NixOS not the major inspiration for immutables, consumer OSes like Android and ChromeOS are. But yes, NixOS has some influence even it don’t get the idea of immutable distros well.

GNU Taler is inferior anyway, and it has been existing for many years with exact zero of usage.

Imagine reinventing Chaumian e-cash 40 year later and promoting it as a innovative approach in digital payments.

Only 101?

After using Silverblue for some time I tried to use Arch again, and pacman had failed at installation process. A easy fix for that is to be like: 1. Get list of all the installed packages; 2. Install all these packages again with --force. But after using immutables the situation is just meh.

And also now I dislike package managers which require to be used with sudo, and cannot ask for permissions with polkit.

So. BTW, I don’t use Arch.

Seems that you cannot access flathub.org for some reasons, a networking issue probably.

Fedora is Fedora and uBlue is uBlue, a separate project. Blaming Fedora for uBlue issues is like blaming Ubuntu for Mint issues.

And on Silverblue issues on updated happen from time to time. On immutable distros such issues won’t break the system unrecoverable, this is the whole reason for immutables, but there are no promises for lacking of issues.

And you are disappointed because you have encountered two different issues at once. But it is a purely random event, and I have not noticed any changes in frequency.

But saying about Silverblue, I think probably it doesn’t get much attention from the Fedora project lately, because few recent releases didn’t have any improvements either.

Oh, I must post it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dzj-DKG8-k

Translation: https://vocaloidlyrics.fandom.com/wiki/ミント_(Mint)

Fedora Silverblue, but OK, well, maybe openSUSE Aeon also.

GNOME

openSUS

Ethereum Foundation is not Ethereum in the same way how Mozilla Foundation is not Firefox.

Ethereum disclosed the incident in a blog post

Ethereum is a blockchain, it cannot write posts. But well, at least they don’t write it as “Etherium”.

Flatpak haters hate new apps anyway.

It could be private or could be not. But in a world of total financial surveillance and initiatives like ChatControl, I doubt it will be really private.

If a person is smart an has personal opinions about everything or if they are a person of power I won’t trust them. Because how can I prove they are a true believer and not a liar or sociopath?

If a person is average human who thinks what the crowd thinks then I won’t care.

Better not having different regions at all.

Silent Payments are just stealth addresses for Bitcoin. There already be some earlier implementations, for example PayNim in Samourai Wallet. But the new thing is finally a general standard proposed for wallets.

It allows to create new Silent Payment address which never appear on the blockchain. Instead, the sender of a transaction will derive an unique regular address controlled by the recipient. Similar to Monero yes. The only thing it gives: one cannot naively check the balance or the transaction history of a SP address.

If it will be adopted it can improve privacy on Bitcoin slightly, but… It’s a completely client-side feature which does not require protocol changes and could be implemented like from the day one of Bitcoin. Silent Payments are new only because it uses Taproot, and the previous thing was BIP 47: Reusable Payment Codes, which has about zero usage. Just because bitcoiners don’t care much about privacy. There is only a small minority of users who cares.

For more serious privacy hidden amounts are a must have feauture. And in the past at least bitcoiners were strongly against it, because they care about transparency, audibility and trust to the system more than about privacy. Potentially, some privacy protocol can be implemented on L2, but L2s are often centralized and cannot withstand governmental pressure. But in theory yes, they could have strong private payments on L2, but this rather won’t happened on L1 in near decades. Even on Ethereum where such protocols are possible for few years now, projects are still in development.

In short: the problem with privacy in Bitcoin is not technical, it is more about culture and a lack of demand from the Bitcoin community. Imagine that bitcoiners will promote some strong privacy improvement for which Binance and other exchanges could delist BTC, or the protocol will become more complex for understanding by an average human.

I will use it. I don’t care what others think. People can use su, sudo, doas, run0 by their choice, and I don’t see why we need a common opinion about it.

I wouldn’t assume the right strategy for inputs. To an outsider they are all indistinguishable, but the sender, an exchange for example, can mark operations (withdrawals) done with the same account and store that information. Every input has 16 potential members selected from the blockchain. But if tx has many inputs, and each input has among the ring one previously marked input associated with the same exchange account, it will be likely that tx was created by the person with that exchange account. If the person later will try to deposit this coins to another account of the exchange, probably exchange could link two account, at least as potentially linked. So input aggregation can give additional hints for EABE attack.

Probably, it is better to aggregate inputs earlier, before churning, and don’t mix churned coins with unchurned. But Monero need more general improvements as FCMP/FCMP++.

No. Regular payment transactions with change also have two.

https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/1415 https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/5399

I would say better to pay more attention to inputs and input aggregation and to avoid it if possible.

All monero transactions now have two outputs at least, even sweep txs.