So disappointing that I’m their rush to scale Bluesky dropped all the decentralized moderation architecture they built. Just embarrassing.
Nor that. Taking all the counts and adding up the total maximum sentence for each is not how federal sentencing works (and not just any kind of “in theory the judge could….” kinda way, they can’t do that).
No, Roger is not facing 109 years in prison. That’s not how federal sentencing works, that’s never how federal sentencing has ever fucking worked. Stop quoting morons who don’t know how things work.
Sure, you can just hide the message behind a tap - removes the message from the payments list but users can still see it. Sadly, I think you’re right - and frankly dunno that the messages are worth having 🤷♂️
Wallets should just not display the message (under a certain threshold?) until the user taps into the transaction. That takes the value away for advertisers but retains the original purpose.
The better solution is to just not display the Zap/message under a threshold. That’s what many wallets already do AFAIU. Rejecting money bound for a user sucks, tho, even if it’s tiny, especially since users currently expect that to work.
Nah, for travel you need bag structure to put things in their place and have them all stay there. Especially important for clothes to avoid wrinkles.
I mean if it has a hard back I’m not sure why collapsible helps? Pushing an empty full suitcase isn’t all that hard if it has four wheels…
But, yea, a proper four wheel suitcase (I’m partial to TravelPro over Away but whatever) is the way to go for actual travel use-cases - sturdy, not annoying cause the sides are always collapsing when you’re trying to put stuff in, hard sides also give structure for where to place items as you add them, etc. But for events…I dunno, if you really want something collapsible, I dunno what’s good, not a lot of competition for such things because they suck for travel.
Well see, there’s your problem, you prefer terrible suitcases.
Why are you sending automated abuse emails?
Thoughts on the Roger Ver/Tucker Carlson interview
First, let me be clear, I've had a somewhat combative history with Roger [1], but the man does not deserve to be in prison. The US Government's contention that a non-citizen can be guilty of tax evasion is just laughable on its face.
That said, there are a whole lot of lies and half-truths in that interview. First, Roger still seems to be giving himself credit for Bitcoin's early success. Yes, he promoted it a lot on different platforms, and indeed he was known as "Bitcoin Jesus" for a bit for his almost incessant proselytizing. But he wasn't the reason for Bitcoin's success and it was this belief that led him to say "I made Bitcoin what it is today and I'll do the same with Bitcoin Cash." Years of languishing BCH price (literally the same price as it was 2017 and that's not taking inflation into account) hasn't humbled the guy one bit.
He also shilled a lot of different altcoins, mostly focused around privacy. One of his goals on the show seems to have been to pump his bags and for him, it's probably not very different than his early Bitcoin advocacy. He's still a classic altcoin promoter and despite his utter lack of success the last 7 years, he continues down this path.
But the most egregious lie is this idea that his new book is the reason why everything is happening to him, implying that he has something so important to say that the US government must shut him down. The suggestion is that somehow Bitcoin was taken over by the US government and that they needed to suppress his book for the sake of government policy.
The lie wouldn't be so egregious if he sincerely believed it. But I don't think that's the case. Why? Because he still owns Bitcoin. The man is a salesman first, and his public pronouncements are almost always spin to get other people to buy what he's selling.
Personally, I don't think his arguments were compelling and he kept saying "cryptocurrency" which grated on my ears, but who knows how many people will be convinced by him? But then again, I always thought CSW was a fraud, but there were a surprising number of people that fell for his claims (including Ver, at least for a time).
Regardless, I don't think this presages some sort of Roger Ver comeback as he's been irrelevant for a long time. Yes, he may go to prison and become something like a celebrity cause, and he certainly has enough money to promote his suffering. And yea, he may get some fame from being something like political prisoner of the deep state. But it won't make his opinions any more palatable because they're demonstrably dumb.
[1] https://jimmysong.medium.com/bitcoin-cash-is-a-fiat-money-39626c002f77
His book came out *after* this “all started happening to him”. He’s just an asshole who’s sad he lost and can’t accept it.
(Sure prison time of that long for tax evasion is probably not right either, but there are worse miscarriages of justice)
Snakes who spent years trying to destroy Bitcoin should stay in their holes rather than trying to emerge and claim they were the savior all along.
And that’s 100k
Sure, but once you have given them a bitcoin wallet and they have some bitcoin and are used to bitcoin transactions being instant, suddenly them sending their funds back out being super slow is gonna piss them off :(
that's not how https://boltz.exchange/ worked when I tried it. I just pay a lightning invoice and they send bitcoin to my onchain address. I'm not sure what the UX issue is. This can be streamlined with NWC as well. Would just need to create the swap with an API call somehow.
Right, the lightning -> on-chain direction is instant, but the issue is the other way.
not sure what you mean, isn't that what https://boltz.exchange is for? although in our case we can pay the bolt11 and fund the onchain tx directly with NWC.
I interpreted your design as “hold funds in a custodial lightning wallet until they get big enough, then pull them on chain”. The problem with step two is now to send them back out over lightning you first have to do an on-chain transaction to set up a swap, which will be a terrible UX for paying lightning invoices.
The design makes a hell of a lot of sense otherwise (it’s kinda the old mutiny model), just have to hold the funds in lightning channels.
simple but effective "noncustodial" lightning wallet idea: auto-withdrawl to a non-custodial bitcoin address generated by damus via something like https://boltz.exchange/ at a certain balance. could make this automatic and default to derisk NWC custodians.
You really want the withdrawn funds to still be able to pay to a lightning invoice for decent UX, though, so you really need to withdraw to a channel.
Users get really sad when they can’t send their full balance in one transaction to any payment method supported.
That does not solve the issues, sadly far from it.