"app stemstr not known"

What exactly will be the row?

The miner's AI spreading FUD about a "security budget"? Or something else?

The European Central Bank should use Chaumian Ecash for this, as is used in Cashu, to maximize privacy

This means that each user holds a token issued by the ECB which is worth €1, but due to a simple powerful mathematical trick, they ECB doesn't know who it issued each token to. The user essentially creates the token, then the ECB signs the token without actually seeing the token

The maths, easier to read than you might think: https://sceweb.sce.uhcl.edu/yang/teaching/csci5234WebSecurityFall2011/Chaum-blind-signatures.PDF

https://youtu.be/OHqxp-Hrx9k

I laughed so much during this. I've only listened to thirty minutes so far, and laughed out loud many times

Quite sensible content, but one of the hosts often throws in crazy deadpan joke questions

nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx

https://fountain.fm/episode/mkMsIIdBdRVoS5BopQ0M

What's the Nostr/Bitcoin alternative, allowing artists to give music to listeners without any middleman?

I know there are some apps, e.g. Wavlake, but I feel that we need to simplify and clarify this for musicians

I guess the honest answer is: we don't know yet how it will work

I think I've worked it out now

Just before making my note a couple of hours ago, I made my mempool more permissive via bitcoin.conf, and therefore I have lots of low-fee transactions in the (predicted) upcoming blocks:

The mempool.space that's running on my node marks them red if the fee rate is less than 2 sat/vB:

By contrast, the public one at https://mempool.space has a different colouring scheme, and therefore the same transactions that would be red in mine are green in the public one:

So basically, I think my mempool is relatively similar to the public one. For the next few predicted blocks, the number of transactions and the distribution of fees is relatively similar. So I think the main difference is this superficial different in the colouring scheme

( nostr:npub1uy6fplfrgddrex6ndcvwsvy7nlv4gadlw2j80vgkduk5ceg69e3sgzn9k0 )

That was in my 'Next Block', i.e. it hasn't been mined yet.

Thanks for the info! Do you have a link?

My current theory is that my mempool has transactions that my relay partners don't (yet) have. This seems to be analogous to the idea that you shared

We definitely don't want a "governance" protocol. That would mean some sort of committee or "constitution" or foundation, and that would turn us into Ethereum

Decentralisation means decentralisation. Get used to the resulting chaos 🙂

What is the red here in this block?

Running my own node (Raspiblitz), which came with Core v26. I don't think I've ever seen this on the public mempool.space, so I'm surprised to see it on my self-hosted MempoolSpace

I recently added minrelaytxfee=0.00000100 to my config, could that be related?

#Bitcoin #Mempool #AskNostr

They don't include the Bluetooth, and so are incomplete at best

Where is this? Is there a full podcast episode to watch?

Not a problem. "security budget concerns" is just noise by selfish miners wanting to take more value for themselves

*If* and when the (economic) nodes feel that the security budget needs to be increased, then the (economic) nodes will make any necessary decision. But that's still a few decades away

For now, the security budget is more than sufficient. The only miner-related problem currently is the risk of too much centralization, and the (economic) nodes will continue to take action to avoid problems there

Fake

If it was real, you would link to real evidence

While nostr doesn't directly fix this, it means it easier to build a web-of-trust between people who aren't super gullible

The block feature is handy too

Fun, and weirdness, with #VibeCoding

While processing the #Bitcoin blockchain, I have a function to compute the block reward of a given block. I asked it (Claude Code) to check around the time of the first halving, to make sure there wasn't any off-by-one error.

It was working correctly, and Claude Code was happy that it was working correctly, but then it suddenly panicked and decided that the logic was wrong, see the end of this first screenshot:

It followed up with this false claim, and tryied to add this off-by-one error in the code: "Ah! The issue is that at block 210000, height / 210000 = 1, so we're calculating 1 halving, giving 25 BTC reward. But block 210000 itself should still have the 50 BTC reward - the halving takes effect

starting from block 210001. "

I think responded with "i don't think that's correct. A few questions. Is the genesis block considered to be block 0 or block 1?"

and it immediately corrected itself:

I could give lots of examples like this, where it did stuff that was slightly crazy or just wrong, and I have to overrule it, but I guess I don't want to bore you all; I'm very new to VibeCoding and I guess all of you that already have more experience with it have already learned all these fun lessons.

For now at least, humans are still badly needed to help the coding agent. But that could change of course ...

I get this error when I try to add you

Does it mean that you and I are using different relays?

I have only one friend on White Noise so far, so I don't have any experience of debugging things like this

Of course it was fake

But that didn't stop it making millions angry, just as our media overlords want 😃

Met a guy at a Bitcoin meetup in a cafe in Berlin today who had never used or bought bitcoin

So I got him on cashu.me and I sent him a few sats to get him going. I hope he learns more about Bitcoin and comes back to more meetups!

I think it's the best movie ever

It makes sense to me. I love thinking about these extreme - but realistic - issues in sci-fi. What happens when a less advanced race meets a more advanced race? How will technology and tools advance? Will things become less "physical" in the conventional sense?

The plot, i.e. the interactions between normal characters, aren't really supposed to matter very much in this kind of movie. It's all about forcing you to think about the big picture

... I should have tagged nostr:npub1whtn0s68y3cs98zysa4nxrfzss5g5snhndv35tk5m2sudsr7ltms48r3ec here.

Did I make a fair summary of White Noise and MLS?

White Noise, which is based on the MLS protocol, uses Nostr to transmit the data. It's entirely decentralised. It has good support for large groups

This podcast episode is a nice intro: https://fountain.fm/episode/gzfxBKiY94NTCUKySPQ2

I'm very impressed. But it's still relatively new. The MLS protocol is not new, it seems to be well regarded. But the rolling out into the real world is still in the early stages

You said they "noticed their blocks were getting orphaned"

But neither of those two links said their blocks were getting orphaned. They just said they were taking steps to prevent the risk of orphaning

I said "pairing" there, but I just remembered that I meant "package relay"

I kinda assumed that the nodes would try to rebroadcast the transactions from the blocks that had been re-orged, in order to re-confirm them where possible

I hadn't heard of it, but I'm reading about it now (on Wikipedia 😃)

Thanks nostr:npub1mlekuhhxqq6p8w9x5fs469cjk3fu9zw7uptujr55zmpuhhj48u3qnwx3q5 for giving an answer with some details, and nostr:npub1zhmsa0fs76dctwag0slvg4j9xqxu9q66dkkzxh7ls9pu4d0f9qkqgvs67x for raising the quantum-resistance point about TR

While witnesses have a discount, normal monetary transactions also benefit from the same discount as they also use the witness

What concretely could be done differently? Maybe the discount should apply only to small witnesses, so that larger - potentially spammy - witnesses pay more? (It's too late to include this change to the discount rules, as it's a consensus change, but I'm just curious to discuss these issues to learn more)

IIRC, the Clarity bill is supposed to include that

Although, I must admit that I don't have confirmation that it's in the current bills being debated

I hope so!

I hate what he said, specifically some unnecessary references to violence

But it's free speech, so I proudly defend his right to say what he said

We shouldn't use "Keynesian" as a synonym for "fiat economics that some people hate". Most of the haters don't really know what it means 🙂

The Harvard economist - Rogoff - who recently admitted that he was wrong on Bitcoin was dismissed by some here as a "Keynesian" even though he's actually most famous for his anti-Keynesian approach to the 2008 crisis!

Also, Keynesian economics can (with some difficulty perhaps) be followed even under a gold standard

The CLARITY Act is more important, as it will (if passed) clarify lots of things, including the right to self-custody. When it's passed, it will be difficult to reverse the change, as Congress would need to agree to an update

The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve could be cancelled at any time by any President, so there's no point getting excited about it

Finally, no President wants to (publicly) buy a lot of crypto just before an election. There are elections coming this November. It would look dumb to buy now if the value continue to fall in the run up to the election.

I guess they'll start stacking (secretly) just after the election, so that they'll have two years to show a profit before the next election

More details, including the fact that it's alongside a similar poster of Theodore Roosevelt:

https://www.newsweek.com/department-labor-trump-portrait-2119185

The (bitchat) fork that will never support Lightning

"no servers"?

Unless you're using Bluetooth at that ocean location, how can you connect to those folks without some internet-based server?

Or maybe you're in the US somewhere, connecting exclusively via the Bluetooth mesh, chatting in a channel that but happens to be named "#21m"?

🎶 "I've got 21 problems, but inflation ain't one" 🎶

So BCH has renamed itself?

I have a theory about why so many companies are still avoiding buying Bitcoin, even though so many companies see their share price jump 🚀 on announcing a BTC treasury

If you're a big shareholder in a company and you ask the company to buy bitcoin, but they refuse, then you'll probably just dump those shares and buy bitcoin directly yourself

Therefore, this means that the shareholders of typical companies will be anti-bitcoin; the pro-bitcoiners don't stay around. This suits the current management, as they know they'll likely be irrelevant in a bitcoin treasury, and so everyone sticks their head in the sand.

Est-ce que le français une langue romance?

Si oui, it's a romance language with crazy pronunciation 😃

In this message, I'm not going to try to continue the debate (directly). I just want to say a few high level things that might help. I'm still curious and I want to be able to have an open conversation with anyone, including you, in the future

I'm quite open minded about all of this still, and I haven't ruled anything out. Maybe I'll be Knots's biggest fan in a few weeks. On the other hand, I'm not even sure yet what my ultimate goals are (what is spam? do we want to suppress it? what's the most effective way to suppress it? how does this interact with other important issues such as miner centralisation?)

I had ignored Bitcoin for a few years, and I only got heavily into Bitcoin news again about six weeks ago. So I have had a lot of catching up to do. I've been on vacation for those six weeks, so I had a lot of time to catch up on many articles and podcasts

I finished watching the rest of that Bitcoin Mechanic video. None of the arguments he presented were new to me. Every point he made, even the smallest ones, were points I had heard in recent weeks. I'm not saying they are bad points, I'm just saying that I've already done my homework. I might be wrong in the big picture, but I have been doing my homework on these topics 😃

I look forward to continuing to learn more, from you and others, about the actual goals and incentives and game theory

Thanks for your response. Most of it makes sense.

But parts of the final paragraph remind me of that paranoid ramblings of big blockers, accusing everybody of being a shill. It makes me less trusting of the rest of what you say

I suspect that much of the support for Knots comes from spammy miners, and I haven't yet seen a *rational* defence of Knots that is based on high quality game theory and concern for defending Bitcoin.

I think a lot of people in this debate are deliberately talking shit in order to generate engagement

That image tells me that the number of Knots nodes increased by maybe 1,300, but the number of Core nodes decreased by only about 300. So most of the new Knots users are brand new to the Bitcoin network, as opposed to converts from Core.

Do you agree with that interpretation, or have I missed something in this data?

I ask because the goal of Knots is NOT to increase the number of users that run restrictive (i.e.. small op_return) nodes, but is instead to decrease the number of permissive (i.e. large op_return) nodes

What *exactly* do you mean by "virtue signalling"? A particular tweet? A particular merge on GitHub? A particular transaction on chain?

If, for the sake of argument, there were 20,000 Core30 nodes and 1,000,000 Knots nodes, then the spam would make its way through the Core30 nodes and would be mined.

Therefore, your goal isn't really to have more Knots nodes; your real goal is to decrease the number of permissive - i.e. Core30 nodes