The coordinator gets paid by charging fees for the use of his platform
Probably something like "I won't list your offers unless you pay 1%"
As for the oracle, I haven't thought of a funding model for the oracle yet
But while writing that I thought of this: it would make sense to me to use Chainlink. The coordinator can use part of his income to pay them a monthly fee; as long as they get paid, I don't think they would mind revealing preimage/hash pairs for the events they report results for in the ethereum ecosystem
I recommend participating in the Nut November hackathon, especially if you are a newb in the bitcoin app development space: https://nutnovember.org/
Very cool pull request in bitcoin core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30595
And it's merged! It "may be used by external applications for interfacing with Bitcoin Core's validation logic"
It also links to a bunch of cool applications that already use it
1. I tried to earnestly understand and explore nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk and nostr:npub1yxp7j36cfqws7yj0hkfu2mx25308u4zua6ud22zglxp98ayhh96s8c399s’s arguments.
With Luke I just have to say “agree to disagree” when he argues that CSAM is _only_ illegal/immoral when it’s in an OP_RETURN up ‘till 100kb post-September 2025— everything else is “non-CSAM” in his view even if they’re the exact same bytes.
Super Testnet meanwhile seems to have gotten stuck on this question: nostr:nevent1qqszr45wevkva76m7ypmaklmj7wq35h8g3g0a0zcpdmf6zemzlj63pgpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyr5dvlzrtf99jvzwzs2zsr549mlp00jz2n72y7gkha3lnae72j46gqcyqqqqqqg8vjxqn 2. It was never about Citrea specifically; Citrea just showed that there is demand for >80 bytes of data, and if such use cases can’t use OP_RETURN they’ll just use fake pubkeys which NO ONE should want. 3. Not a technical argument. But I’d say if anyone uses nasty triggers it’s Luke et al claiming (and this is a real quote) “Bitcoin Core is trying to force everyone who uses Bitcoin to distribute child porn”— not to mention the shit you’re throwing at the wall here yourself.
You mentioned that I didn't reply to one of your questions
I apologize for not replying sooner
Sorry for not replying sooner
I think there are at least two downsides of op_returns: (1) their purpose is to store arbitrary data, which discourages node running the more it is used, and thus increases node centralization; (2) they store that arbitrary data in a relatively precious location -- base space -- which drives up fees more than alternatives like inscription envelopes.
My latest invention is Aggeus: a protocol for creating permissionless prediction markets on bitcoin. In this video, I outline the protocol, demo my proof of concept, and answer questions from the founder of @predyx_markets
Probably, and I'd like to see more work into making that painless
E.g. what if you could sign an "exit psbt," post it somewhere, and go offline. Maybe other people who also want to exit could add inputs and outputs to your psbt, and if 10 people do so, a service provider broadcasts it
I think of nostr as "free cloud storage, hosted by unreliable volunteers"
You seem to be saying "that's a dumb way to think of it, just think of it as an interoperable set of apis, and then you'll see it is useful"
I concede that it is also the latter and that that is good and useful
But what I mostly use it for is free cloud storage, and I have found it to be unreliable for that purpose, except when the data is small and ephemeral
"Batch exits" are underexplored in the effort to scale bitcoin
L2s like Lightning and Ark both support "unilateral exits," and you can save space by exiting directly from one L2 into another, but you can save even *more* space by doing that in batches
Is anyone working on this?
You are eight, I should have added a qualifier that what I was saying only applies to data hosted on public, free relays
Yes: https://www.sparkscan.io/?network=mainnet
On a related note, it is probably possible for devs to undermine their efforts by techniques similar to those used to obtain privacy on L1
They know the balance of every pubkey, but (1) if you don't associate your pubkey with your identity you get pseudonympus privacy (2) I think pseudonymity can be equivalent to anonymity if you avoid reusing or linking your pubkeys (3) avoiding pubkey linking is an unsolved problem
I don't think so, I'm not sure where Satoshi would stand on this debate, and even if I was confident that he would have stood on one side back then, I don't know what side he would stand on today
A lot has changed
I don't know much about him
Guess he goes into the Rando category
I don't understand what I'm looking at
It looks like senshi is interested in the term "cpunk" and uses the "gmx.de" domain
I don't see any other connections that might be relevant
Wanna help me out a bit more by expanding on what you think these statistics show?
I am unfamiliar with the story
Want to share a link to where I can read more?
My Satoshi Probability Chart
