You don't need a separate computer or a lot of space to run a bitcoin node.

You can install Bitcoin core on your day to day computer/laptop and prune it to only take up a few GB.

This allows you to broadcast transactions to the chain without relying on someone else's node.

Please do this if you don't already.

I made this up unfortunately 😅🤣

"A high floor is also a ceiling." -- Confucius

我来啦🤗

Please shill me something that I should watch 🧐

Very interesting article, thanks!

I hadn't considered (1) (cut-through) at all, at least I don't remember discussing it, but I totally agree that it's a very substantial possible angle of usage, and has economic incentive, at least if payjoin is a regular thing. A lot of it interacts with output substitution though, something we didn't discuss much until the end of the BIP78 discussion (and it was mostly motivated by address types iirc). I was and remain leery of it; as you already saw recently, it requires a very "hardened" security model, if anything is slightly off it introduces theft vectors. Still, if people get things right, for sure this kind of flexibility achieves something. It's just more dangerous.

As for (2) it feels very 'meh' to me. Even the concept that a receiver-merchant saves something is dubious because it's just kind of "cheating" the sender. And gains very little percentage wise anyway. Meanwhile you can save overhead, too, if you just accept 100 normal payments and then do a batch send of them later. (i.e. normal non-payjoin batching).

So, I remember when we thought about it "back in the day" we sort of concluded that "well, it doesn't technically reduce the fee costs for a merchant, if they pay for their inputs in the payjoin, but it can allow them to change when they pay fees" which could end up being better for them ... the point is really tricky.

Maybe you've thought about it recently in detail (I haven't!) so you may have a more exact perspective (btw please write it down somewhere if so!).

And then there's the scenario of a non-merchant receiver (which might apply here); it might not be relevant at all, there. Now with your new scheme, that becomes a more likely scenario than it was before.

Not that there's anything wrong with that position but: payjoin does do something that other coinjoins aren't doing (today): creating additional obfuscation that nobody knows happened ("steganographic"). There are other reasons to do it, perhaps, but that's the main one: a different way to break blockchain analysis and make the history of your coins even more uncertain.

Also, while you may well be paid to take part in coinjoins, bear in mind that nothing is free (e.g. if you're using maker mode in joinmarket there are several limitations, especially if you *only* use maker mode).

Centralized responsibility would be a simpler solution than unstructured chaos

There seems to be something with Nostr that I've seen through casual observation and then discussions among new people - that having a really small following results in disproportionately low engagement. (ie. half the followers means 1/4th the engagement or something similar)

In other words, it seems like the bootstrapping phase of this network for new people is worse than on traditional platforms. But I can't think of an obvious reason why this might be unless it's a consequence of not having cross-talk between relays.

Wondering if there might be a way to somehow amplify or ensure wide relay connections for those new to the platform, without amplifying bots and scams at the same time?

Maybe this is just sort of an inescapable reality of the tech, but mostly just thinking out loud. 🤔

Renting a car for the uber rides via their app is total bullshit. 2 hours prior to pick up they canceled my reservation because no cars available and said to come back next week 🤡