Nostr Web Client

I responded on Twitter too, but this is such a strange rant to me.

Bitcoin Core (contributor)’s current push for better mempool policy is *directly* related to multi-party UTXO ownership and scaling. It specifically substantially improves lighting in practice today, and will certainly be required for any future scaling technologies.

In the mean time, lots of folks (like James) continue to do research into how to scale Bitcoin (and cryptocurrencies generally). There’s no reason to care if that happens from Bitcoin Core contributors or others, and we’re still really far from having any particularly good ideas on this front. As that research continues, there’s no reason for concrete software towards short-term soft-forks. nostr:note16h9axg7x728pt7776x4hxq5vh448xz7gszjnjxsjg7rcwue3v4ysevtlgm

vnprc 1y ago

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on nostr. I value your opinion and am glad to have it here.

> we’re still really far from having any particularly good ideas on this front.

Hard disagree on this, though. There are many proposals that pass muster, IMO. I favor LNHANCE which combines LN-symmetry and covenant capabilities. I am confused why you would characterize this as not a particularly good idea. You know better than almost everyone what a massive upgrade LN-symmetry would be.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Matt Corallo 1y ago

I don’t think LN-symmetry solves real user pain points. It makes software simpler, and maybe is important if we move towards multi-party channels, but that’s a ways off.