of fear to get over. And yet, after a few years , you'd still rather climb a tall tree :D

Right, I think your 1of 2 two things is a strawman. The first case has never been suggested, and the second case is the exact point of vaults. You create a staging area for your coins under weaker security, but still with yourself in control.

Your solution to congestion then just seems to be "wait it out". But that seems backwards. If the exchange can offer their customers sooner and cheaper access to their coins, I don't see how that is not of mutual benefit?

Like I said before, not a fan of arkade or similar attempts, but that is just one implementation of ark. 2nd has been more honest imo. I'm also not completely convinced of either vaults, or congestion control, but they do make clear cases for base money and might actually enhance lightning.

I'm being genuine here. The two arguments you raised that I highlighted do not make sense to me.

That does not make sense to me. In order to spend from a vault, you first have to unvault to an address that is still in your control. It is supposed to protect your savings, and is not really meant for immediate spending. A merchant has nothing to do with it.

It does solve congestion control for exchange payouts. That seems clear to me?

Can you explain how a merchant would suffer from a vault claw back? That does not make sense to me. Once spent to an arbitrary address, there is no clawback mechanism anymore.

Is there an actual argument you have against ark? I can see it for their whole "arkade" stuff, but afaict that is only one implementation. In the normal case, I just think of it as congestion control, which is great!

To an extent. The line should be harassing people in their private lives.

Yes, also not clear what it is actually useful for.

I hate that people are platforming the opinions of scam coins as anything remotely trustworthy. This is a marketing gimmick, nothing more. OP_RETURN doesn't make it easier or cheaper for meta protocols. Similar with that Vitalik quote that gets thrown around every now and then where he claims that Bitcoin's hostility to data embedding left him no choice, but to develop his own scamcoin. You can't trust these people with anything they say, even if they confirm your own narrative.

Parker's position is very unclear to me to be honest.

Reposting my answer to the same question earlier this week:

Maybe we'll have to change our expectations for acceptable number of confirmations, maybe nothing changes. I think things will not change significantly for users. Fees now already reflect how long you are willing to wait to reach an acceptable level of finality. If we want faster finality we will pay more to miners, if not we'll pay less.

Maybe we'll have to change our expectations for acceptable number of confirmations, maybe nothing changes. I think things will not change significantly for users. Fees now already reflect how long you are willing to wait to reach an acceptable level of finality. If we want faster finality we will pay more to miners, if not we'll pay less.

Yes!

It's actually still very accurate.