https://xchain.io/tx/4ed67ade43a71d149bb90a10c5f53ef7851b312a9d1604ad1c0f3995813c9938

Nashville had many booths with people talking about many other L2’s and ways to ‘build on bitcoin’. Does anyone here have thoughts or experience with CKB, RGB++ or any of the other alternatives that were around the conference floor?

I wasn’t at the conference but personally I am more interested in what is actually onchain. By calling it L2, it implies is not in L1.

But I understand the nomenclature is kinda messy within all “crypto” which loves buzzwords 😆

So “build on bitcoin” can mean so many things these days…

@ABlue0ne have you studied or tried any of those?

They are on my list of rabbit holes that I found in Nashville that I am considering studying. Ordinals/runes got respect at the conference fwiw. Build on btc was someone’s slogan. There were plenty more BTC based solutions on display. OP_Cat is a thing too. I’ll make a list and share one day.

What else are you studying?

Just read:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0347.mediawiki

TLDR is a basic concatenation operation that will be implemented in tapscript. Addressing being a soft fork and a concern of limiting the size.

I am barely familiar with Bitcoin script to know of any unspecified vulnerabilities… but based on what I can understand, I can agree with it.

BIP-420 is where my head is

what's so special about BIP-420 ?

https://github.com/bip420/bip420

Same thing

Yeah it just seems to be the original draft version…

There is a story behind the numbering and such but my memory is failing me.

OP_CAT Helps enable things like atomic seaps and vaults but it’s taproot, so it might not apply to us unless Adam and co implement taproot. Either way OP_Cat is a BTC improvement.

Stamp devs have made huge strides in improving their tooling. My biggest hangups to stamps were the closed source nature of the indexer (open source now?) and the fact it is not a true protocol but a fancy collection.

atomic swaps on bitcoin?

After seeing the OP_CAT conversation gaining traction it was time for me to study it. And it just a basic primitive operation. Unless I gain new information about vulnerabilities I have no problem with it because is a soft fork. So I agree is an improvement that seems to allow some interesting use cases.

About stamps, the counterparty description ones yeah I agree is just a cleverly marketed collection. (Unfortunately it has deceptive narrative about “immutability” superiority which is bs (technically).)

Then there is SRC20 which is no longer a metametaprotocol, and is now separate from Counterparty. So this part is no longer just a collection.

swaps in the despenser

Hi

if anyone here can develop tool that can send any amount of BTC without checking balance of sender address?

I mean you can send any amount only by paying network fees.. transaction will stay as unconfirmed transactions the drop after sometime.

Paid job

Anyone here with ideas if this tool can be made ?

So you want to construct the transactions without broadcasting them? Electrum does this.

No

Without checking utxo of sender address

Means i can set any amount with actually having it as real balance

he wants to send millions without having it is that right?

It's for testing purposes

it won't let you compose what u don't have

Yes to manipulate node to do so

it's called testnet

why aren't you using it?

I know sir i want to create something to do this procedures

That why i need somone maybe he can help to build i can pay anyways

It's all depends on nodes manipulations to do some functions and avoid detections

If anyone know how to do dm me for more info

Transactions are just inputs and outputs, you’re essentially asking if you can build an output only Tx which you could but it’s only half a Tx

It's like fake input it will broadcast any amount without checking actual balance

It's can get invaild after sometime when it broadcasted

No it’s not valid

“Balance” is just the sum of unspent outputs that can be used as inputs in a new Tx

This. Invalid transactions won’t be accepted by nodes.

Locally, in your own node that you modify the code, you can do anything but is no longer Bitcoin if you break consensus (validity) rules

Yo let’s scam people, I’m your dev

I need it to broadcasted online not locally, and avoid node detections for ban etc ..

It's all for education and testing purposes as i said am not doing this to harm anyone..

If this were possible, Bitcoin is broken. Really broken. You can't convince a node that 2+2=5.

It's unconfirmed transactions

Nodes will only propagate valid transactions

WTF does this have to do with counterparty, and how did you find this group?

Is fine

Is fun

Is this group part of the dark web now ? 😁

Yo we’re live with CP updates https://x.com/emblemvault/status/1825918330492039659?s=46&t=VKlzOqs5vqDWcDUEI3d16w

Hey guys, where do I create github issues for api.counterparty.io:4000/v2 ?

nvm found it! https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core/issues

Created 2171 and 2172 ✌️

👋 hello

Can somone explain for me what does it mean by "fake confirmations of Bitcoin transactions"

"Softfork" "miners" vulnerabilities. ?

Is that really possible somone can fake Bitcoin transactions by setup his own malicious environments ( fake mining pools ) ?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures#cite_ref-Netsplit_1-4

good reason to run your own node

There's still lot of nodes vulnerable

you need only care about your own

don’t trust, verify

as they say

Don't Trust, Ask Joe. That's my way of doing it.

Thanks guys and sorry if i put this in wrong group am just curious about this

https://x.com/wallstreetsilv/status/1827815875975549157?s=46

Thanks for sharing that page!