What is blocked?

The issue with emptying a lighting wallet are the lighting fees which are hard to know upfront and there are related attack vectors to steal funds.

Thus probably all lightning wallets require a small reserve based on the amount you try to send and this sadly makes it hard to send the last sat sometimes.

If you have issues contact support and I am sure you get the sats in no time.

this error looks like a BlueWallet authentication error with LNDHub.

if you use Alby be aware that if you create new lndhub credentials then the old ones become invalid and you must add use the new lndhub credentials in bluewallet.

let me know if we can help.

meh, this message sucks and also gives a wrong impression.

As it's already known we have the full focus on Alby Hub and we must reduce the limits and want people to run their own hubs.

I make sure that some proper information and plan is shared asap. We can't just send such a message that just confuses everybody. Sorry about that.

hey, what problem do you see. sorry I don't know about the case? can I help?

We only focus fully on Alby Hub and no longer on the shared wallet for now. So you're good to go there!

The lightning address is there exactly for that and allows to change the wallet that is used. (as opposed to the node key)

We believe those "addresses" should be owned by the user and the user can then choose the wallets freely. This is the beauty of the open network.

At Alby we always have been working towards that.

What do you miss - except maybe a free option?

Is nodeless similar to serverless - it means somebody else's node/server?

To speak of a knockoff is even hilarious to me.

I mean, what a genius invention is it to show the block time instead of the time on a well known device with very basic components?

The state of bitcoin in 2024: fighting if somebody is allowed to show the current block number on a device (on a devices similar to thousands that normally show the time)

This is really a new low.

and with an ubuntu machine it works?!

whoa, what?!. interesting.

I am still debugging this but without success. so you have this reproducable on a debian?

that for sure was a dumb comment. :) not intended to be taken serous.

But I still don’t understand an argument.

haha, is that the favorit topic some of the bitcoin religion like to argue about? that carnivore religion is stupid

let’s write code 🙏

🤔 so you don’t believe Ross’s information and references there,

not that strange Curtis guy,

also not the justice system which dropped the charges,

you dislike the bitcoiners who like Ross,

double life + 40 years without parole is fine because you “think”.

;)

I don’t think Ross thinks he is a hero at all. far from it. did you ever listen to what he says and see what he does?!

maybe some Bitcoiners treat him like that, but that’s not his fault.

you base your thinking on some unproven claims that have been dropped by the justice system.

I don’t see you applying that critical thinking that you claim others should have.

and I think villainizing somebody is as bad as making somebody a hero.

the specific facts should be the only thing that matters no matter if angel or devil.

you did not reply to me.

did you read the content on the freeross site?

did you listen to him and look into what he is doing?

and what is a deserved sentence for which crime?

why were the charges that you focus on dropped?

seems your reasoning is more like because disliking some bitcoiners?

it’s about a crime that somebody is not convicted for and has thus not really something to do with another crime somebody committed and is convicted for. it’s a successful distraction…

I don’t see how you can justify that somebody is convicted for a crime that you say should not be charged on the bases of another claim for which charges actually had been dropped.

how is this justice?

but let’s research that claims and also why it was dropped.

it also has nothing to do with “heros”. it must be about justice and not if somebody likes somebody or not.

In the Assange case many people said there was a rape case and because of that he is guilty of everything and people did not care.

which is bad imo.

if there was case A then one must be prosecuted for that, but that has mostly nothing to do with another case case B.

and if you say he is a danger, did you look at his actions in prison?

Shouldn’t you then call for the prosecution of that crime? and that the crimes he is convicted for is commuted?

It’s not OK or how things work or should work.

one is and should be sentenced for the crime that somebody committed and is convicted based on a due court process with evidence presented.

again, first of all he is not convicted of that. so it seems it is not that clear.

but as I said before and to go with it, what should be a justified sentence for that? and is his sentence justified for you justified - and compared that to other sentences.

what should be my sentence of saying Alex should be killed? ;)

some of the investigators actually got convicted for some fraud if I remember correctly.

and also I think it never was proven that these messages are by him. (I need to read up on that agin)

I assume you read the material on the freeross website?

if he would have been convicted of murder of 5 people then probably nobody would complain.

but he is not and there are no people dead. (and as far as I remember even one of the people who should have been killed spoke out in favor if him)

and even if we assume the chat is real and from him the sentence is not justified, is it? actual murderers have gotten way less.

It’s been many years that I researched the case more - I need to refresh it - but just from looking at the crimes he is convicted for the sentence is a no-go. (esp. in comparison to other sentences of similar crimes)