Greenlight is not the peer, you can open chans to whichever peer you want

Watchtower can solve the second

Nobody is going to run the malware that CSW wants either. Didn't stop him from dragging a dozen developers into a multi million dollar lawsuit.

Presumably both. Lobby miners to vote no, or lobby devs to blacklist the withdrawal transaction. The latter presumably fails, but can still be a massive distraction and involve (legal) harassment.

I consider LN a done deal. The reasons were briefly posted on twitter already but since twitter account is deleted I'll provide them again here.

1) Serious LN dev is hard and time consuming, I no longer have time or resources to keep it up or even maintain what has been developed so far. In my opinion the whole LN protocol is overly complex and is getting worse and at this point can only be developed by very few high profile specialists at a very slow pace. Philosophically, I think Bitcoin as a protocol should have a complexity barrier such that it does not get beyond a point where laymen just can't understand and trust it, I think LN has already passed that barrier.

2) It's been 6+ years of struggle to get LN anywhere beyond a community of mostly ideological users with no visible success or perspective. My opinion is ultimately LN is not what market at large wants from Bitcoin and folks should look into other directions besides dumb payments, and not overly fixate on LN.

3) Remaining LN demand has been mostly absorbed by various custodial solutions. A truly non-custodial LN wallet will always be worse than a custodial one in UX terms and historically we see that majority of remaining users consistently choose convenience over control. This makes developing end-user non-custodial LN solutions feel like the most thankless thing in the world.

nostr:note1c0ynwvu4urfx7qmxen4z5y6ddqp4u5hkhwt6je5cgf6s7heax7fqe9zysr

Overhyped claims that didnt survive community scrutiny. They then started a trolling campaign which backfired spectacularly. The numbers didnt add up, and it was a rugpull waiting to happen. Bitcoin once again made the right choice. Onwards.

What's your favorite machine learning / optimization algorithm?

I've spent years working with evolutionary algorithms (genetic programming). I love evolutionary algorithms.

ALRIGHT! DM! IF YOU ARE IN TORONTO OR IN ONTARIO! We’ll do a NOSTR meetup. ill vlog it too and shoutout ZBD in the video. If this gets over 20+ people. ill do it easy.

bros is semvar a nerd trap scam

I am my neck pain.

My neck pain is me.

😞😞

Not looking forward to the many ñ long flights starting tomorrow to nostrasia 😅

Not doxx my IP address to relays

With regard to ecash, it's certainly a cool product, but I think it's a pale imitation of an asynchronous payment. Let's say Alice wants to send money to Bob. If Alice uses Carol's service to create an ecash token for Bob, it might seem asynchronous because Alice may go offline. But Alice isn't really the sender anymore. She gave her money to Carol and got her to promise *she* will send it to Bob. (Or rather, whoever comes first to claim it with something that is essentially a promissory note.) When that happens, the real sender is not Alice, it's Carol, and in order for it work Carol (the sender) must be online when Bob wants the money.

I don't have anything against that, I think it's cool. But I don't think it's *as* cool as a true asynchronous payment. With zaplocker, Carol never has your money. Carol is essentially a routing node between Alice and Bob, and routing nodes don't have custody of funds that use them as part of a path. I think that's cooler than a custodial model like ecash. Instead of depositing *money* with Carol, Alice routes a payment *through* Carol in such a way that Carol can only cancel it or forward it, not keep it. But after that it's largely the same: Alice may go offline, and Bob may come collect his money at his leisure. With ecash, Bob doesn't have a time limit, which is cool, but I think that's an acceptable tradeoff since the gain is self custody.

I found a way to do it: run two nodes. The first has a short max-cltv-expiry and charges low fees. The second has a long max-cltv-expiry and charges high fees. Voila, your charging extra for longer-held htlcs.

I hate this