A weekly live show covering all things Freedom Tech with Max, Q and Seth.
TO DONATE TO ROMAN'S DEFENSE FUND: https://freeromanstorm.com/donate
IMPORTANT LINKS
VALUE FOR VALUE
Thanks for listening you Ungovernable Misfits, we appreciate your continued support and hope you enjoy the shows.
You can support this episode using your time, talent or treasure.
TIME:
- create fountain clips for the show
- create a meetup
- help boost the signal on social media
TALENT:
- create ungovernable misfit inspired art, animation or music
- design or implement some software that can make the podcast better
- use whatever talents you have to make a contribution to the show!
TREASURE:
- BOOST IT OR STREAM SATS on the Podcasting 2.0 apps @ https://podcastapps.com
- DONATE via Monero @ https://xmrchat.com/ugmf
- BUY SOME STICKERS @ https://www.ungovernablemisfits.com/shop/
FOUNDATION
https://foundation.xyz/ungovernable
Foundation builds Bitcoin-centric tools that empower you to reclaim your digital sovereignty.
As a sovereign computing company, Foundation is the antithesis of today’s tech conglomerates. Returning to cypherpunk principles, they build open source technology that “can’t be evil”.
Thank you Foundation Devices for sponsoring the show!
Use code: Ungovernable for $10 off of your purchase
CAKE WALLET
https://cakewallet.com
Cake Wallet is an open-source, non-custodial wallet available on Android, iOS, macOS, and Linux.
Features:
- Built-in Exchange: Swap easily between Bitcoin and Monero.
- User-Friendly: Simple interface for all users.
Monero Users:
- Batch Transactions: Send multiple payments at once.
- Faster Syncing: Optimized syncing via specified restore heights
- Proxy Support: Enhance privacy with proxy node options.
Bitcoin Users:
- Coin Control: Manage your transactions effectively.
- Silent Payments: Static bitcoin addresses
- Batch Transactions: Streamline your payment process.
Thank you Cake Wallet for sponsoring the show!
[00:00:00]
Unknown:
Alright. Looking good in OBS. Let's go and check the usual, locations, shall we? Twitter.
[00:00:06] Unknown:
Hold on. It's the airplane my phone.
[00:00:10] Unknown:
Yep. We're we're live on YouTube, although the thumbnail looks a bit weird for some reason.
[00:00:16] Unknown:
Google getting greedy. It seems to be working. Yeah. That's nice. Oh, look at this. Seth joining as well. Is he in? He's sort of pretty on time. Hold on. Let me also open the thing you sent.
[00:00:36] Unknown:
Hello, everyone, by the way. If you are joining, we're just, checking. Working. Welcome.
[00:00:41] Unknown:
Right. Let's open. Yeah. We might have this problem where Seth doesn't actually get in. Right. He's just sort of lurking. I can see him, but it's like it hasn't accepted him in. Do you wanna quickly send a new, a new link? Yeah. Let me just message him and just
[00:00:59] Unknown:
ah, hold on. Yeah. I can see him as a guest. Hello, Vibrant. Nice to have you with us. True to form, we're just, ironing out some teething issues. We will be diving in very shortly. Thanks for stopping by.
[00:01:12] Unknown:
Sure. I've just done as well. I had some notes on my phone, and I've just deleted everything by accident. Oh, no. He's in. He's in. It's just worked, I think. Wonderful. Hello, Seth. Are you there? Good morning. Good morning. How are you?
[00:01:28] Unknown:
Welcome.
[00:01:29] Unknown:
I think we're all good then. I think we're all good. Awesome. The only thing that's not working, and this is not our fault, is it appears that we're not live on NoStar. I've just refreshed that dot stream, and it's not there. So looks like that could be a a Zap dot stream issue. I've done multiple refreshes, but, it appears that just for whatever reason, it's, it's not playing ball. So oh, zap.stream. I'm just looking at Restream now. It says unable to connect. Okay. Not a lot we can do about that, folks. So if you are Okay. Anasta native, apologies, but it's outside of our our control. So you'll have to stick with the, the legacy media, formats today. But, let me do the intro. Hello, and welcome to Freedom Set Friday.
For those of you that are new here, allow me to briefly explain what this is all about and why the hell we are here. Freedom Debt Friday is a weekly live and interactive show hosted on the Ungovernable Misfits Twitter, Nosta, and YouTube feeds, albeit not Nosta today. We, we go live for one hour every Friday at 9AM eastern US time or 2PM UK time. But you can also catch up, later on on the Ungovernable Misfits podcast feed. On Freedom Tech Friday, we like to cover off the latest news and trends for anything relating to Freedom Technologies. That could be anything from Bitcoin to Monero, encrypted messengers, privacy tools, and everything in between.
Essentially, if there is a news item, tool, or topic that you can, that you'd like to use to help take back some control in today's digital panopticon, then we wanna talk about it. My name is q and a, and I'm head of customer experience at Foundation, where we build Bitcoin focused sovereignty tools. And as always, I am joined by my good friends, Max, the head honcho of the ungovernable misfits empire, and Seth, who is VP of operations over at kWallet. As I mentioned, this show is live and interactive, and we rely on you guys to steer us towards the topics you want us to cover or to send us your Freedom Tech related questions that you need answering. There's loads of ways in which you can get involved with the show, all of which really help us to spread the awareness for the show.
Some examples, just give us a comment or or ask some questions in the live chat. Submit your topics or questions ahead of time, for for the show. You can do that on X or Nosta. We we put a post out or multiple posts out each week asking for your feedback and your input. You can, of course, boost the show on Fountain or any of the other podcasting two point o apps. And you can also send in your questions or tips, via Bitcoin or Monero @xmrchat.comslashugmf. And finally, probably most obvious, you can just share the show with your friends on x or on Nosta. So without further ado, the boys are all back in town. Let's dive into the show. Max, Seth, how is it going today?
[00:04:22] Unknown:
It is going. I, sprinted upstairs to get on, so we made it just in time. Live. Wasn't gonna miss another one, but doing pretty well. Doing pretty well.
[00:04:32] Unknown:
Glad to hear it. Uh-oh. Did we lose Max?
[00:04:40] Unknown:
He's muted.
[00:04:44] Unknown:
I, I was muted. And because I was muted, I was talking over the top of Seth the whole way through, and I was like, oh, we've got a horrible delay here, but, actually, it's was just, just me being muted. Nice. Yeah. I was just gonna say I'm I'm also very good. I'm also very excited to say that we have a prize winner from last week's episode. We had, no one won the prize the first time. It rolled over, and now our good friend, Jackie Hoddle, has won the Gabriel Custodia watchman privacy watchman's torch newsletter. The newsletter covers the latest analysis, investigations, and advice for getting off the surveillance grid, regaining your sovereignty, and protecting yourself.
That is thanks to Jordan. He put up that prize. So thank you very much, Jordan. Thank you, Gabriel, for, making the incredible newsletter, and congratulations to Jackie Huddle, who is a big supporter of the show. He won because he sent in 0.039 XMR saying pure Michigan mesh to Dell boost. Thank you, Mike, Chet, Ben, John, Max, Carl, and everyone who had a hand in building out these communities. Your hard work and generosity have gone a long way. I'm so grateful for my ungovernable extended family. He boosted that in and then shared the show in all of the groups that he's part of. We we share many, many groups. He's in the and many others. So big shout out to Jackie and his wife.
They're building a homestead, and they've been working very hard and buying a load of stock from Carl, our good friend Carl, who's selling them sheep. He's very active in the mesh to del and a huge supporter of what we do here at Uncomfortable Misfits. So big shout out to you, and congratulations.
[00:06:52] Unknown:
Yeah. Congrats. I'm a little bit jealous about that, that price. It looks, looks very exciting, so I'm a have to go ahead and purchase that myself as well. So yeah. Congrats, Jackie. Thanks for getting involved. Very much appreciated. Quick hello to some people in the live chat. Clem Fandango. Welcome. That is Jackie, isn't it? I believe. Yeah. Thank you, fellas. Looking forward to it. I didn't know whether I was gonna be doxxing, people's socks, but, it looks like he's said he's he's come out in the open and said thank you, fellas. So, that's it. Ah, watch my privacy's here as well. Hello, Gabriel. Look at that. Oh, nice. Full circle. Full circle. And, Cilla Slonbrook, nice to see you as well. Thanks for stopping by, dude. Yeah. Thank you. Alright.
Topic of today's title. Topic of today's title? Title of today's show, all that. Yeah. Google getting greedy. Seems like we talk about Google a lot at the moment. They seem to be, finding themselves in in the, the Inconvertible Misfits crosshairs at the moment, but not without good reason. Yeah. What happened to this don't be evil thing? Wasn't that? Yeah. Do you know what? When I was when I was coming up for the the title for for today's show, I was trying to make a spin on that with some alliteration and make it kind of, succinct and and related to what we're gonna talk about this week. But as you can see, I failed miserably, so I just went on some alliteration and and hoped that that was gonna be good enough.
So, yeah, this week, we had a news article, and I'm gonna be referencing the the TechCrunch article to be specific, that Google is tightening security measures around Android app distribution. This came out on Monday, and it's, starting as soon as this year. Google is is essentially gonna begin to verify the identity of developers distributing apps on Android devices. And this is the crucial part here. This is not just for developers who distribute through the Google Play Store. This change will affect all certified Android devices, and we'll dive into what constitute a certified Android device, later on. The the tech giant, has stressed that this does not mean that developers cannot distribute outside of the Play Store. So So sideloading is still going to be, an an option for, quote, unquote, I guess, stock Android.
Yet they stay Android's gonna remain open in that regard. However, developers who appreciated the anonymity of alternative distribution methods will no longer have that option. Google says, this will help to cut down on bad actors who hide their identity to distribute malware, commit financial fraud, or steal users' personal data. So as always, guys, it's to protect the children. According to its according to its own study, Google says that more than 50 times more malware came through Internet side loaded sources compared with Google Play, where it has required developer verification since 02/2023.
Initially, Google is gonna allow interested developers to sign up for early access starting in October to test the system and provide feedback. But in March 2026, verification will go live for all developers. And by twenty September twenty twenty six, any app installed on an Android device in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand will have to meet the new requirements. Not quite sure why they chose those four companies. Yeah. Well, my my knee jerk thought is that maybe that's where they're detecting most of these scammy APKs, are coming from.
I'm basing that on
[00:10:35] Unknown:
and basing that on nothing more than a hunch. It is where they're installed, though, not where the developer is publishing from. Good point. Ah, that's interesting. The the only thing I can think is this this kind of fits the model that others have done with really heinous changes or changes that they think people will really hate. Like Netflix, when they cut down on people being able to share accounts, they did not start in The US or in most of Europe. They started in smaller countries first. So that may be part of it to just kinda, like, slowly boil the frog, but that is a very interesting set of countries to start in.
[00:11:11] Unknown:
Yeah. Indeed. And just to kinda cap this one off, starting in 2027, the requirements will be rolled or begin rolling out globally. Those developers, will have to provide their legal name, address, email, and phone number, and I believe, according to the tech law video I watched earlier today, also a government ID. So, yeah, what this, essentially means is that, you know, in a couple of years' time, globally, you cannot kind of anonymously publish an Android APK, which is the the kind of file format, you know, that you you use to kind of side load, an application onto an Android phone. You won't be able to do that and have it installed, onto a an Android, or a stock Android device because this is where I'm probably gonna lean on you, Seth, here. But, basically, the the application or sorry. The operating system will be looking presumably for a signature or a certificate from, to kind of vouch for the fact that this APK was, created by a verified developer. And, obviously, if you maintain your anonymity and you're just publishing the APK file on your website or on your, GitHub, etcetera, and you haven't gone through that process, then it won't have the checks and balances that Android will be looking for at that point in time, and it will just say, nah. I ain't gonna install this app. Do I have that correct?
[00:12:36] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm assuming this will be a, like, an extension of that verification tooling that's already existed in stock Android for a very long time, which basically does some of these kinds of checks and tries to protect users, which is, like, good. There's not like, I I think it's easy to, like, assume all of this is bad or evil, but there there are obviously really good reasons to make it harder for people to install random APKs from the Internet because that is the vast majority of the way people's phones get pwned. And so having better protections around that is fine. I I don't have any problem with the general idea, especially when it's done client side, like what Google Play Protect has been doing.
And it it runs in the Play Store, and it runs on APKs that you're you're installing. So that stuff can be done well, and I would be all for even just improved client side checks to try and validate APKs as much as possible to try and look for malware, like, to to do what they can. But the big change here is, like, that was already weird because they were they were still limiting in some ways what you could install. You could still bypass it, but it was a little tricky. So a lot of people would kinda get stuck there. But now the fact that they if they go through with this are not only restricting what you can install, but are they going to also remove apps that users have installed that are not verified by developers? Like, will they go that step even further?
It would seem to fit, but, they haven't spoken specifically on that. But the the craziest thing here is, like, I mean, even if you think of, like, Windows, like, yes, they've added tons of, quote, unquote, protections to try and prevent people from installing malware. People still install malware. But even, like, could you imagine Microsoft just saying, like, nope. This one's not verified. You can't install this Mhmm. E x e. And especially for many of the cryptocurrency apps out there, FreedomTech apps out there that are published anonymously or are not under a company, which is the easiest way to do this verification, things get really tricky. And, actually, preventing users from installing this is wild. I I am really hesitant to think that this will actually go live this aggressively, and I would hope that it would be rolled back in some ways.
But it's pretty interesting. I got I'm not I am definitely expecting them to keep the verification part, unfortunately, but I would be very, very surprised if they actually totally prevent users from installing apps that are from people who haven't verified, their publisher, which is pretty insane.
[00:15:11] Unknown:
Would this this is just gonna be on, like, a stock Google devices then or Android devices. Presumably, this doesn't then affect if you've got, like, Graphene or Kallax or one of these kind of other options?
[00:15:27] Unknown:
Yeah. It's gonna be done through Google Play services. So I would assume this would apply to any, like, prevailing Android OS. So Samsung's, like, all of the normal spin offs of Android. I assume it's gonna apply to all of those because they're all Google Play certified and Yeah. Have all of these, quote, unquote protections in place. So I would assume it'll apply to all of those. Thankfully, no. It will not apply to Graphene. They've already stated as much, and you you obviously in Graphene, you don't have to install Google Play services at all. And even with them installed, I believe that they wouldn't have the access to prevent you from installing apps.
[00:16:02] Unknown:
Do you think they then come aggressively at, like, f droid and, what's the other one? There's, like, different
[00:16:13] Unknown:
Obtium or well, it's Acresic, just the GrapheneOS one.
[00:16:17] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, the I can't I can't remember the name of the other one, but, basically, you can you can install apps. There's, like, an app store, but it's not doing it through Google. Do you think they're gonna attack those sort of services? Because, you know, that's kind of a I don't know about simple, but it's relatively simple to install graphene I these days.
[00:16:40] Unknown:
Yeah. I really don't think so. Like, I I do really want to assume the best intentions here that it is actually aimed at preventing people from installing malicious APKs that they download off the Internet. So I would I would be hesitant to think that they will actually go after these distribution platforms. The main question will be, will these distribution platforms just be blocked as part of this by default? Like, I I doubt that they would actually go after the store on something like a Graphine OS or something. Because there's also not like, how are they gonna prevent that?
They don't have control of the OS. They don't have the ability to enforce Google Play services. I don't know of any, like, legal attack they could do, but, I mean, it is possible. I mean, we we've seen them already making it much more difficult for developers like the Graphi OS team to build around Android with recent changes. So maybe that is part of that. Again, they say they have good reasons for all of those changes as well, but I couldn't I I don't know. I I doubt that they would go after the stores themselves, especially just like the stores are not, as far as I know, any sort of prevailing method of shipping malware. So there'd be no good good reason to do so, when they really just if they actually care only about malware, which in theory they do, they would be most interested in going after the the raw APK installation approaches and in areas they control, which would be stock Android and all of the the main spin offs.
Mhmm.
[00:18:09] Unknown:
Yeah. So I think that the main take over this is, like, like you said, Seth, is number one, whether they actually go through with this, and and number two is assuming they do for the time being. Like, the obvious answer is, an alternative operating system that doesn't have those checks and balances and doesn't have, you know, all of the the the Play Store stuff at the OS level baked in to kind of, that would, if I understand it correctly, be the kind of crooks of how these kind of APKs in the future would be prevented from being installed. So I I don't wanna be, like, to kind of hand wavy to this, to be like, oh, yeah. Well, we've got Graphene, so it doesn't really matter. Because, I guess, to draw an analogy, it feels like, you know, two years ago saying our Bitcoin privacy is fine because we've got a samurai wallet, and, you know, look where we are now. So I don't wanna kind of rest on our laurels and say, yeah. You know, we've already got a solution.
Technically speaking, yes. We have. But I'm like, I don't know. It makes me fairly kind of bearish on the the mobile app ecosystem. And Seth alluded to this earlier, but I kinda wanna delve a bit deeper into it as to be kind of, this just isn't a thing in the the desktop ecosystem with maybe the exception of, like, some Chromebooks where, you know, on a laptop, no matter what the operating system is again, correct me if I'm wrong here, guys, but you can just go and install whatever you want as long as it's in the right file format. Like, there there are no preventions. You know, there might be some warnings, just like we have on on Android right now for for specific sources. But, like, I don't I don't understand why there's a big push for Google to kind of lock down their their mobile ecosystem versus, you know, Apple not doing it, you know, even though they've got a massive wall guard and go on.
[00:19:58] Unknown:
Well, much more people use phones in their everyday life for everything, especially if you look globally. Like, a lot of people just don't have computers, and so this is a much easier move for control if you would think it was for control or it's a much easier easier move for safety if you think it's for safety. Either way, I would say, you know, what percentage of people use phones over laptops or computers? Probably eighty, ninety.
[00:20:31] Unknown:
Yeah. At that point.
[00:20:33] Unknown:
Yeah. It's I mean, everyone uses a phone essentially nowadays, especially if you look outside of, like, the West. Most people only have phones. Like, most people don't have a laptop or desktop or access to them. So it's definitely the most vital one, but I think that's also why I understand their desire to go more aggressively after malware. Again, not justifying that developers have to verify themselves or that they would prevent people from installing APKs completely. But just like the idea does make sense, and one of the reasons why mobile OSes have been much more secure than desktop OSes is because it's a little harder to just straight up install malware. And when you do, that malware has drastically limited reach compared to installing such similar malware on a Sure. On a desktop computer. I will say, like, the one caveat is Mac OS is the only place where some software can be, unless you're technically knowledgeable, impossible to install. Like, for instance, there's a really good desktop client for YouTube called Free Tube, and I don't know what is messed up. What's that?
[00:21:37] Unknown:
I think we've dropped. We're not live anymore. Unless it's just my
[00:21:46] Unknown:
I'm refreshing x, but we seem to be live on x.
[00:21:50] Unknown:
Yeah. We look like we're still live on YouTube. So
[00:21:53] Unknown:
we're saying replay to me.
[00:21:55] Unknown:
I don't know. I don't know why that's happening on mine. No. I can hear you telling me we're not live on x. So we're good there, at least.
[00:22:02] Unknown:
I'll shut up then. I'll shut up. Carry on, mate.
[00:22:07] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Just was saying on macOS, like, their free tube specifically is one that I know. You have to be willing to go into the command line and know the right command to be able to allow you to actually open the app. Like, you can quote, unquote install it, but you can't actually use it without going through some, like, onerous changes. So it's not unseen, and macOS is the clear one for where they would lock things down. Apple loves their walled gardens. But even there, you can do it. So, surely, there will be a workaround here. I mean, the the biggest reason why this is concerning to me is that we we're seeing this just after the craziness of oh, maybe it did go not live. Hold on. Sorry, guys.
[00:22:54] Unknown:
Just double checking. Still good onto its own. Yeah. Now you're questioning?
[00:22:58] Unknown:
It says the broadcast is in now.
[00:23:01] Unknown:
Yeah. It says the same it says the same for me. While we're working that out, we've upset Barn in the live chat, which is never a good thing.
[00:23:12] Unknown:
No. Okay. We're we are. We we all ignore it. That's a bug. Yeah. Yeah. We are definitely live.
[00:23:18] Unknown:
We've upset Barn Miner, Max. Why is that?
[00:23:21] Unknown:
Yeah. I can't read his message now because my, my Twitter won't load at all. But can you see in the chat? He was whinging about something, us being not legitimate.
[00:23:33] Unknown:
This this is only a legitimate show if I can listen over Nostra and Zap in the world's greatest layer two token. I've already commented back to to let him know Okay. That that zap. Stream is not working. It's not our our technical issue for once. It seems to be a problem on the the Zapdos Stream side. Yeah. A couple of comments from people in YouTube saying we're really laggy. Again, I'm not sure what's going on. It's like everything seems to be live but laggy. So bear with this, guys. Everything seems to be working on my end. It's just, and I'm absolutely Okay. I'm at HQ as well, so we can't blame my Internet connectivity or anything like that. Yeah. So I've got the VC wrestle same thing as well.
Nice. Okay. So just just before being censored. Yes. Indeed. We we are talking about Google, I suppose, that their tentacles reach everywhere. I've I've seen a couple of, comments on on various channels about this to be, the lag is real. Wow. Okay. Well, let's just roll with it, guys, and, you know, people can catch up afterwards, on the on the podcast feed if need be. I've seen a couple of comments on X and on Nosta where people are just like, oh, well, this doesn't matter anyway because I can just use F Droid or I can just use, Zapstore or Optanium, etcetera.
And I think that the piece that pit people so the the piece that pit I can't even speak today. May now I'm like Eat a pipe a picked a pickled pepper. P p p p p. The piece that people are missing is that to get those apps in the first place after, these restrictions are in place will require the the developers of set apps to actually have docs themselves and to Mhmm. You know, have have put themselves through that process and be a, quote, unquote, verified developer. So, you know, obviously, we don't know who or out of the ones I've just mentioned will be prepared to do that. So just just worth bearing in mind. And if you are still running stock Android and you're worried about this and you have no desire to go down the graphene route or similar, then maybe download those apps before all of this happens.
Again, that's that's not a perfect solution because, like Seth alluded to, maybe Google might be able to delve into your phone and pull those apps off the phone afterwards. I doubt that, personally. Yeah. But, again, this this is Google. And as I said, their tentacles reach quite deeply. I I would be very shocked if they went that far and started removing apps from people's phones because they didn't meet the criteria, and they were installed before the, the kind of new requirements were were were made live, if you if you know what I mean.
[00:26:13] Unknown:
Yeah. The timing is ominous too with this coming right after the whole scare about, like, crypto apps being banned. If they if they aren't a custodial exchange, basically, We had that that back and forth that the rage covered so well of, Google's new documentation basically saying that Bitcoin Monero crypto apps would be banned unless they could provide licenses, but no self custodial FreedomTech app can provide their own licenses because they're not a bank. So that that thankfully was cleared up. It's obviously, they claimed it was an error. It's unclear exactly what's happening there, but it's, not the best timing to then have this come out shortly after that saying we're gonna make sideloading way more difficult or impossible for unverified developers, which is a would be a very bad combo and I think should just, again, just keep people aware of potential issues, more reasons to get off of stock Android if you can. But like I said, you can go and install stuff. The hard part there is if they block sideloading, you wouldn't be able to update those apps.
That would be That'll be Yeah. That'll be another conversation for another day. Hopefully, we will have a an update where they they drop this madness. But yeah.
[00:27:28] Unknown:
Yeah. Indeed. Indeed. And and I just wanna quickly cover off because we've, it is tangential to what we've been talking about, and we've mentioned graphene, OS a couple of times. There's been a a little bit of news come out from from those guys this week around, or coincided with the release of the Pixel 10 and the fact that, you know, their their life is getting a bit more, difficult these days with the some changes that have been made to Android. So GrapheneOS has confirmed that the new Pixel 10, still supports all the features that they need, you know, unlocking the bootloader, flashing verify boot keys, and then locking the bootloader again, crucially, which is obviously good news. And it means that, you know, if you like to run the latest flagship, you could you you soon you'll be able to install GrapheneOS on a Pixel 10 or or the whole Pixel 10 range.
But support, isn't coming instantly like it has done for previous Pixels. So, normally, they could have the Pixel 10 support running within sometimes a matter of just a couple of days after release. However, this time, they expect it's gonna take much longer because of the changes of of how Google is releasing Android. So the the key difference, in the past, when Google has launched a new Pixel, they pushed the new device branch for it to AOSP, the Android open source project. And that branch contained everything that, alternative OS developers like GrapheneOS needed to build support pretty quickly.
For the Pixel 10, apparently, Google is no longer doing that. Instead, the Pixel 10 will be supported with an upcoming Android 16 QPR one release. No idea what the QPR one means, which is currently scheduled for September, so just a matter of days away. And that means that GrapheneOS has to finish porting everything to that Android build, and only then can it start with, completing the Pixel 10 support. So not impossible, but, according to, one of the developers who I follow on, Nosta, it's getting more difficult. Of course, they've already got their pixels on order, and they, you know, they're already starting to do what they can, based on the the changes that have been made.
And all of this kinda ties into some broader changes at Google and and the new Android kind of release schedule that, Google is making. I believe they're moving to three quarterly releases and one annual release now. I'm not clear on any further implications that that will have to people like GrapheneOS, But they say that they can adapt to the changes. And here's the cool part. They've mentioned that they're already working with a major Android manufacturer to make sure that upcoming non Pixel devices can officially support GrapheneOS. So for now, Pixels remain the most secure devices available, and are the only ones with proper support for an alternative operating system like GrapheneOS.
But Google doesn't really or Google appears to value alternative OS support less and less each day, and I'm quoting here. So pixels are won't always be the best choice once these new partnerships come online. I've seen a couple of follow-up, notes from the same, author on on Nosta, and he he's quoted some timelines of roughly one to two years. No information on who the Android manufacturer is. But for me, a bit of a positive to be, you know, a bit of a a kind of light at the end of the tunnel solution where we're we're no longer gonna be wholly reliant on Google for their, let's be honest, great hardware, and then to be able to to flash something like GrapheneOS onto onto it. From a, you know, a FreedomTech perspective, it seemed to be the kind of the the utopia combination of, essentially. And it's always been in the back of my mind to be like, you know, Google could switch this off at any moment. And, obviously, the the hardware side of this whole thing, particularly with mobile phones and how quickly, you know, that landscape changes is was always gonna be the kind of bottleneck for this.
So it's, it's comforting to hear that the GraphiOS team, you know, are making contacts outside of Google to be able to, you know, have some other hardware or or the manufacturer's devices available to to support their awesome software. So, yeah, I'm gonna be waiting to see how this one unfolds. But, you know, like I say, light at the end of the tunnel and, you know, quite promising. Yeah. Any,
[00:31:56] Unknown:
go on, sir. Sorry. Yeah. I was just gonna say, I think just especially interesting because this has been one of the, like, strong points of Android, and I know a reason why many people do like it. I I think it I mean, that that is definitely a small amount of people who care about sideloading, but it it has always been kind of like a core part of what Android brings to the table and how it's different from iOS. So for them to go the same walled garden route as iOS Yeah. Is, yeah, is is odd. Again, this isn't necessarily walled garden, and I think the nice thing for them is they can still say they allow sideloading, so they won't go go against the EU laws that have been put in place to force Apple to do so. So it kind of lets them have their cake and eat it too, but it it is, yeah, it is definitely interesting. Like, Jackie Huddle just said it's it seems too insane for him to think that this will actually be accepted.
Backlash should be so strong that smart people will find workarounds as they often do. Definitely definitely hopeful for that. And and, I mean, just like we're doing here, just like y'all can do on socials, like, those of you listening push back on this, call out how crazy it is, complain to app developers that you you enjoy using that maybe aren't doxed, and they can complain to Google as well. And if there's enough of an uproar, we can get them to change it. I'm sure it's not set in stone.
[00:33:09] Unknown:
Yeah. Absolutely. I I just really I'm I'm crossing my fingers that this doesn't this partnership doesn't turn out to be, like, the big flop that most Linux phones have turned out to be. Obviously, you know, GrapheneOS is a very well polished, piece of software, and very secure and obviously leverages all of the benefits of of the the thousands or millions of hours that have gone into building Android as the building block for it. So I'm I'm quietly optimistic that it won't be that that kind of, that much of a flop. I think, you know, the the the main or the most difficult part is gonna be comparing the fact that you could have this on the the latest and greatest and arguably one of the best phones on the planet, like, at the moment, the Pixel 10, versus whoever they they kind of partner with in the future. Obviously, it's very much dependent on who and who the partnership is with and what the hardware specs are relative to the cost, etcetera. But I think it's gonna be tough for them to to for obvious reasons, to to match, like, you know, the hardware level that that Google is able to do. But once again, a lot of conjecture. I'm just kind of, airing my my my thoughts on the on the situation. And, ultimately, we're just gonna have to wait and find out to see how good or how bad this kind of partner partnership is.
[00:34:24] Unknown:
Yeah. I will say just on the GrapheneOS thing, starting to monopolize my time again. They did say they're working with a major OEM towards future generations of their devices meeting our requirements. So I think, like, the hopeful thing to me is that they're not just building a new device for graphene, which is gonna have necessarily a smaller amount of, like, interested buyers and Yeah. Would be limited. But instead, it sounds like the better alternative to me, which is that they work with an OEM to have proper support for graphene OS. So phones that are getting in people's hands for other reasons can become graphene OS phones or people can acquire them specifically to install graphene OS, which generally will mean, like, if it's a major OEM that already has existing phones, it should be reasonably good hardware like you would hope.
Yes. That also probably means it's not gonna have the, like, hardcore privacy features that maybe people want, like mic disconnects and camera disconnects and that kind of thing. But that that type of feature set is not gonna appeal to enough people to make it worth it, unfortunately, from a financial perspective. So I think this sounds like a good in between. Obviously, like you said, it's all conjecture. It's been very sparse on details, but the specific way they're approaching it is encouraging because I would much rather it be some existing phone maker with explicit support for Graphion OS and all of the security requirements there versus them rolling their own phone, as as nice as it would be to have a Graphi and OS specific phone. It could also go south very quickly as we've seen with many Linux phones like you mentioned, many more, like, privacy centric phones.
[00:35:57] Unknown:
Yeah. A couple of, good comments in the live chat. Vibrant With this change, regular Android is just shit I iOS. Maybe typical. And, William Hornblower said, I've read the main requirement for future GrapheneOS phone support, and it depends on the SOC. I'm not entirely sure what SOC stands for, but he said, next Snapdragon gen could be the breakthrough.
[00:36:19] Unknown:
Anybody know what SOC stands for? Yeah. It means system on chip. It's the Okay. Way this is the term used to describe how processors are in phones because they're usually the processor, the GPU, the RAM, the IO chiplet, the modem. It's usually all in one. So it's just called an SoC, a system on chip.
[00:36:37] Unknown:
Nice. Nice. I knew you'd have the answer. Alright. Okay. So, you know, stuff to be bearish on, stuff to be, to be quietly bullish on as well. Bit of a mixed bag, but, Google, you know, taking some steps, or appear to take some steps towards the wrong direction from a from a freedom tech perspective. So let us know. Keep us posted if you see any developments on this, guys, in the live chat and listening to, us on the podcast feed afterwards. You know, obviously, this is this is dear to our hearts, so we wanna stay abreast of this one. Alright, guys. Twenty minutes left. So, as I mentioned, every single week, we have a huge backlog of, of questions. So, we didn't get chance to do barely any last week. So, hopefully, we can put a good dent into into some this week.
The the first one on the list, is from B mouth BTC on Nostra, and they asked and I really love this question. I'm always thinking about what tools there are to allow individuals to understand their blockchain transactional history. Are you aware that these tools exist? Can an an individual take part in their own blockchain analysis, and are there tools to interpret the results in a meaningful way? I'm gonna start by talking about one that is sadly no longer with us, and it's probably the the the one that jumped into both Max and Seth's brain as soon as I started to read the question.
We, as with most things in the summary ecosystem, didn't know how lucky we had it before it was ripped away from us. They had a a a kind of off spin or a a side arm called OXT Research. And they used to have a blockchain explorer called 0xt.me, which, was kind of, I guess, you could call it, mempool space, but with incredibly useful graphs where you could open up transactions, UTXOs, see all of the usual transactional information. But, also, because of the way the the kind of graphs were populated and as you, you know, opened up each transaction, you could see visually the kind of links between, you know, where a change output was going, where it came from, And it was just a a a really great visual way for you to kind of do some chain analysis on, well, any transaction really, because it it was essentially a public block explorer.
And, you know, very, very sad that that that got ripped away from us, unfortunately, when the whole samurai, you know, ecosystem got taken down. Clint Fandango, no. It's not a a thing, unfortunately. I I wish it was. But, yeah, I I truly missed that one. It was a it was a go to to kind of do some chain analysis on on myself. And, you know, if I Mhmm. I always like to if I ever received any Bitcoin back in the day when I was around, I'd I'd like to just go and click on there and just do some chain analysis on the on the person that sent it to me just to see if I can gain any kind of, you know, interesting interesting tidbits.
Yeah. It sounds creepy, but from a way of sort of, you know, if if if I could use it to help somebody and be like, hey. Look. You know, you sent me this Bitcoin and, you know, obviously, it's an open ledger, yada yada yada. Here's what I did, and I can see your your past history. Maybe maybe you wanna change your behavior and how you interact with Bitcoin. So, yeah, that was really incredible tool. But, yeah, looking forward into into the present day, guys, you know, is there any tools that kind of even somewhat fit the similar bill that you know of?
[00:40:12] Unknown:
Not me personally. No.
[00:40:17] Unknown:
Crickets. No. Yeah. That's, unfortunately, no. I mean, like, Blockstreams Explorer had some interesting things that they added and never touched. I don't think they've updated that thing in, like, years. But they did have, like, some tags that they would apply to things on, like, what it what the transaction probably was, which was interesting and could be useful to just get a quick glimpse at, like, what that transaction might look like to an outside observer. But that's pretty much defunct now. Mempool.spacegoggles is somewhat interesting as well. Like, it it can be useful to see how that's categorized by simple rules that they use for for the goggles there.
But, again, it's not it's certainly not fully featured. It's very, very, very minimal, and it it's only for one transaction at a time. It's not showing you anything about, like, what is this chain of transactions look like to an outside observer. The one thing, like, I did love OXT, but the one thing that was hard with it is you really had to figure out what you were looking at. There wasn't much in terms of, like, oh, you selected these six transactions. This looks like blah blah blah. Mhmm. It was very much like you had to reconstruct this chain, and then you had to ascertain, like, what does this look like to an outside observer? So it it like, as cool as it was, it wasn't that actionable for most people, but it would be really cool to have something open source freely available, especially that people could self host that people could use to at least do the same sort of, like, visual graphing. I mean Mhmm. I know AI is the buzzword everywhere, but AI seems also like a really useful tool for this type of analysis, like, to be able to to have some sort of simple, like, locally run model that you don't care about how fast it is.
Mhmm. And say, hey. Here's a here's an XPUB. Update me every day on what recent transactions look like to you and what they could look like or if any are connected that I wouldn't want connected or, like, that would be a really cool project. I'd I'm certainly not saying that exists today, and probably no one's even building that today. But that's one of the things AI is quite good at is summarizing large large datasets, and that's basically what this would be. So it would be interesting. But, unfortunately, there's not really anything right now. Like, the yeah. That's the sad state of things is all of the best tools are closed source black boxes that we don't have access to, unless you pay.
[00:42:46] Unknown:
Do do you remember the other one from from the samurai crew as well as kycp.org or .me or dot, yeah, .me or something. Know your coinprivacy.me or something. Again, don't go searching for it, guys. It's it's been taken down. That was more of a a transaction by transaction basis, so it wasn't kind of, like, being able to look at your coin history. KYCP kind of you could punch in a TXID and see, like, the it would analyze using the, I believe, the the kind of Boltzmann framework and analyze the the kind of entropy of a transaction. So they they did use some awesome visuals.
And I believe now the latest, update of, Ronin Dojo has a very rudimentary version of this so that you can go into your, Ronin UI, again, punch in a TX ID, and it would give you a kind of entropy score of a given transaction and and show some what we call deterministic links, to basically show how kind of give you a scale of how private a given transaction was. It gives you entropy number combinations and and a linkability linkability matrix. So that could be, you know, I guess, something. Again, that that is, of course, self hosted as well. You're kind of querying your own note, to do that. So, the the just looking at a blog post now, and it says, look.
This tool is very far from the capabilities of KYCP and OXT, but we hope to add more useful heuristics in the future. So maybe check that one out if you've updated to the latest Ronin Dojo if you, of course, run one of those as well. Good question, and, I guess, a a bit of a stark realization of of of, like, how many tools that we have sort of, had taken away from us, unfortunately. Okay. Yes. So to answer your question, I am running the show. It's me that's hosting it. Okay. Question from Zikeboi again on Nosta. So Monero suffered an attack. How insecure does that make it? Will this kick the Bitcoin devs into taking privacy seriously, or are they intent on bickering with speedy junior ego?
Or are or are they just afraid that the feds will come after them? Maybe, you know, give a quick background on the the the quote, Monero attack that's happened, and then we can have a little chat about, you know, what that means for bit for Bitcoin afterwards.
[00:45:22] Unknown:
For sure. For sure. Yeah. So we've for any who want more depth, we've talked a lot about this on the Monero monthly. Max and I have last month and this month's, which will go live in, like, four or five days, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong there, Max. Yeah. Yeah. So there will be, like, full explanation there. So I won't get into all of the weeds. We also talked on this month's Monero monthly. It's about to come out on multiple proposed mitigations or improvements to Monero security. So that'd be a good a good starter if you wanna know, like, what what can be done about it. But the TLDR is there is an entity who is attacking Monero essentially for marketing purposes to pump their own coin.
And by attacking, I mean, they are subsidizing people to mine on their private mining pool, and they are, as far as we can tell, renting hash rate with their own cryptocurrency. So they they print their own cryptocurrency called Cubic. They they pay miners in that, and then any any Manero that's mined on the pool, they use to buy Cubic and burn it. So it's it's basically like a pumpinomics thing that they're using for their own token. But their attack has been, well, not successful in the sense of they promised a 51% attack, and by no record have I seen them reach 51% legitimately.
Seems like 30 to 35% has been about the cap of what they've been able to hit. They have been able to achieve multiple large reorgs, in Monero. I think the longest they've done is nine blocks. By some accounts, they could have done longer but didn't intentionally because over 10 blocks is where things start to actually cause problems in Monero. That's all just conjecture on if they could have done larger ones or not because it's it's there's not a way to know that. But, those are obviously concerning. The Minera community is coming up with very interesting ways that we can improve security of Monero. There's been lots of discussions around that, but the the short answer is, like, Monero is not insecure right now, but we should continue to consider how we can better secure Monero.
And, unfortunately, right now, since there is someone doing reorgs of a reasonably large depth, I think most merchants have started going away from the one comp, approach that was pretty normal in Monero to now doing something like 10 comps. Like, I know that, coin cards have we have a cake pay. That's pretty normal now just to provide a little bit of extra protection for merchants, especially when you're delivering a digital good that can be redeemed immediately that you can't get back. So it's those specific use cases where it's potentially dangerous. But that's not
[00:47:59] Unknown:
just to put people's mind at rest a little bit, like, Monero blocks are what? Two minutes? So you're talking about, on average, twenty minutes, confirmation if you're buying gift cards or something like that. Yeah. That's, that's the biggest issue that we've seen. So, like, Monero under attack, yes, but it's not really affecting things at the moment. Yeah. And, and we went into a huge amount of detail on potential or discussions around, ways that this could be resolved in the future. And so that will be going live in, yeah, two, three days or something like that. So, anyone who, like, is worried about it can go into that. But I don't know. May maybe I'm, not understanding things, but I'm not particularly worried.
[00:48:50] Unknown:
No. You definitely are understanding correctly. It's also, like, for the average person, there is no effect here. At the moment, at least, there have been no double spending attacks due to reorgs. Yeah. The the only way that you'd you'd run into problems right now is that some exchanges have limited withdrawals or deposits, or have greatly increased the amount of confirmations they require before those are credited to your account. So if you're using something like Kraken, I know they've they've been changing around how many confirmations they need and sometimes closing withdrawals, sometimes closing deposits, just Mhmm. Based on what tweets they read, I guess.
It doesn't seem to be very well informed how they're doing it. But, yeah, I I don't think it's not life threatening for Monero right now, but it is something to be concerned about when you're thinking of, like, the long the longevity of Monero. But for the average user, it's not causing problems. Right now, that's not to say it can't, though. So definitely keep up to date. We'll keep chatting about it if there's updates every week on on Freedom Tech Friday. And like you mentioned, Max, there's a lot more detail in in the August monthly.
[00:49:51] Unknown:
Yeah. Nice. Thank you. This may or may not be a troll question, but as always, we give, prominence to the live chat questions that if and when they come through. Greg Tonoski on YouTube has asked, and and I have no idea what he's talking about here, so I'm hoping one of you guys do. Have you heard about the Garbage Man node implementation perhaps? I I don't know whether this is something to do with the whole core versus not debate, but I certainly have never even heard about it. So I'm not a big fan. Just as a yeah. Garbage man node implementation. Look at that. Yeah. I'm I'm gonna guess it's something to do with that. And if it is, then the short answer is no. I've not heard about it. Maybe if you can drop some links in the chat or something, we can have a look and maybe talk about it in a in a subsequent week. But, it seems as though the the concept has been lost in all three of us, unfortunately, at this moment in time.
Yeah. Well, thank you for getting involved with the question. We we we do appreciate it, and we're we're happy to talk about it if you give us a bit more context. Alright. Moving on to the next question, comes from Foul Matters on Nosta. How do you create a solid inheritance plan for your loved ones who do not have high-tech knowledge and don't want to rely on a third party like Nunchuk or Bitcoin Keeper? Multisig wallets are are a good option but can lead to a complex setup. I wonder what other clever options are out there that I do did not think of yet. I I I'll take this one. There's two there's two things I wanna I wanna hit on. Number one is to briefly mention I I know you said that multisig is a good option. I agree, but it can lead to a complex setup.
Something that we're gonna be doing a deeper dive on on Monday's, Bitcoin brief is the fact that, Nunchoke have just added support for MiniScript, so you can do lots of kind of, decaying or increasing multisig. So keep your eyes peeled, for for that show when it comes out. Mhmm. It's, we'll we'll be doing a deep dive, and we'll probably be able to, you know, answer your question a bit more deeper as to whether multisig more specifically, miniscript based multisig, could be a good option for you. That aside, for your specific situation where it's an inheritance plan for loved ones, it I'm gonna assume that they, they don't want to hold their own keys, or they're not you you don't feel comfort confident in them solely being the sole custodian of their keys and that you're gonna, quote, unquote, uncle gym them.
My solution would be to use something like BIP 85. We call it key manager in, in Passport, where you can give them a seat. They can feel safe in the knowledge that, you know, they have their own seat, which they do. It's an independent seat where they can look after their own funds. But you can be safe and then honest that if they go and do the normie thing where they, you know, don't back up that seed or they lose it or whatever, you can then deterministically rederive their seed for them from your passport or any other hardware wallet that supports the BIP 85 standard of which there are, you know, quite a few now, I believe. So that they can have their independence, but they can fall back on you if they do something stupid.
And you can then give them their seed and get them out of this year, and they don't lose their funds, assuming they don't just give it to an attacker and their wallet gets drained, of course. The reason I say that is twofold. Number one, they get their independence, and they they learn along the way. But number two, you're able to to support them in a way that means that you don't have to have the mental overhead and physical overhead, I guess, of backing up multiple seeds for those different people, assuming there's more than one. That those would all be stored, and be able to be rederived deterministically from your hardware wallet.
So that it's kinda like the best of both worlds. You're able to support them, but you don't have to have, like, five or six different seed plates buried in your garden and remember where they all are and make sure they're all labeled for sister, daughter, etcetera, etcetera. So that would be my knee jerk. And, yeah, I definitely wouldn't rush in into multisig, unless there was, you know, significant amounts of funds, and I'm talking a lot, or it was kind of like a a, let's say, a shared pot where it was like the the the family savings or something like that. But even then, it would be kind of, you know, a a bit of a push for me to immediately recommend somebody like that going towards Multisig. Any advances on on that, Max or or Seth?
[00:54:30] Unknown:
I I was only just thinking, like, it's inheritance, isn't it? So giving someone a bit 35 seed with funds on it. In if you think about it as inheritance, they'd only get that if you get hit by a bus or whatever. So, then giving them those seed words or details to look after. You're effectively gifting them the money, not not actually having it as an inheritance if you get hit by a bus. And in that case, now they're responsible to secure that information, and they might be a fucking idiot. Well, they might just not know how to use Bitcoin, and then they might leave that lying around and lose the money. So suddenly, what is your money and would be your money until you die can now be at greater risk of loss.
So that would be my only concern on on on a setup like that. Although you would probably be, like, splitting your risk because, you know, if you got three or four kids and they've each got one and your missus has got one and whatever, the dog's got one, then, hopefully, they wouldn't all make a mistake. So I don't know. There there's pros and cons to it.
[00:55:46] Unknown:
Yeah. That's I'm glad you brought that up, actually, because I've kind of got the question a little bit twisted, and and you are right that they did mention an inheritance plan, again, assuming that you're gonna pass the funds onto them. So I'm glad you made that carve out, and apologies for getting that a little bit mixed up. And I guess this is where I'll kind of loop back around full circle and and and reference again miniscript and, and multisig. Again, not quite a reality yet because the tools are very new and and probably I haven't tested an uncheck version, but probably, you know, need a bit of polishing, to make them more normie friendly. But we're we're quickly, again, moving into a world where you could have, you know, a mini based wallet where it's a two of three where you control the funds.
And then you could have, thanks to the wonders of manuscript, give the the kids or your your heirs, whoever they are, some additional keys that are entirely useless up until a specific time frame that you can define. So let's assume that you say, alright. Well, the the key that I gave to my kid, I don't want it to be a part of this this Multisig wallet, but it can become active and the Multisig grows after, you know, let's say, two years. So what what could happen then is that if if you die and, they they aren't able to access all of your keys, but they they have the key that they looked after, as long as they can meet that threshold, of signing keys including their own, like the additional key that you said it can become active after x amount of time, then that can be another great kind of fallback way for you to have, your heirs be able to access your funds when you're not around, but in a way that doesn't compromise your security while you are still around, if that makes sense. So, again Mhmm. Very promising land that we're heading towards. But, again, it's, like, it's very cutting edge at the moment and kind of, yeah, just just needs a bit more polishing and a bit more support from hardware wallets. William Hornblower in the YouTube chat. What about the Liana wallet as a tool from the toolbox for inheritance planning? Yeah. Everything I've just said applies to Liana as well. The they were the ones, from a desktop perspective that pioneered all this this sort of stuff.
But everything that I've just said is is also true of Liana wallet as well, which is arguably been around for longer and probably more polished. Okay. Let's do one last question because we did start just a little bit late. This one is for you, Seth, just so you you got a chance to wake up. And it comes from Vibrant Subtlety. Can Seth discuss how the indexer works for cake silent payments? Can you use a regular reluctant server, or is it something novel? And can we expect to be able to self host one of these easily in the future so that we can main better maintain our privacy?
[00:58:34] Unknown:
Yeah. It's a great question. The the TLDR on how it works is that it's right now, it's an ElectRS instance with a custom index added onto the existing normal ElectRS indexes. That is the tweak data that's necessary for syncing silent payments wallets. Obviously, this was done before there really was a spec at all for servers, and is is working, though, I know it has had some issues off and on that we've been working on improving. The main thing I'll say is absolutely self hosting is the goal, for this, like, this setup, but Elect RS is not a good platform to self host this on. Elect RS needs, like, four terabytes of disk storage to store all the indexes and takes way longer than anything else to, to sync. So it's definitely not the long term goal that others would be using Elect RS. It was just a better one from a, like, a business perspective serving thousands of users to be able to serve using ElectRS.
But right now, a really cool thing that's happening is there's basically a silent payments group that has come together of a lot of different people from a lot of different backgrounds. Josie Bake, who is one of the the BIP authors, is leading that up. He actually has his own nonprofit now, that he's using to fund those efforts amongst others. And him and I am blanking on the name of the person who's working on it, but they have started off a a spec for how the sync servers for silent payments should be built. We're obviously helping out with that, contributing to that. They're gonna have, kind of an on-site in mid September that our main silent payments staff is gonna attend as well, to continue to improve, improve our setup and also the core goal being two things. One, we make it really easy for businesses to self host a silent payments indexer that's performant at scale, which is what Cake is doing. And then two is to make a very simple lightweight indexer that anyone can run alongside Bitcoin d.
Those are the two core goals of that spec, and what we're trying to to accomplish there. So that's definitely the the goal. I know those things aren't really here yet. You could self host the one that we do at Cake, but it's it's like I said, it's ElectRS. It requires massive resources. It's it's not ideal for the average person. But that is going to improve over time. So excited for that. Really good things happening there. A lot of traction happening, especially over the last month or so. Getting a spec now that's public. I'll I'll drop the link as well, and we we should see that snowball quickly into things you can self host. One more quick thing. Sorry. I know I took a lot of time to answer this.
The Fulcrum project, which I know a lot of people listening know and love and use, they are going to be releasing version two dot o. He said he just updated on GitHub probably sometime in September or October, and he had mentioned having silent payment support as part of that. He already has the Bitcoin Cash equivalent in there. I don't know if that will actually make it into the initial two dot o release. Maybe it doesn't as an MVP, but that was part of it, and that was one of the reasons why we we donated to him building out 2.o, at cake is that we wanted to make sure that there was a good, easy, self hostable silent payments indexer. And, ideally, like, even for me personally, I would prefer that it was just Fulcrum, and I could just add a flag to enable silent payments and be done with it. Because I know that's a lot that's kinda become the go to for the average, self hoster in the Bitcoin space.
[01:02:01] Unknown:
Yeah. That'd be that'd be great to see because if it does form part of a natural fulcrum release, then, you know, by proxy, it just means that it's gonna find its way to all of the start nines and running dojos and, umbrelles, etcetera, of the world where I believe fulcrum is available on all of the above now as well. So, yeah, excited about that. I wasn't aware of that one, so appreciate the the deep dive there. And, yeah, that brings us, a little bit over time, guys. So, thank you once again for everybody to that's joined us in the the live chat. It was good to see another another busy session there. Thank you to those that have submitted your questions ahead of time.
Unfortunately, we only got to four of them. The backlog is still huge. But, yeah, we appreciate your input each and every week on the show. And, yeah, all that's left to be said is that we will catch you the same time next week for Freedom Tech Friday. Have a good one, guys. Catch you then. See you. We pulled the plug in 54321.
[01:02:59] Unknown:
Stay ungoverned. Thank you for listening to Freedom Tech Friday. To everyone who boosted, asked questions, and participated in the show, we appreciate you all. Make sure to join us next week on Friday at 9AM EST and 2PM London. Thanks to Seth, Max, and Q for keeping it ungovernable. And thank you to Cake Wallet, Foundation, and my NIM box for keeping the ungovernable misfits going. Make sure to check out ungovernablemisfits.com to see mister Crown's incredible skills and artwork. Listen to the other shows in the feed to hear Kareem's world class editing skills.
Thanks to Expatriotic for keeping us up to date with Boost's XMR chats and sending in topics. John, great name and great guy, never change and never stop keeping us up to date with mining news or continuing to grow the mesh to Dell. Finally, a big thanks to the unsung hero, our Canadian overlord, Jordan, for trying to keep the ungovernable in check and for the endless work he puts in behind the scenes. We love you all. Stay ungovernable.
Alright. Looking good in OBS. Let's go and check the usual, locations, shall we? Twitter.
[00:00:06] Unknown:
Hold on. It's the airplane my phone.
[00:00:10] Unknown:
Yep. We're we're live on YouTube, although the thumbnail looks a bit weird for some reason.
[00:00:16] Unknown:
Google getting greedy. It seems to be working. Yeah. That's nice. Oh, look at this. Seth joining as well. Is he in? He's sort of pretty on time. Hold on. Let me also open the thing you sent.
[00:00:36] Unknown:
Hello, everyone, by the way. If you are joining, we're just, checking. Working. Welcome.
[00:00:41] Unknown:
Right. Let's open. Yeah. We might have this problem where Seth doesn't actually get in. Right. He's just sort of lurking. I can see him, but it's like it hasn't accepted him in. Do you wanna quickly send a new, a new link? Yeah. Let me just message him and just
[00:00:59] Unknown:
ah, hold on. Yeah. I can see him as a guest. Hello, Vibrant. Nice to have you with us. True to form, we're just, ironing out some teething issues. We will be diving in very shortly. Thanks for stopping by.
[00:01:12] Unknown:
Sure. I've just done as well. I had some notes on my phone, and I've just deleted everything by accident. Oh, no. He's in. He's in. It's just worked, I think. Wonderful. Hello, Seth. Are you there? Good morning. Good morning. How are you?
[00:01:28] Unknown:
Welcome.
[00:01:29] Unknown:
I think we're all good then. I think we're all good. Awesome. The only thing that's not working, and this is not our fault, is it appears that we're not live on NoStar. I've just refreshed that dot stream, and it's not there. So looks like that could be a a Zap dot stream issue. I've done multiple refreshes, but, it appears that just for whatever reason, it's, it's not playing ball. So oh, zap.stream. I'm just looking at Restream now. It says unable to connect. Okay. Not a lot we can do about that, folks. So if you are Okay. Anasta native, apologies, but it's outside of our our control. So you'll have to stick with the, the legacy media, formats today. But, let me do the intro. Hello, and welcome to Freedom Set Friday.
For those of you that are new here, allow me to briefly explain what this is all about and why the hell we are here. Freedom Debt Friday is a weekly live and interactive show hosted on the Ungovernable Misfits Twitter, Nosta, and YouTube feeds, albeit not Nosta today. We, we go live for one hour every Friday at 9AM eastern US time or 2PM UK time. But you can also catch up, later on on the Ungovernable Misfits podcast feed. On Freedom Tech Friday, we like to cover off the latest news and trends for anything relating to Freedom Technologies. That could be anything from Bitcoin to Monero, encrypted messengers, privacy tools, and everything in between.
Essentially, if there is a news item, tool, or topic that you can, that you'd like to use to help take back some control in today's digital panopticon, then we wanna talk about it. My name is q and a, and I'm head of customer experience at Foundation, where we build Bitcoin focused sovereignty tools. And as always, I am joined by my good friends, Max, the head honcho of the ungovernable misfits empire, and Seth, who is VP of operations over at kWallet. As I mentioned, this show is live and interactive, and we rely on you guys to steer us towards the topics you want us to cover or to send us your Freedom Tech related questions that you need answering. There's loads of ways in which you can get involved with the show, all of which really help us to spread the awareness for the show.
Some examples, just give us a comment or or ask some questions in the live chat. Submit your topics or questions ahead of time, for for the show. You can do that on X or Nosta. We we put a post out or multiple posts out each week asking for your feedback and your input. You can, of course, boost the show on Fountain or any of the other podcasting two point o apps. And you can also send in your questions or tips, via Bitcoin or Monero @xmrchat.comslashugmf. And finally, probably most obvious, you can just share the show with your friends on x or on Nosta. So without further ado, the boys are all back in town. Let's dive into the show. Max, Seth, how is it going today?
[00:04:22] Unknown:
It is going. I, sprinted upstairs to get on, so we made it just in time. Live. Wasn't gonna miss another one, but doing pretty well. Doing pretty well.
[00:04:32] Unknown:
Glad to hear it. Uh-oh. Did we lose Max?
[00:04:40] Unknown:
He's muted.
[00:04:44] Unknown:
I, I was muted. And because I was muted, I was talking over the top of Seth the whole way through, and I was like, oh, we've got a horrible delay here, but, actually, it's was just, just me being muted. Nice. Yeah. I was just gonna say I'm I'm also very good. I'm also very excited to say that we have a prize winner from last week's episode. We had, no one won the prize the first time. It rolled over, and now our good friend, Jackie Hoddle, has won the Gabriel Custodia watchman privacy watchman's torch newsletter. The newsletter covers the latest analysis, investigations, and advice for getting off the surveillance grid, regaining your sovereignty, and protecting yourself.
That is thanks to Jordan. He put up that prize. So thank you very much, Jordan. Thank you, Gabriel, for, making the incredible newsletter, and congratulations to Jackie Huddle, who is a big supporter of the show. He won because he sent in 0.039 XMR saying pure Michigan mesh to Dell boost. Thank you, Mike, Chet, Ben, John, Max, Carl, and everyone who had a hand in building out these communities. Your hard work and generosity have gone a long way. I'm so grateful for my ungovernable extended family. He boosted that in and then shared the show in all of the groups that he's part of. We we share many, many groups. He's in the and many others. So big shout out to Jackie and his wife.
They're building a homestead, and they've been working very hard and buying a load of stock from Carl, our good friend Carl, who's selling them sheep. He's very active in the mesh to del and a huge supporter of what we do here at Uncomfortable Misfits. So big shout out to you, and congratulations.
[00:06:52] Unknown:
Yeah. Congrats. I'm a little bit jealous about that, that price. It looks, looks very exciting, so I'm a have to go ahead and purchase that myself as well. So yeah. Congrats, Jackie. Thanks for getting involved. Very much appreciated. Quick hello to some people in the live chat. Clem Fandango. Welcome. That is Jackie, isn't it? I believe. Yeah. Thank you, fellas. Looking forward to it. I didn't know whether I was gonna be doxxing, people's socks, but, it looks like he's said he's he's come out in the open and said thank you, fellas. So, that's it. Ah, watch my privacy's here as well. Hello, Gabriel. Look at that. Oh, nice. Full circle. Full circle. And, Cilla Slonbrook, nice to see you as well. Thanks for stopping by, dude. Yeah. Thank you. Alright.
Topic of today's title. Topic of today's title? Title of today's show, all that. Yeah. Google getting greedy. Seems like we talk about Google a lot at the moment. They seem to be, finding themselves in in the, the Inconvertible Misfits crosshairs at the moment, but not without good reason. Yeah. What happened to this don't be evil thing? Wasn't that? Yeah. Do you know what? When I was when I was coming up for the the title for for today's show, I was trying to make a spin on that with some alliteration and make it kind of, succinct and and related to what we're gonna talk about this week. But as you can see, I failed miserably, so I just went on some alliteration and and hoped that that was gonna be good enough.
So, yeah, this week, we had a news article, and I'm gonna be referencing the the TechCrunch article to be specific, that Google is tightening security measures around Android app distribution. This came out on Monday, and it's, starting as soon as this year. Google is is essentially gonna begin to verify the identity of developers distributing apps on Android devices. And this is the crucial part here. This is not just for developers who distribute through the Google Play Store. This change will affect all certified Android devices, and we'll dive into what constitute a certified Android device, later on. The the tech giant, has stressed that this does not mean that developers cannot distribute outside of the Play Store. So So sideloading is still going to be, an an option for, quote, unquote, I guess, stock Android.
Yet they stay Android's gonna remain open in that regard. However, developers who appreciated the anonymity of alternative distribution methods will no longer have that option. Google says, this will help to cut down on bad actors who hide their identity to distribute malware, commit financial fraud, or steal users' personal data. So as always, guys, it's to protect the children. According to its according to its own study, Google says that more than 50 times more malware came through Internet side loaded sources compared with Google Play, where it has required developer verification since 02/2023.
Initially, Google is gonna allow interested developers to sign up for early access starting in October to test the system and provide feedback. But in March 2026, verification will go live for all developers. And by twenty September twenty twenty six, any app installed on an Android device in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand will have to meet the new requirements. Not quite sure why they chose those four companies. Yeah. Well, my my knee jerk thought is that maybe that's where they're detecting most of these scammy APKs, are coming from.
I'm basing that on
[00:10:35] Unknown:
and basing that on nothing more than a hunch. It is where they're installed, though, not where the developer is publishing from. Good point. Ah, that's interesting. The the only thing I can think is this this kind of fits the model that others have done with really heinous changes or changes that they think people will really hate. Like Netflix, when they cut down on people being able to share accounts, they did not start in The US or in most of Europe. They started in smaller countries first. So that may be part of it to just kinda, like, slowly boil the frog, but that is a very interesting set of countries to start in.
[00:11:11] Unknown:
Yeah. Indeed. And just to kinda cap this one off, starting in 2027, the requirements will be rolled or begin rolling out globally. Those developers, will have to provide their legal name, address, email, and phone number, and I believe, according to the tech law video I watched earlier today, also a government ID. So, yeah, what this, essentially means is that, you know, in a couple of years' time, globally, you cannot kind of anonymously publish an Android APK, which is the the kind of file format, you know, that you you use to kind of side load, an application onto an Android phone. You won't be able to do that and have it installed, onto a an Android, or a stock Android device because this is where I'm probably gonna lean on you, Seth, here. But, basically, the the application or sorry. The operating system will be looking presumably for a signature or a certificate from, to kind of vouch for the fact that this APK was, created by a verified developer. And, obviously, if you maintain your anonymity and you're just publishing the APK file on your website or on your, GitHub, etcetera, and you haven't gone through that process, then it won't have the checks and balances that Android will be looking for at that point in time, and it will just say, nah. I ain't gonna install this app. Do I have that correct?
[00:12:36] Unknown:
Yeah. I'm assuming this will be a, like, an extension of that verification tooling that's already existed in stock Android for a very long time, which basically does some of these kinds of checks and tries to protect users, which is, like, good. There's not like, I I think it's easy to, like, assume all of this is bad or evil, but there there are obviously really good reasons to make it harder for people to install random APKs from the Internet because that is the vast majority of the way people's phones get pwned. And so having better protections around that is fine. I I don't have any problem with the general idea, especially when it's done client side, like what Google Play Protect has been doing.
And it it runs in the Play Store, and it runs on APKs that you're you're installing. So that stuff can be done well, and I would be all for even just improved client side checks to try and validate APKs as much as possible to try and look for malware, like, to to do what they can. But the big change here is, like, that was already weird because they were they were still limiting in some ways what you could install. You could still bypass it, but it was a little tricky. So a lot of people would kinda get stuck there. But now the fact that they if they go through with this are not only restricting what you can install, but are they going to also remove apps that users have installed that are not verified by developers? Like, will they go that step even further?
It would seem to fit, but, they haven't spoken specifically on that. But the the craziest thing here is, like, I mean, even if you think of, like, Windows, like, yes, they've added tons of, quote, unquote, protections to try and prevent people from installing malware. People still install malware. But even, like, could you imagine Microsoft just saying, like, nope. This one's not verified. You can't install this Mhmm. E x e. And especially for many of the cryptocurrency apps out there, FreedomTech apps out there that are published anonymously or are not under a company, which is the easiest way to do this verification, things get really tricky. And, actually, preventing users from installing this is wild. I I am really hesitant to think that this will actually go live this aggressively, and I would hope that it would be rolled back in some ways.
But it's pretty interesting. I got I'm not I am definitely expecting them to keep the verification part, unfortunately, but I would be very, very surprised if they actually totally prevent users from installing apps that are from people who haven't verified, their publisher, which is pretty insane.
[00:15:11] Unknown:
Would this this is just gonna be on, like, a stock Google devices then or Android devices. Presumably, this doesn't then affect if you've got, like, Graphene or Kallax or one of these kind of other options?
[00:15:27] Unknown:
Yeah. It's gonna be done through Google Play services. So I would assume this would apply to any, like, prevailing Android OS. So Samsung's, like, all of the normal spin offs of Android. I assume it's gonna apply to all of those because they're all Google Play certified and Yeah. Have all of these, quote, unquote protections in place. So I would assume it'll apply to all of those. Thankfully, no. It will not apply to Graphene. They've already stated as much, and you you obviously in Graphene, you don't have to install Google Play services at all. And even with them installed, I believe that they wouldn't have the access to prevent you from installing apps.
[00:16:02] Unknown:
Do you think they then come aggressively at, like, f droid and, what's the other one? There's, like, different
[00:16:13] Unknown:
Obtium or well, it's Acresic, just the GrapheneOS one.
[00:16:17] Unknown:
Yeah. Well, the I can't I can't remember the name of the other one, but, basically, you can you can install apps. There's, like, an app store, but it's not doing it through Google. Do you think they're gonna attack those sort of services? Because, you know, that's kind of a I don't know about simple, but it's relatively simple to install graphene I these days.
[00:16:40] Unknown:
Yeah. I really don't think so. Like, I I do really want to assume the best intentions here that it is actually aimed at preventing people from installing malicious APKs that they download off the Internet. So I would I would be hesitant to think that they will actually go after these distribution platforms. The main question will be, will these distribution platforms just be blocked as part of this by default? Like, I I doubt that they would actually go after the store on something like a Graphine OS or something. Because there's also not like, how are they gonna prevent that?
They don't have control of the OS. They don't have the ability to enforce Google Play services. I don't know of any, like, legal attack they could do, but, I mean, it is possible. I mean, we we've seen them already making it much more difficult for developers like the Graphi OS team to build around Android with recent changes. So maybe that is part of that. Again, they say they have good reasons for all of those changes as well, but I couldn't I I don't know. I I doubt that they would go after the stores themselves, especially just like the stores are not, as far as I know, any sort of prevailing method of shipping malware. So there'd be no good good reason to do so, when they really just if they actually care only about malware, which in theory they do, they would be most interested in going after the the raw APK installation approaches and in areas they control, which would be stock Android and all of the the main spin offs.
Mhmm.
[00:18:09] Unknown:
Yeah. So I think that the main take over this is, like, like you said, Seth, is number one, whether they actually go through with this, and and number two is assuming they do for the time being. Like, the obvious answer is, an alternative operating system that doesn't have those checks and balances and doesn't have, you know, all of the the the Play Store stuff at the OS level baked in to kind of, that would, if I understand it correctly, be the kind of crooks of how these kind of APKs in the future would be prevented from being installed. So I I don't wanna be, like, to kind of hand wavy to this, to be like, oh, yeah. Well, we've got Graphene, so it doesn't really matter. Because, I guess, to draw an analogy, it feels like, you know, two years ago saying our Bitcoin privacy is fine because we've got a samurai wallet, and, you know, look where we are now. So I don't wanna kind of rest on our laurels and say, yeah. You know, we've already got a solution.
Technically speaking, yes. We have. But I'm like, I don't know. It makes me fairly kind of bearish on the the mobile app ecosystem. And Seth alluded to this earlier, but I kinda wanna delve a bit deeper into it as to be kind of, this just isn't a thing in the the desktop ecosystem with maybe the exception of, like, some Chromebooks where, you know, on a laptop, no matter what the operating system is again, correct me if I'm wrong here, guys, but you can just go and install whatever you want as long as it's in the right file format. Like, there there are no preventions. You know, there might be some warnings, just like we have on on Android right now for for specific sources. But, like, I don't I don't understand why there's a big push for Google to kind of lock down their their mobile ecosystem versus, you know, Apple not doing it, you know, even though they've got a massive wall guard and go on.
[00:19:58] Unknown:
Well, much more people use phones in their everyday life for everything, especially if you look globally. Like, a lot of people just don't have computers, and so this is a much easier move for control if you would think it was for control or it's a much easier easier move for safety if you think it's for safety. Either way, I would say, you know, what percentage of people use phones over laptops or computers? Probably eighty, ninety.
[00:20:31] Unknown:
Yeah. At that point.
[00:20:33] Unknown:
Yeah. It's I mean, everyone uses a phone essentially nowadays, especially if you look outside of, like, the West. Most people only have phones. Like, most people don't have a laptop or desktop or access to them. So it's definitely the most vital one, but I think that's also why I understand their desire to go more aggressively after malware. Again, not justifying that developers have to verify themselves or that they would prevent people from installing APKs completely. But just like the idea does make sense, and one of the reasons why mobile OSes have been much more secure than desktop OSes is because it's a little harder to just straight up install malware. And when you do, that malware has drastically limited reach compared to installing such similar malware on a Sure. On a desktop computer. I will say, like, the one caveat is Mac OS is the only place where some software can be, unless you're technically knowledgeable, impossible to install. Like, for instance, there's a really good desktop client for YouTube called Free Tube, and I don't know what is messed up. What's that?
[00:21:37] Unknown:
I think we've dropped. We're not live anymore. Unless it's just my
[00:21:46] Unknown:
I'm refreshing x, but we seem to be live on x.
[00:21:50] Unknown:
Yeah. We look like we're still live on YouTube. So
[00:21:53] Unknown:
we're saying replay to me.
[00:21:55] Unknown:
I don't know. I don't know why that's happening on mine. No. I can hear you telling me we're not live on x. So we're good there, at least.
[00:22:02] Unknown:
I'll shut up then. I'll shut up. Carry on, mate.
[00:22:07] Unknown:
Yeah. Yeah. Just was saying on macOS, like, their free tube specifically is one that I know. You have to be willing to go into the command line and know the right command to be able to allow you to actually open the app. Like, you can quote, unquote install it, but you can't actually use it without going through some, like, onerous changes. So it's not unseen, and macOS is the clear one for where they would lock things down. Apple loves their walled gardens. But even there, you can do it. So, surely, there will be a workaround here. I mean, the the biggest reason why this is concerning to me is that we we're seeing this just after the craziness of oh, maybe it did go not live. Hold on. Sorry, guys.
[00:22:54] Unknown:
Just double checking. Still good onto its own. Yeah. Now you're questioning?
[00:22:58] Unknown:
It says the broadcast is in now.
[00:23:01] Unknown:
Yeah. It says the same it says the same for me. While we're working that out, we've upset Barn in the live chat, which is never a good thing.
[00:23:12] Unknown:
No. Okay. We're we are. We we all ignore it. That's a bug. Yeah. Yeah. We are definitely live.
[00:23:18] Unknown:
We've upset Barn Miner, Max. Why is that?
[00:23:21] Unknown:
Yeah. I can't read his message now because my, my Twitter won't load at all. But can you see in the chat? He was whinging about something, us being not legitimate.
[00:23:33] Unknown:
This this is only a legitimate show if I can listen over Nostra and Zap in the world's greatest layer two token. I've already commented back to to let him know Okay. That that zap. Stream is not working. It's not our our technical issue for once. It seems to be a problem on the the Zapdos Stream side. Yeah. A couple of comments from people in YouTube saying we're really laggy. Again, I'm not sure what's going on. It's like everything seems to be live but laggy. So bear with this, guys. Everything seems to be working on my end. It's just, and I'm absolutely Okay. I'm at HQ as well, so we can't blame my Internet connectivity or anything like that. Yeah. So I've got the VC wrestle same thing as well.
Nice. Okay. So just just before being censored. Yes. Indeed. We we are talking about Google, I suppose, that their tentacles reach everywhere. I've I've seen a couple of, comments on on various channels about this to be, the lag is real. Wow. Okay. Well, let's just roll with it, guys, and, you know, people can catch up afterwards, on the on the podcast feed if need be. I've seen a couple of comments on X and on Nosta where people are just like, oh, well, this doesn't matter anyway because I can just use F Droid or I can just use, Zapstore or Optanium, etcetera.
And I think that the piece that pit people so the the piece that pit I can't even speak today. May now I'm like Eat a pipe a picked a pickled pepper. P p p p p. The piece that people are missing is that to get those apps in the first place after, these restrictions are in place will require the the developers of set apps to actually have docs themselves and to Mhmm. You know, have have put themselves through that process and be a, quote, unquote, verified developer. So, you know, obviously, we don't know who or out of the ones I've just mentioned will be prepared to do that. So just just worth bearing in mind. And if you are still running stock Android and you're worried about this and you have no desire to go down the graphene route or similar, then maybe download those apps before all of this happens.
Again, that's that's not a perfect solution because, like Seth alluded to, maybe Google might be able to delve into your phone and pull those apps off the phone afterwards. I doubt that, personally. Yeah. But, again, this this is Google. And as I said, their tentacles reach quite deeply. I I would be very shocked if they went that far and started removing apps from people's phones because they didn't meet the criteria, and they were installed before the, the kind of new requirements were were were made live, if you if you know what I mean.
[00:26:13] Unknown:
Yeah. The timing is ominous too with this coming right after the whole scare about, like, crypto apps being banned. If they if they aren't a custodial exchange, basically, We had that that back and forth that the rage covered so well of, Google's new documentation basically saying that Bitcoin Monero crypto apps would be banned unless they could provide licenses, but no self custodial FreedomTech app can provide their own licenses because they're not a bank. So that that thankfully was cleared up. It's obviously, they claimed it was an error. It's unclear exactly what's happening there, but it's, not the best timing to then have this come out shortly after that saying we're gonna make sideloading way more difficult or impossible for unverified developers, which is a would be a very bad combo and I think should just, again, just keep people aware of potential issues, more reasons to get off of stock Android if you can. But like I said, you can go and install stuff. The hard part there is if they block sideloading, you wouldn't be able to update those apps.
That would be That'll be Yeah. That'll be another conversation for another day. Hopefully, we will have a an update where they they drop this madness. But yeah.
[00:27:28] Unknown:
Yeah. Indeed. Indeed. And and I just wanna quickly cover off because we've, it is tangential to what we've been talking about, and we've mentioned graphene, OS a couple of times. There's been a a little bit of news come out from from those guys this week around, or coincided with the release of the Pixel 10 and the fact that, you know, their their life is getting a bit more, difficult these days with the some changes that have been made to Android. So GrapheneOS has confirmed that the new Pixel 10, still supports all the features that they need, you know, unlocking the bootloader, flashing verify boot keys, and then locking the bootloader again, crucially, which is obviously good news. And it means that, you know, if you like to run the latest flagship, you could you you soon you'll be able to install GrapheneOS on a Pixel 10 or or the whole Pixel 10 range.
But support, isn't coming instantly like it has done for previous Pixels. So, normally, they could have the Pixel 10 support running within sometimes a matter of just a couple of days after release. However, this time, they expect it's gonna take much longer because of the changes of of how Google is releasing Android. So the the key difference, in the past, when Google has launched a new Pixel, they pushed the new device branch for it to AOSP, the Android open source project. And that branch contained everything that, alternative OS developers like GrapheneOS needed to build support pretty quickly.
For the Pixel 10, apparently, Google is no longer doing that. Instead, the Pixel 10 will be supported with an upcoming Android 16 QPR one release. No idea what the QPR one means, which is currently scheduled for September, so just a matter of days away. And that means that GrapheneOS has to finish porting everything to that Android build, and only then can it start with, completing the Pixel 10 support. So not impossible, but, according to, one of the developers who I follow on, Nosta, it's getting more difficult. Of course, they've already got their pixels on order, and they, you know, they're already starting to do what they can, based on the the changes that have been made.
And all of this kinda ties into some broader changes at Google and and the new Android kind of release schedule that, Google is making. I believe they're moving to three quarterly releases and one annual release now. I'm not clear on any further implications that that will have to people like GrapheneOS, But they say that they can adapt to the changes. And here's the cool part. They've mentioned that they're already working with a major Android manufacturer to make sure that upcoming non Pixel devices can officially support GrapheneOS. So for now, Pixels remain the most secure devices available, and are the only ones with proper support for an alternative operating system like GrapheneOS.
But Google doesn't really or Google appears to value alternative OS support less and less each day, and I'm quoting here. So pixels are won't always be the best choice once these new partnerships come online. I've seen a couple of follow-up, notes from the same, author on on Nosta, and he he's quoted some timelines of roughly one to two years. No information on who the Android manufacturer is. But for me, a bit of a positive to be, you know, a bit of a a kind of light at the end of the tunnel solution where we're we're no longer gonna be wholly reliant on Google for their, let's be honest, great hardware, and then to be able to to flash something like GrapheneOS onto onto it. From a, you know, a FreedomTech perspective, it seemed to be the kind of the the utopia combination of, essentially. And it's always been in the back of my mind to be like, you know, Google could switch this off at any moment. And, obviously, the the hardware side of this whole thing, particularly with mobile phones and how quickly, you know, that landscape changes is was always gonna be the kind of bottleneck for this.
So it's, it's comforting to hear that the GraphiOS team, you know, are making contacts outside of Google to be able to, you know, have some other hardware or or the manufacturer's devices available to to support their awesome software. So, yeah, I'm gonna be waiting to see how this one unfolds. But, you know, like I say, light at the end of the tunnel and, you know, quite promising. Yeah. Any,
[00:31:56] Unknown:
go on, sir. Sorry. Yeah. I was just gonna say, I think just especially interesting because this has been one of the, like, strong points of Android, and I know a reason why many people do like it. I I think it I mean, that that is definitely a small amount of people who care about sideloading, but it it has always been kind of like a core part of what Android brings to the table and how it's different from iOS. So for them to go the same walled garden route as iOS Yeah. Is, yeah, is is odd. Again, this isn't necessarily walled garden, and I think the nice thing for them is they can still say they allow sideloading, so they won't go go against the EU laws that have been put in place to force Apple to do so. So it kind of lets them have their cake and eat it too, but it it is, yeah, it is definitely interesting. Like, Jackie Huddle just said it's it seems too insane for him to think that this will actually be accepted.
Backlash should be so strong that smart people will find workarounds as they often do. Definitely definitely hopeful for that. And and, I mean, just like we're doing here, just like y'all can do on socials, like, those of you listening push back on this, call out how crazy it is, complain to app developers that you you enjoy using that maybe aren't doxed, and they can complain to Google as well. And if there's enough of an uproar, we can get them to change it. I'm sure it's not set in stone.
[00:33:09] Unknown:
Yeah. Absolutely. I I just really I'm I'm crossing my fingers that this doesn't this partnership doesn't turn out to be, like, the big flop that most Linux phones have turned out to be. Obviously, you know, GrapheneOS is a very well polished, piece of software, and very secure and obviously leverages all of the benefits of of the the thousands or millions of hours that have gone into building Android as the building block for it. So I'm I'm quietly optimistic that it won't be that that kind of, that much of a flop. I think, you know, the the the main or the most difficult part is gonna be comparing the fact that you could have this on the the latest and greatest and arguably one of the best phones on the planet, like, at the moment, the Pixel 10, versus whoever they they kind of partner with in the future. Obviously, it's very much dependent on who and who the partnership is with and what the hardware specs are relative to the cost, etcetera. But I think it's gonna be tough for them to to for obvious reasons, to to match, like, you know, the hardware level that that Google is able to do. But once again, a lot of conjecture. I'm just kind of, airing my my my thoughts on the on the situation. And, ultimately, we're just gonna have to wait and find out to see how good or how bad this kind of partner partnership is.
[00:34:24] Unknown:
Yeah. I will say just on the GrapheneOS thing, starting to monopolize my time again. They did say they're working with a major OEM towards future generations of their devices meeting our requirements. So I think, like, the hopeful thing to me is that they're not just building a new device for graphene, which is gonna have necessarily a smaller amount of, like, interested buyers and Yeah. Would be limited. But instead, it sounds like the better alternative to me, which is that they work with an OEM to have proper support for graphene OS. So phones that are getting in people's hands for other reasons can become graphene OS phones or people can acquire them specifically to install graphene OS, which generally will mean, like, if it's a major OEM that already has existing phones, it should be reasonably good hardware like you would hope.
Yes. That also probably means it's not gonna have the, like, hardcore privacy features that maybe people want, like mic disconnects and camera disconnects and that kind of thing. But that that type of feature set is not gonna appeal to enough people to make it worth it, unfortunately, from a financial perspective. So I think this sounds like a good in between. Obviously, like you said, it's all conjecture. It's been very sparse on details, but the specific way they're approaching it is encouraging because I would much rather it be some existing phone maker with explicit support for Graphion OS and all of the security requirements there versus them rolling their own phone, as as nice as it would be to have a Graphi and OS specific phone. It could also go south very quickly as we've seen with many Linux phones like you mentioned, many more, like, privacy centric phones.
[00:35:57] Unknown:
Yeah. A couple of, good comments in the live chat. Vibrant With this change, regular Android is just shit I iOS. Maybe typical. And, William Hornblower said, I've read the main requirement for future GrapheneOS phone support, and it depends on the SOC. I'm not entirely sure what SOC stands for, but he said, next Snapdragon gen could be the breakthrough.
[00:36:19] Unknown:
Anybody know what SOC stands for? Yeah. It means system on chip. It's the Okay. Way this is the term used to describe how processors are in phones because they're usually the processor, the GPU, the RAM, the IO chiplet, the modem. It's usually all in one. So it's just called an SoC, a system on chip.
[00:36:37] Unknown:
Nice. Nice. I knew you'd have the answer. Alright. Okay. So, you know, stuff to be bearish on, stuff to be, to be quietly bullish on as well. Bit of a mixed bag, but, Google, you know, taking some steps, or appear to take some steps towards the wrong direction from a from a freedom tech perspective. So let us know. Keep us posted if you see any developments on this, guys, in the live chat and listening to, us on the podcast feed afterwards. You know, obviously, this is this is dear to our hearts, so we wanna stay abreast of this one. Alright, guys. Twenty minutes left. So, as I mentioned, every single week, we have a huge backlog of, of questions. So, we didn't get chance to do barely any last week. So, hopefully, we can put a good dent into into some this week.
The the first one on the list, is from B mouth BTC on Nostra, and they asked and I really love this question. I'm always thinking about what tools there are to allow individuals to understand their blockchain transactional history. Are you aware that these tools exist? Can an an individual take part in their own blockchain analysis, and are there tools to interpret the results in a meaningful way? I'm gonna start by talking about one that is sadly no longer with us, and it's probably the the the one that jumped into both Max and Seth's brain as soon as I started to read the question.
We, as with most things in the summary ecosystem, didn't know how lucky we had it before it was ripped away from us. They had a a a kind of off spin or a a side arm called OXT Research. And they used to have a blockchain explorer called 0xt.me, which, was kind of, I guess, you could call it, mempool space, but with incredibly useful graphs where you could open up transactions, UTXOs, see all of the usual transactional information. But, also, because of the way the the kind of graphs were populated and as you, you know, opened up each transaction, you could see visually the kind of links between, you know, where a change output was going, where it came from, And it was just a a a really great visual way for you to kind of do some chain analysis on, well, any transaction really, because it it was essentially a public block explorer.
And, you know, very, very sad that that that got ripped away from us, unfortunately, when the whole samurai, you know, ecosystem got taken down. Clint Fandango, no. It's not a a thing, unfortunately. I I wish it was. But, yeah, I I truly missed that one. It was a it was a go to to kind of do some chain analysis on on myself. And, you know, if I Mhmm. I always like to if I ever received any Bitcoin back in the day when I was around, I'd I'd like to just go and click on there and just do some chain analysis on the on the person that sent it to me just to see if I can gain any kind of, you know, interesting interesting tidbits.
Yeah. It sounds creepy, but from a way of sort of, you know, if if if I could use it to help somebody and be like, hey. Look. You know, you sent me this Bitcoin and, you know, obviously, it's an open ledger, yada yada yada. Here's what I did, and I can see your your past history. Maybe maybe you wanna change your behavior and how you interact with Bitcoin. So, yeah, that was really incredible tool. But, yeah, looking forward into into the present day, guys, you know, is there any tools that kind of even somewhat fit the similar bill that you know of?
[00:40:12] Unknown:
Not me personally. No.
[00:40:17] Unknown:
Crickets. No. Yeah. That's, unfortunately, no. I mean, like, Blockstreams Explorer had some interesting things that they added and never touched. I don't think they've updated that thing in, like, years. But they did have, like, some tags that they would apply to things on, like, what it what the transaction probably was, which was interesting and could be useful to just get a quick glimpse at, like, what that transaction might look like to an outside observer. But that's pretty much defunct now. Mempool.spacegoggles is somewhat interesting as well. Like, it it can be useful to see how that's categorized by simple rules that they use for for the goggles there.
But, again, it's not it's certainly not fully featured. It's very, very, very minimal, and it it's only for one transaction at a time. It's not showing you anything about, like, what is this chain of transactions look like to an outside observer. The one thing, like, I did love OXT, but the one thing that was hard with it is you really had to figure out what you were looking at. There wasn't much in terms of, like, oh, you selected these six transactions. This looks like blah blah blah. Mhmm. It was very much like you had to reconstruct this chain, and then you had to ascertain, like, what does this look like to an outside observer? So it it like, as cool as it was, it wasn't that actionable for most people, but it would be really cool to have something open source freely available, especially that people could self host that people could use to at least do the same sort of, like, visual graphing. I mean Mhmm. I know AI is the buzzword everywhere, but AI seems also like a really useful tool for this type of analysis, like, to be able to to have some sort of simple, like, locally run model that you don't care about how fast it is.
Mhmm. And say, hey. Here's a here's an XPUB. Update me every day on what recent transactions look like to you and what they could look like or if any are connected that I wouldn't want connected or, like, that would be a really cool project. I'd I'm certainly not saying that exists today, and probably no one's even building that today. But that's one of the things AI is quite good at is summarizing large large datasets, and that's basically what this would be. So it would be interesting. But, unfortunately, there's not really anything right now. Like, the yeah. That's the sad state of things is all of the best tools are closed source black boxes that we don't have access to, unless you pay.
[00:42:46] Unknown:
Do do you remember the other one from from the samurai crew as well as kycp.org or .me or dot, yeah, .me or something. Know your coinprivacy.me or something. Again, don't go searching for it, guys. It's it's been taken down. That was more of a a transaction by transaction basis, so it wasn't kind of, like, being able to look at your coin history. KYCP kind of you could punch in a TXID and see, like, the it would analyze using the, I believe, the the kind of Boltzmann framework and analyze the the kind of entropy of a transaction. So they they did use some awesome visuals.
And I believe now the latest, update of, Ronin Dojo has a very rudimentary version of this so that you can go into your, Ronin UI, again, punch in a TX ID, and it would give you a kind of entropy score of a given transaction and and show some what we call deterministic links, to basically show how kind of give you a scale of how private a given transaction was. It gives you entropy number combinations and and a linkability linkability matrix. So that could be, you know, I guess, something. Again, that that is, of course, self hosted as well. You're kind of querying your own note, to do that. So, the the just looking at a blog post now, and it says, look.
This tool is very far from the capabilities of KYCP and OXT, but we hope to add more useful heuristics in the future. So maybe check that one out if you've updated to the latest Ronin Dojo if you, of course, run one of those as well. Good question, and, I guess, a a bit of a stark realization of of of, like, how many tools that we have sort of, had taken away from us, unfortunately. Okay. Yes. So to answer your question, I am running the show. It's me that's hosting it. Okay. Question from Zikeboi again on Nosta. So Monero suffered an attack. How insecure does that make it? Will this kick the Bitcoin devs into taking privacy seriously, or are they intent on bickering with speedy junior ego?
Or are or are they just afraid that the feds will come after them? Maybe, you know, give a quick background on the the the quote, Monero attack that's happened, and then we can have a little chat about, you know, what that means for bit for Bitcoin afterwards.
[00:45:22] Unknown:
For sure. For sure. Yeah. So we've for any who want more depth, we've talked a lot about this on the Monero monthly. Max and I have last month and this month's, which will go live in, like, four or five days, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong there, Max. Yeah. Yeah. So there will be, like, full explanation there. So I won't get into all of the weeds. We also talked on this month's Monero monthly. It's about to come out on multiple proposed mitigations or improvements to Monero security. So that'd be a good a good starter if you wanna know, like, what what can be done about it. But the TLDR is there is an entity who is attacking Monero essentially for marketing purposes to pump their own coin.
And by attacking, I mean, they are subsidizing people to mine on their private mining pool, and they are, as far as we can tell, renting hash rate with their own cryptocurrency. So they they print their own cryptocurrency called Cubic. They they pay miners in that, and then any any Manero that's mined on the pool, they use to buy Cubic and burn it. So it's it's basically like a pumpinomics thing that they're using for their own token. But their attack has been, well, not successful in the sense of they promised a 51% attack, and by no record have I seen them reach 51% legitimately.
Seems like 30 to 35% has been about the cap of what they've been able to hit. They have been able to achieve multiple large reorgs, in Monero. I think the longest they've done is nine blocks. By some accounts, they could have done longer but didn't intentionally because over 10 blocks is where things start to actually cause problems in Monero. That's all just conjecture on if they could have done larger ones or not because it's it's there's not a way to know that. But, those are obviously concerning. The Minera community is coming up with very interesting ways that we can improve security of Monero. There's been lots of discussions around that, but the the short answer is, like, Monero is not insecure right now, but we should continue to consider how we can better secure Monero.
And, unfortunately, right now, since there is someone doing reorgs of a reasonably large depth, I think most merchants have started going away from the one comp, approach that was pretty normal in Monero to now doing something like 10 comps. Like, I know that, coin cards have we have a cake pay. That's pretty normal now just to provide a little bit of extra protection for merchants, especially when you're delivering a digital good that can be redeemed immediately that you can't get back. So it's those specific use cases where it's potentially dangerous. But that's not
[00:47:59] Unknown:
just to put people's mind at rest a little bit, like, Monero blocks are what? Two minutes? So you're talking about, on average, twenty minutes, confirmation if you're buying gift cards or something like that. Yeah. That's, that's the biggest issue that we've seen. So, like, Monero under attack, yes, but it's not really affecting things at the moment. Yeah. And, and we went into a huge amount of detail on potential or discussions around, ways that this could be resolved in the future. And so that will be going live in, yeah, two, three days or something like that. So, anyone who, like, is worried about it can go into that. But I don't know. May maybe I'm, not understanding things, but I'm not particularly worried.
[00:48:50] Unknown:
No. You definitely are understanding correctly. It's also, like, for the average person, there is no effect here. At the moment, at least, there have been no double spending attacks due to reorgs. Yeah. The the only way that you'd you'd run into problems right now is that some exchanges have limited withdrawals or deposits, or have greatly increased the amount of confirmations they require before those are credited to your account. So if you're using something like Kraken, I know they've they've been changing around how many confirmations they need and sometimes closing withdrawals, sometimes closing deposits, just Mhmm. Based on what tweets they read, I guess.
It doesn't seem to be very well informed how they're doing it. But, yeah, I I don't think it's not life threatening for Monero right now, but it is something to be concerned about when you're thinking of, like, the long the longevity of Monero. But for the average user, it's not causing problems. Right now, that's not to say it can't, though. So definitely keep up to date. We'll keep chatting about it if there's updates every week on on Freedom Tech Friday. And like you mentioned, Max, there's a lot more detail in in the August monthly.
[00:49:51] Unknown:
Yeah. Nice. Thank you. This may or may not be a troll question, but as always, we give, prominence to the live chat questions that if and when they come through. Greg Tonoski on YouTube has asked, and and I have no idea what he's talking about here, so I'm hoping one of you guys do. Have you heard about the Garbage Man node implementation perhaps? I I don't know whether this is something to do with the whole core versus not debate, but I certainly have never even heard about it. So I'm not a big fan. Just as a yeah. Garbage man node implementation. Look at that. Yeah. I'm I'm gonna guess it's something to do with that. And if it is, then the short answer is no. I've not heard about it. Maybe if you can drop some links in the chat or something, we can have a look and maybe talk about it in a in a subsequent week. But, it seems as though the the concept has been lost in all three of us, unfortunately, at this moment in time.
Yeah. Well, thank you for getting involved with the question. We we we do appreciate it, and we're we're happy to talk about it if you give us a bit more context. Alright. Moving on to the next question, comes from Foul Matters on Nosta. How do you create a solid inheritance plan for your loved ones who do not have high-tech knowledge and don't want to rely on a third party like Nunchuk or Bitcoin Keeper? Multisig wallets are are a good option but can lead to a complex setup. I wonder what other clever options are out there that I do did not think of yet. I I I'll take this one. There's two there's two things I wanna I wanna hit on. Number one is to briefly mention I I know you said that multisig is a good option. I agree, but it can lead to a complex setup.
Something that we're gonna be doing a deeper dive on on Monday's, Bitcoin brief is the fact that, Nunchoke have just added support for MiniScript, so you can do lots of kind of, decaying or increasing multisig. So keep your eyes peeled, for for that show when it comes out. Mhmm. It's, we'll we'll be doing a deep dive, and we'll probably be able to, you know, answer your question a bit more deeper as to whether multisig more specifically, miniscript based multisig, could be a good option for you. That aside, for your specific situation where it's an inheritance plan for loved ones, it I'm gonna assume that they, they don't want to hold their own keys, or they're not you you don't feel comfort confident in them solely being the sole custodian of their keys and that you're gonna, quote, unquote, uncle gym them.
My solution would be to use something like BIP 85. We call it key manager in, in Passport, where you can give them a seat. They can feel safe in the knowledge that, you know, they have their own seat, which they do. It's an independent seat where they can look after their own funds. But you can be safe and then honest that if they go and do the normie thing where they, you know, don't back up that seed or they lose it or whatever, you can then deterministically rederive their seed for them from your passport or any other hardware wallet that supports the BIP 85 standard of which there are, you know, quite a few now, I believe. So that they can have their independence, but they can fall back on you if they do something stupid.
And you can then give them their seed and get them out of this year, and they don't lose their funds, assuming they don't just give it to an attacker and their wallet gets drained, of course. The reason I say that is twofold. Number one, they get their independence, and they they learn along the way. But number two, you're able to to support them in a way that means that you don't have to have the mental overhead and physical overhead, I guess, of backing up multiple seeds for those different people, assuming there's more than one. That those would all be stored, and be able to be rederived deterministically from your hardware wallet.
So that it's kinda like the best of both worlds. You're able to support them, but you don't have to have, like, five or six different seed plates buried in your garden and remember where they all are and make sure they're all labeled for sister, daughter, etcetera, etcetera. So that would be my knee jerk. And, yeah, I definitely wouldn't rush in into multisig, unless there was, you know, significant amounts of funds, and I'm talking a lot, or it was kind of like a a, let's say, a shared pot where it was like the the the family savings or something like that. But even then, it would be kind of, you know, a a bit of a push for me to immediately recommend somebody like that going towards Multisig. Any advances on on that, Max or or Seth?
[00:54:30] Unknown:
I I was only just thinking, like, it's inheritance, isn't it? So giving someone a bit 35 seed with funds on it. In if you think about it as inheritance, they'd only get that if you get hit by a bus or whatever. So, then giving them those seed words or details to look after. You're effectively gifting them the money, not not actually having it as an inheritance if you get hit by a bus. And in that case, now they're responsible to secure that information, and they might be a fucking idiot. Well, they might just not know how to use Bitcoin, and then they might leave that lying around and lose the money. So suddenly, what is your money and would be your money until you die can now be at greater risk of loss.
So that would be my only concern on on on a setup like that. Although you would probably be, like, splitting your risk because, you know, if you got three or four kids and they've each got one and your missus has got one and whatever, the dog's got one, then, hopefully, they wouldn't all make a mistake. So I don't know. There there's pros and cons to it.
[00:55:46] Unknown:
Yeah. That's I'm glad you brought that up, actually, because I've kind of got the question a little bit twisted, and and you are right that they did mention an inheritance plan, again, assuming that you're gonna pass the funds onto them. So I'm glad you made that carve out, and apologies for getting that a little bit mixed up. And I guess this is where I'll kind of loop back around full circle and and and reference again miniscript and, and multisig. Again, not quite a reality yet because the tools are very new and and probably I haven't tested an uncheck version, but probably, you know, need a bit of polishing, to make them more normie friendly. But we're we're quickly, again, moving into a world where you could have, you know, a mini based wallet where it's a two of three where you control the funds.
And then you could have, thanks to the wonders of manuscript, give the the kids or your your heirs, whoever they are, some additional keys that are entirely useless up until a specific time frame that you can define. So let's assume that you say, alright. Well, the the key that I gave to my kid, I don't want it to be a part of this this Multisig wallet, but it can become active and the Multisig grows after, you know, let's say, two years. So what what could happen then is that if if you die and, they they aren't able to access all of your keys, but they they have the key that they looked after, as long as they can meet that threshold, of signing keys including their own, like the additional key that you said it can become active after x amount of time, then that can be another great kind of fallback way for you to have, your heirs be able to access your funds when you're not around, but in a way that doesn't compromise your security while you are still around, if that makes sense. So, again Mhmm. Very promising land that we're heading towards. But, again, it's, like, it's very cutting edge at the moment and kind of, yeah, just just needs a bit more polishing and a bit more support from hardware wallets. William Hornblower in the YouTube chat. What about the Liana wallet as a tool from the toolbox for inheritance planning? Yeah. Everything I've just said applies to Liana as well. The they were the ones, from a desktop perspective that pioneered all this this sort of stuff.
But everything that I've just said is is also true of Liana wallet as well, which is arguably been around for longer and probably more polished. Okay. Let's do one last question because we did start just a little bit late. This one is for you, Seth, just so you you got a chance to wake up. And it comes from Vibrant Subtlety. Can Seth discuss how the indexer works for cake silent payments? Can you use a regular reluctant server, or is it something novel? And can we expect to be able to self host one of these easily in the future so that we can main better maintain our privacy?
[00:58:34] Unknown:
Yeah. It's a great question. The the TLDR on how it works is that it's right now, it's an ElectRS instance with a custom index added onto the existing normal ElectRS indexes. That is the tweak data that's necessary for syncing silent payments wallets. Obviously, this was done before there really was a spec at all for servers, and is is working, though, I know it has had some issues off and on that we've been working on improving. The main thing I'll say is absolutely self hosting is the goal, for this, like, this setup, but Elect RS is not a good platform to self host this on. Elect RS needs, like, four terabytes of disk storage to store all the indexes and takes way longer than anything else to, to sync. So it's definitely not the long term goal that others would be using Elect RS. It was just a better one from a, like, a business perspective serving thousands of users to be able to serve using ElectRS.
But right now, a really cool thing that's happening is there's basically a silent payments group that has come together of a lot of different people from a lot of different backgrounds. Josie Bake, who is one of the the BIP authors, is leading that up. He actually has his own nonprofit now, that he's using to fund those efforts amongst others. And him and I am blanking on the name of the person who's working on it, but they have started off a a spec for how the sync servers for silent payments should be built. We're obviously helping out with that, contributing to that. They're gonna have, kind of an on-site in mid September that our main silent payments staff is gonna attend as well, to continue to improve, improve our setup and also the core goal being two things. One, we make it really easy for businesses to self host a silent payments indexer that's performant at scale, which is what Cake is doing. And then two is to make a very simple lightweight indexer that anyone can run alongside Bitcoin d.
Those are the two core goals of that spec, and what we're trying to to accomplish there. So that's definitely the the goal. I know those things aren't really here yet. You could self host the one that we do at Cake, but it's it's like I said, it's ElectRS. It requires massive resources. It's it's not ideal for the average person. But that is going to improve over time. So excited for that. Really good things happening there. A lot of traction happening, especially over the last month or so. Getting a spec now that's public. I'll I'll drop the link as well, and we we should see that snowball quickly into things you can self host. One more quick thing. Sorry. I know I took a lot of time to answer this.
The Fulcrum project, which I know a lot of people listening know and love and use, they are going to be releasing version two dot o. He said he just updated on GitHub probably sometime in September or October, and he had mentioned having silent payment support as part of that. He already has the Bitcoin Cash equivalent in there. I don't know if that will actually make it into the initial two dot o release. Maybe it doesn't as an MVP, but that was part of it, and that was one of the reasons why we we donated to him building out 2.o, at cake is that we wanted to make sure that there was a good, easy, self hostable silent payments indexer. And, ideally, like, even for me personally, I would prefer that it was just Fulcrum, and I could just add a flag to enable silent payments and be done with it. Because I know that's a lot that's kinda become the go to for the average, self hoster in the Bitcoin space.
[01:02:01] Unknown:
Yeah. That'd be that'd be great to see because if it does form part of a natural fulcrum release, then, you know, by proxy, it just means that it's gonna find its way to all of the start nines and running dojos and, umbrelles, etcetera, of the world where I believe fulcrum is available on all of the above now as well. So, yeah, excited about that. I wasn't aware of that one, so appreciate the the deep dive there. And, yeah, that brings us, a little bit over time, guys. So, thank you once again for everybody to that's joined us in the the live chat. It was good to see another another busy session there. Thank you to those that have submitted your questions ahead of time.
Unfortunately, we only got to four of them. The backlog is still huge. But, yeah, we appreciate your input each and every week on the show. And, yeah, all that's left to be said is that we will catch you the same time next week for Freedom Tech Friday. Have a good one, guys. Catch you then. See you. We pulled the plug in 54321.
[01:02:59] Unknown:
Stay ungoverned. Thank you for listening to Freedom Tech Friday. To everyone who boosted, asked questions, and participated in the show, we appreciate you all. Make sure to join us next week on Friday at 9AM EST and 2PM London. Thanks to Seth, Max, and Q for keeping it ungovernable. And thank you to Cake Wallet, Foundation, and my NIM box for keeping the ungovernable misfits going. Make sure to check out ungovernablemisfits.com to see mister Crown's incredible skills and artwork. Listen to the other shows in the feed to hear Kareem's world class editing skills.
Thanks to Expatriotic for keeping us up to date with Boost's XMR chats and sending in topics. John, great name and great guy, never change and never stop keeping us up to date with mining news or continuing to grow the mesh to Dell. Finally, a big thanks to the unsung hero, our Canadian overlord, Jordan, for trying to keep the ungovernable in check and for the endless work he puts in behind the scenes. We love you all. Stay ungovernable.
