Oh I agree with you. I am a daily crypto user and I have no use for this wallet. I was just offering some things it adds which might be useful.

Lightning is a big missed opportunity. Phoenix is the only wallet I know that has solved this in a user-friendly way.

(I did also mention that it only works between Proton accounts.)

The wallet doesn’t add anything directly useful.

It adds a couple of things which can be useful:

1. You have a single receive email, but it’s associated with a full HD wallet, so every receive will generate a brand new unused address for the sender. As the email is static, you could for example post it for donations and not have to worry about people being able to track anything you’ve received. Of course this only works with other Proton users which is kind of pointless, but perhaps it’s the start of some sort of interoperability standard?

2. They have support which you can contact, which while almost certainly isn’t important for you, for your aunty it might be useful.

Or Linux Drive…

who is maintaining custody of the Bitcoin

It’s self-custody.

You neglected to quote the most relevant part of the article which answers your own question regarding Monero:

Proton Wallet is in a strange position. I’ve spoken to a few sources who suggest that privacy features like CoinJoin, which can mix Bitcoin in order to better anonymize transactions, were intended to be included at launch. The crackdown on the ill-fated Samouri Wallet project by U.S. authorities last April certainly put a damper on privacy in the Bitcoin space, and likely made Proton wary of introducing such features to the public.

Proton suggests this themselves, stating on their website:

“Coinjoin is considered the best solution for improving blockchain privacy. It works by mixing your BTC with other users’ BTC in a collaborative self-custodial transaction where you get back the same amount of BTC that you put in but on a different address that cannot be easily linked to your previous address. However, in 2024, in what many consider to be a regulatory overreach and attack on privacy, some of these Coinjoin services have been declared illegal in the US and EU. The future of financial privacy may therefore be decided by ongoing litigation in the next decade and privacy advocates should support these efforts.”

This situation likely soured Proton on other privacy-friendly cryptocurrencies like Monero as well. I get it, financial privacy is an extremely challenging task for any company to take on. We can’t expect Proton to take on the risk of offering a completely anonymous payment service in the current legal climate, but it begs the question: why enter the financial space at all?

While not particularly revolutionary, the fact that they provide a unique HD wallet address every time you receive funds through your same email address does provide additional privacy as no one can see your previous transactions. Even when those are rolled up together later it does make it harder to associate an exact total balance with you. If you used your wallet for smaller spending rather than making a single large send from it, that makes it harder still.

Sure, I would have liked them to add Monero too, but it gets thorny when you’re a regulated company dealing with that.

More than just ChatGPT:

Bazzite. Idiot proof Nvidia gaming. I’ve installed it for a few Windows-using friends and they’ve had no complaints.

https://bazzite.gg/

While you are correct, Bazzite is a drop-in OS replacement for Steamdeck and Asus ROG Ally, so there’s a lot of potential for more people hearing about it as it gets more popular.

There isn’t a pro-grade, open source video editing tool or anything close

Do you use open source professional grade video editing tools on Windows? Almost certainly not, so why would it be a requirement for Linux?

What we need is companies producing Linux builds of professional grade closed source software. And if the trend of Microsoft making terrible decisions and Linux use increasing, it might actually happen.

If they’re running their own LLM hardware, and their Lemmy spam posts are generating enough revenue to cover that, then I take it back, because that is impressive.

I guess we’re fucked.

I’d actually prefer that. Micro transactions. Would certainly limit shitposts

Must be strange to live in a world where you can’t imagine that software could have configurable parameters, such that you could find something that’s fine for a person posting individual comments and painful for a bot farm.

It seems like a no-brainer for me. Limits bots and provides a small(?) income stream for the server owner.

This was linked on your page, which is quite cool: https://crypto-loot.org/captcha

How much resources are we talking about here? If it’s 3% of your CPU usage for 2 seconds, you’re really going to have an issue with that?

Whatever solution should be negligible for you, but costly for a botfarm.

Here’s a live example, not exactly onerous: https://demo.mcaptcha.org/widget/?sitekey=pHy0AktWyOKuxZDzFfoaewncWecCHo23

(Obviously in Lemmy’s case you wouldn’t have the additional unecessary checkbox)

Add a requirement that every comment must perform a small CPU-costly proof-of-work. It’s a negligible impact for an individual user, but a significant impact for a hosted bot creating a lot of comments.

Even better if you make the PoW performing some bitcoin hashes, because it can then benefit the Lemmy instance owner which can offset server costs.

Very true. The discussion helped me, as I did think it meant not easily editable.

As root of course you can change the system to be any other type of system (layer packages, rebase, whatever), but I did assume it meant not easily modifiable in it’s current state.

My comment in the comment chain was:

An attacker escaping from a container can’t be system root as Podman runs rootless (without some other exploit or weak password).

We could give the op the benefit of the doubt and thinking that they were saying that the attacker inside the container managed to gain root inside the container.

While you are correct, any system is compromised if you have root, so isn’t that irrelevant at that point?

Makes sense. An “immutable” distro provides no additional security benefit, however CoreOS does have a reduced attack surface area compared to other distros, which itself is a benefit.

edit: “Immutable” means “all of them are the same”, not “unchangeable”.

You sound confident, but the fact that Fedora is using the term “immutable” makes me wonder if you actually have domain expertise here.

Immutable means immutable. It would be strange for them to call it that if it actually means “completely irrelevant from a security perspective”.

Unless you provide some evidence to the contrary I’m going to assume you aren’t correct.