nostr:nevent1qqs87x0w8zfh925628zgjy4xl8e35vvh5dxzjk7kq2yv22mtu9y5g9spp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyr4tpe6k6v4cp0x5vneas39cqspsxp66z04tcdve5a3vntr6hy057qcyqqqqqqgjsrwp3

💯

Don't fuck with my money unless it absolutely needs it. Even then, I'll decide whether I agree to your rules.

This is why we run nodes.

LFG LYN

nostr:nevent1qqs87x0w8zfh925628zgjy4xl8e35vvh5dxzjk7kq2yv22mtu9y5g9sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncrqsqqqqqpcjmsrp

Spammers are pushing for CAT to assert dominance. They don’t care about scaling

It's Sunday night, sometimes a good time to consolidate utxos.

🧡

Privacy is a more important issue

Too many noobs weren't around in 2017. We've been there and done that.

i bought some btc on coinbase and i have no idea what the fee was but i bought 0.12 btc and came up short somehow only 0.10?

CTV has been discussed publicly for over 4 years, how long is enough? At what point does 'waiting for major consensus' look like bikeshedding? Waiting forever to upgrade also has tradeoffs that must be considered, it causes increased adoption and building of custodial solutions that undermine decentralization.

Vaults are worth an upgrade. Agree it needs to be judicious

Verifyability is king for the base settlement layer of money. If this weren't true Bitcoin would've been displaced by something else.

Always with the sound advice…

Leave L1 alone. L2 will be the solution

Bitcoin's scalability has more to do with how our world evolves. As Bitcoin has a limited supply, its value tends to go up or remain stable, reducing the need for frequent transactions as the currency retains its value better than fiat.

At the same time, advancements like AI, 3D printing, and self-driving cars are making things cheaper and more efficient. This "technological deflation" means we might need to transact less often because things cost less to make and do. This naturally reduces the demand for transactions on the Bitcoin network.

So, even without major changes to Bitcoin's code, the network could scale just fine as societal needs shift. Rushing to change the fundamental aspects of Bitcoin could introduce risks without real benefits. It’s crucial to think carefully about any changes, making sure they're truly needed and widely supported to avoid splitting the community.

"Niche programmers" sounds a bit ad hominem.

Not sure what you mean by changing the fundamental nature of Bitcoin; adding opcodes uses a foundational principle of the protocol to extend its functionality.

Normal users can't be expected to understand the intricacies of protocol development; if that was a requirement then the protocol would have ossified long ago.

I would love to see modelling on fees and the impacts on scaling. It's easy to say we need to change or that we don't, but no one is building financial models to support their ideas. I think at about $10 lightning breaks down. cashu, fedmint and liquid provide better scaling at higher fees but come with significant compromises. For this to be viable I think everyone needs to be able to open a couple of lightning channels to a number of mints. This allows minimal custodial risk and allows decentralisation. If fees reach $100 per transaction, this is prohibitive, even for high value channels. Fees on the network would be high, driving centralisation.

With the current tech, we have about 10x growth potential with current technology. Now is the time to think through how we can maintain a permissionless network, so when it comes time we have a good consensus.

I'm sceptical of paid influencers, because the incentives of bankers who pay them, Microstrategy, Swan, Coinbase etc are for a centralised custody model where they can extract fees. The higher on chain fees, the higher the fees they can extract. This is a terrible outcome for Bitcoin because this money is not going to miners to secure the network, but to bankers to capture it.

Bitcoin fees are a "dollar". Lol fees in fiat.

Is any particular L2 considered a reliable long term solution at the moment?

- LN seems centralizing due to complex edge cases, backups, liquidity, routing, etc. Seems like a new complexity pops up each time one is fixed.

- Chaumian mints sound great for specific situations but do standard / battle-tested best practices exist?

Lyn, do you not think miner centralisation is a more important issue that needs to be discussed now?

Bank wires still $30-$50 depending on geographic location…..$1 to settle with bitcoin is a bargain.

Are these changes needed to address real user demand, or is this just restless devs itching to fix theoretical future problems?

I was debating writing a book, but the more I thought about it and the appropriate name for it, I'm wondering it you are writing it or would write it😅

"Fixing Money"

People don't understand systems. We need a book that takes systems like Bitcoin and compares it to Gold and other existing financial systems of today including ones that work and ones that do not based on fundamentals like you mention in the OP.

Lightning is the equivalent of Banking settlement and transfer relationships. Liquid is the digital equivalent of Hawala which has a place. People don't understand this because they don't see how it all looks at scale.

People get all up in arms about the dream of P2P electronic cash but they don't realise most people don't care and they just want things to work. that will require developers and service providers on a sound money that is simple on the base layer and isn't compromising for somewhat arbitrary features. If we're engineering a new car, let's keep the parts that work based on historical experience. As the market evolves we will eventually find out how many demand certain solutions like custody with less counter party risk etc. We currently don't even know how many will desire certain things because money is misunderstood as it is and the few that are in it now are clearly different than your average fiat minded person.

Other ideas:

At scale, no one will ever have a L1 Hot wallet.

Phoenix is cute but it's silly to run a bank from your phone that shuts down every time it's not running.

I could go on and on, but I'm sure you understand it even better than I do. There are also missing pieces like a delayed settlement and credit system that allows for people to but things and a trusted third party to handle disputes from both sides like Visa. People will need to get used to seeing the fees associated with services because nothing is hidden like the systems of today, but the fees are lower overall. People spend time developing solutions that are only a transitional problem instead for designing for when every sat is a dollar.

Would you write this?

It's very hard to get this point across. And I feel like I fail most of the time.

What's the point of having "money for everyone" if only a third of the people on Earth can afford to use it in its decentralized form.

Just like the current banking system, only the rich will have real access.

High fees mean most people need to use third party solutions which will get KYC and surveilance requirements sooner or later.

So what exactly did we win? We are creating our own surveilance and control machine operated by entities abiding any rules a government sets up.

In El Salvador, almost everybody is using custodial lightning wallets. They log every transaction. Where is the difference to a bank or paypal?

No one knows for sure, We could have the time to go slow or that time has already passed and it's too late. We could have enough rope for many crisses of privacy, security or adoption, or we could have only one shot to get this right.

Only one proposal allows many people to be wrong and the right get rewarded, like the marketplace, without damaging the network as a whole. Bip300 Drivechains.

How about we just make the blocks bigger and tell anyone who wants to centralise and fuck with it to fuck off and we will kill them if they try

This is really important and perhaps not getting enough attention. The go-go devs and upgraders risk killing this project as the attack surface expands exponentially with each upgrade. Many may disagree, but nobody saw monkey jpegs coming out of taproot. The inherent tradeoffs don't seem to be fully appreciated. Decentralisation can't NEVER have the same max throughput as centralisation, it is impossible. Security is the tradeoff. We have to focus like a lazer on Sound Money. This is first , second and nth of what bitcoin must be. It will never be a point of sale commodity payment rail because then it won't be sound money. I am hearing people complaining that bitcoin is not everything they want it to be, it will never be everything, we have to pick what it is and stick to it. Stick to sound money , that is the killer app that hasn't existed for 3000 years and that is what is missing today and chiefly why the world is in such a mess.

The poster child of "everything to everyone coin" and unbrideled , go-go dev/upgrade is ETH. And ETH is an unholy spaghetti mess. It is almost impossible to run a node, they had to change to POS, nobody seems to even know how many ETH are out there. Is this what we want bitcoin to become because we cannot focus on what bitcoin should be : sound money and only sound money ?

All changes in #BTC core is an attack on #Bitcoin.

Think about it, which human creation would work if the number of users increase like x100 tomorrow morning?! (Roads? Hospitals? The corner store?)

The L2 must be fully exploited before we consider any change.

"Not your keys, not your coins"

"Not above fees, not your UTXOs"

privacy > scale

it's all about consensus - majority opinion WINs ! not anyone's

The options are bitcoin is programmable money or bitcoin is an investment vehicle controlled by the CIa, saylor, and tradfi. I choose the former.

I accidentally clicked zap instead of repost on this, so forgive me the 42 sats. Regardless. Lyn is a Spook and part of the tradfi-control ossify brigade who want to destroy bitcoin.

nostr:note10uv7uwynw24f55wy3yf2d70nrgce0g6v99davq5gc54khc2fgstqvfjhuw

People who are saying "lets not rush things" and "those are just niche programmers" are asleep at the wheel. We need an L1 change to develop L2 any further and we've been discussing CTV for at least a year now (or LNHance which includes two more BIPs) and I anticipate the educational push for it to last maybe 5 years.

We aren't rushing things. If it seems like we're rushing things, its because you're reacting to educational campaigns to bring awareness to node runners and misinterpreting that educational content as a "rush"

bcash coming in hot

There are so many over-leveraged non-tech people in fear of bitcoin failing to reach their adoption target.

I understand that when it comes to sovereign money you want to have the most control on it but we should keep in mind that bitcoin is still an experiment and I think:

1) Most people don't understand what is being discussed and the consequences implied.

2) They create mostly noise and euphoria to the debate.

3) Those people might be over-leveraged compared to the risk that still exists on the bitcoin experiment and are overreacting by pushing for solutions to a problem that might not be a problem in the first place.

Being slow, thoughtful and patient is a superpower when it comes to that level of engineering. ✌️

nostr:note10uv7uwynw24f55wy3yf2d70nrgce0g6v99davq5gc54khc2fgstqvfjhuw