Electrum on the AUR of Arch Linux may be compromised? reddit.com/r/archlinux/comme…

Fable 5 refused 200 out of 200 ProgramBench tasks lmao

Police arrested a Florida man for attempted child abduction in a county he had never visited, based solely on facial recognition. reason.com/2026/06/11/aclu-s…

Things I really dislike about Fable: 1. Anthropic collects my prompt history, stores it, and does whatever they want with it for 30 days. No opt-out 2. They can nerf their most expensive model without telling me, billing me the same amount, wasting my time. Whenever they want

> It's not doing any of that because bitcoin's purpose is and has always been monetary Please point to me where in the white paper Satoshi says all transactions in bitcoin must be for monetary purposes and then tell us all how to quantify that in code, I'll wait, because simply removing OP_IF in Tapscript aint it. > The argument is that locking the doors and windows make break-ins more difficult, NOT impossible. Once again this argument has been debunked to death, bitcoin is not a house with a fixed number of doors it has infinite windows. So boarding the front door does nothing but route the data through openings you cannot reach. Todd walked the whole BIP-110 text in through a compliant tx on day one, and you boarded up OP_RETURN, the one doorway that let data out cleanly and now the mess climbs through windows into the UTXO set forever so you did not lock the house, you sealed the only self-cleaning door. > No one is talking about stopping spam entirely, this has always been and always will remain a straw man, BAD FAITH argument Calling this bad faith is rich because the base layer has carried arbitrary data since the script system existed and OP_RETURN was added specifically as the less harmful way to do it, so the people changing what bitcoin is are the ones trying to bolt new content restrictions onto consensus. > I'm losing any remaining shred of faith or patience I have for people making arguments to the contrary as even a 5-year-old can see the logic of this. And so are we. Nobody likes spam but bitcoin must remain neutral so it can remain censorship resistant, not censored by a loud minority of people on twitter who want to ram through a consensus change with only a 55% threshold, that's an attack, plain and simple.

🚨 A website can figure out what you're doing on your computer. No download. No permission. No popup. > It's called FROST. > Up to 95% accurate. > And there's no fix yet. You just leave the tab open, and JavaScript times your SSD to tell which sites you visit and which apps you open. 🔗 Learn how this works: thehackernews.com/2026/06/ne…

This is the sort of article that can lose a media publication's credibility. Fast. In a truly embarassing effort from Switzerland's public broadcaster @swissinfo_en just claimed a long-debunked claim that "Bitcoin emits a lot of energy per transaction" For the record, no it doesn't. Bitcoin resource use comes through mining, not transactions (getting this wrong is a rookie error). It was debunked 4 times in peer reviewed papers (Masanet et al,  2019, Dittmar et al. 2019, Sedlmeir et al, 2020, and Sai and Vraken, 2023.) That's why no reputable mainstream media companies make this claim any more. Oops. Imagine having done so little research on your article that you a. didn't know that b. didn't know that all your peers in the media except you already know that But the Swiss article gets worse. The author mentioned none of the actual contemporary research on Bitcoin, appearing to have no awareness that since 2021 there have been 30 peer reviewed articles (source: x.com/DSBatten/status/206179…) showing that Bitcoin is not only not a big emitter, but it is a genuine solution to ending the era of big emissions by: - Accelerating renewable energy transition (16 papers) - Monetizing wasted renewable energy (14 paper) - Obviating flaring, landfill gas emissions, or gas peaker plants (3 papers) Finally, the article references its own previous copy, an article from 31 May 2025 quoting the non-peer reviewed hobby blog Digiconomist (which Wikipedia expressly states is not a reputable source), authored by Dutch Central Banker Alex de Vries, whose work on Bitcoin Mining was debunked in 2023 (Sai and Vranken) Source: sciencedirect.com/science/ar… So in summary, what can we objectively say is true about this article on Bitcoin's environmental impact from @swissinfo_es. They have 1. Not acknowledged 30 peer reviewed papers which contradict their thesis 2. Referenced the hobby blog from an author whose work's academic merits are disputed (to say the least) 3. stated the flawed "per transaction" metric which has been debunked 4 times in academic work Irrespective of your opinion on Bitcoin or Bitcoin mining, this is not a great look for Swissinfo. Rather, it is misinformation against a technology that has been established in multiple academic journals, by energy experts, grid operators and renewable energy generators as being an important part of the UNSDGs and environmental action. in short: the sort of article that establishes a news outlet as not a reliable source Do better @swissinfo_jp @swissinfo_fr @swissinfo_de

Our statement on the UK government’s demand that all content on all devices sold or used in the country be scanned, on the presumption of nudity, using a dystopian combination of age verification and content scanning. This proposal will not safeguard children. It endangers us all. signal.org/blog/pdfs/2026-06…

welcome to the mass surveillance endgame

“We will ban social media services, except for the ones that are politically connected enough that they won’t be banned.”

Google Wallet is about to start holding your government ID in five EU countries this summer. The selling point is age verification. The part they skip over: an ad company now sees every time you prove who you are online. reclaimthenet.org/google-wan…

Today I learned that the Signal official package name for Android is org.thoughtcrime.securesms That is both based and cyute.

Absolute insanity that the government demanded this information from YouTube viewers because... they were subscribed to certain channels. Internet privacy is disappearing before our eyes. Props to the judge for having a backbone

👉 Yoti, plateforme de vérification d'âge, aurait "signalé" un utilisateur aux autorités pour détection d'usage de @GrapheneOS Voici ce qui s'est passé. Un utilisateur tente de vérifier son âge sur PlayStation Network via @getyoti . Son appareil tourne sous GrapheneOS. Le scan échoue à répétition, 8 à 10 fois. Il contacte le support Yoti pour comprendre. La réponse arrive de help@yoti[.]com : "Due to past security concerns, Yoti automatically flags multiple verification attempts and any devices running GrapheneOS. These instances are automatically reported to both the authorities and our security team." Traduction : "En raison de problèmes de sécurité passés, Yoti signale automatiquement les tentatives de vérification multiples ainsi que tout appareil fonctionnant sous Gra…"En raison de problèmes de sécurité passés, Yoti signale automatiquement les tentatives de vérification multiples ainsi que tout appareil fonctionnant sous GrapheneOS. Ces cas sont automatiquement signalés aux autorités ainsi qu'à notre équipe de sécurité." L'utilisateur avait fourni ses vrais documents d'identité. Il n'a pas contourné quoi que ce soit. C'est le système de Yoti qui semble avoir échoué à les traiter. Pourquoi ? GrapheneOS restreint les APIs caméra et biométriques. Un scan qui fonctionne sur Android stock peut échouer en boucle sur GrapheneOS. L'échec répété n'est pas une fraude. C'est une incompatibilité technique. Evidemment, il est très facile de détecter qu'un smartphone utilise GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS n'est interdit nulle part. C'est un Android open source durci, utilisé par des journalistes, des avocats, des chercheurs en sécurité, et des gens comme vous et moi, soucieux de leur sécurité. Mais pour Yoti, l'utiliser suffirait à vous classer comme suspect. En vertu de quoi ? Soit Yoti signale effectivement quelqu'un, quelque part, pour avoir utilisé un OS légal. Soit c'est une formule boilerplate conçue pour faire peur. Dans les deux cas, c'est un problème. Si c'est réel : aucun texte n'impose à un prestataire de vérification d'âge de signaler aux forces de l'ordre un utilisateur détecté sous GrapheneOS. C'est une politique unilatérale sans base légale identifiable. Si c'est un bluff : menacer un utilisateur d'une procédure légale fictive est une pratique commerciale déloyale dans la plupart des juridictions. En revanche, ce que ça révèle, c'est que petit à petit, utiliser des OS alternatifs va entraîner des restrictions, des suspicions, pour mieux permettre de déployer leurs systèmes de régulations. Et demain, ce ne sera pas seulement GrapheneOS. À chaque étape, on nous dira que c’est pour la sécurité, pour les enfants, pour la lutte contre la fraude, pour la conformité. Mais à la fin, le résultat sera le même : l’utilisateur qui cherche à se protéger devra se justifier, tandis que l’utilisateur entièrement traçable sera considéré comme normal. C’est cette inversion qu’il faut refuser. La vie privée ne doit pas devenir une circonstance aggravante. La sécurité numérique ne doit pas devenir un marqueur de suspicion. Et les infrastructures de vérification d’âge ne doivent pas devenir des postes-frontières privés où des entreprises privées décident, dans l’opacité, quels appareils sont acceptables et quels utilisateurs méritent d’être signalés. Si Yoti confirme cette pratique, il faudra demander sur quelle base juridique repose ce signalement, quelles autorités sont destinataires, quelles données sont transmises, combien d’utilisateurs sont concernés, combien de temps ces informations sont conservées, et quels recours sont offerts aux personnes faussement signalées. Et si Yoti ne la confirme pas, il faudra expliquer pourquoi son support a pu écrire une telle chose à un utilisateur.

"Privacy is power - and they don't want you to have any"

An unfortunate example of why I've long said not to expect Bitcoin to implement strong cryptographic privacy at the base layer. Doing so greatly increases risk of undetectable monetary supply inflation. Few folks value privacy more than supply integrity. x.com/zooko/status/206264492…

“We (Monero) have had our own inflation bugs… it's a natural downside to building out privacy as the default in these systems.” This. Bitcoin's $1.3 trillion market cap is the equivalent of the life savings of 150 million median Americans. So far, all the available on-chain privacy technologies that provide good k-anonymity sets, other than coinjoin, have had serious inflation exploits that could have destroyed the entire value of the privacy protected coins they were used on. It's good that these options exist for those who want to use them. But Bitcoin's #1 goal needs to be maintaining value. Privacy is important. But it is our #2 priority. Not #1. Besides, Bitcoin in practice has very good payment privacy the way people actually use it: Lightning. For many threat models we got the rough equivalent of Zcash style on-chain privacy without the inflation risk, and with nearly instant transactions. The main work to be done there is to get more people on ecash and self-hosted lightning, and get more Lightning wallets integrated with coinjoin.

❌ Ark vs. Lightning ✅ Ark Lightning

Der 4. Absatz zeugt einmal mehr von Grössenwahnsinn, Unverständnis über technische Realitäten und dem Wunsch nach totaler staatlicher Kontrolle über den Informationsraum. Damit hätte der Bund die Verfassungsgrundlage um beispielsweise X zu sperren.

Ha llegado el día: mi teléfono Apple, de más de 1.000 €, ha dejado de ser mío y de obedecer mis intereses. Un teléfono inteligente que se ha revelado en contra de su dueño y se ha convertido en un pisapapeles por voluntad propia. Espero que más gente se oponga a esta vigilancia masiva. No habrá más oportunidades.