Love this track. I got into and developed a lifelong love of Bowie from Trent/NiN from this. You can hear his the influence here. Love the industrial percussion.
Rescued some sats from the eNuts mint. If you were using the beta, get your funds out now. The shutting down of LNBits demo server will lead to loss of control of funds.
I was not able to withdraw the last 2 sat from the mint, so here it is — a 2 sat ecash token to a beta mint that will be shut down end of March. Have fun!
Ecash token leak (never do this, this is equivalent to leaving bitcoin on the sidewalk. This 2 sat demo is to see if it gets claimed before the funds go to LNBits):
cashuAeyJ0b2tlbiI6W3sibWludCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vbGVnZW5kLmxuYml0cy5jb20vY2FzaHUvYXBpL3YxL0FwdEROQUJOQlh2OGdwdXl3aHg2TlYiLCJwcm9vZnMiOlt7ImlkIjoiT3k3RnVGRGFzaHpvIiwiYW1vdW50IjoyLCJzZWNyZXQiOiJ0U0R4VWpJTk9rSWJZOERpZDNKbE9jbFo0UkV3OTFtZFdxRnIvVlM4QkNJPSIsIkMiOiIwMzVlOGZkNzg0OWUxNDM4ZGM4NmRmMWI2MDgyNjM5YTU4OTQzZTI0NTZmMjgyZTU5NTJmNWIwOTQ2ZDQzN2UzMzAifV19XSwibWVtbyI6IlNlbnQgdmlhIGVOdXRzLiJ9
Thank you for posting this. I have rescued my sats from the beta mint. I think you have a very interesting product and look forward to seeing where you go with ecash protocol development.
Arrived! Thank you!
Devils advocate: Why is a Bitcoin ETF more desirable than say, WBTC or RenBTC (answer obvious on 2nd, but let’s assume it worked today. lol. [That rascal SBF really fsu])?
Both tokens had a trusted or semi-trusted redemption in-kind process, central exchange, Dex and hybrid compat. Composability. There were even interesting financial products attempting to extract yield algorithmically. ETF has one of this, except fiat cash redemption.
I remember when the eth jokers were saying eventually people would be all be trading BTC through erc-20 because economics of tx. Now we are talking about moving sats via liquid.
We really are all absurd
The SEC neutered (for now) the Bitcoin ETFs by not allowing in-kind redemption. If all you are required to do when a customer wants their corn, you borrow more fiat, the thing is flimsy. Gotta keep the fiat the ponzi rolling. Surely a sovereign wealth holder won’t recall 100ks BTC in one shot?… we can just borrow more dollars to make it go away…
Only when you can trade your brokerage database entry in one of the ETFs, for the equivalent in actual onchain sats, it’s just more paper coin. This may playing out like the Gold ETFs.
Sure. Have your 401k in Bitcoin ETFs for the sick alpha denominated in fiat, but end up being stuck in retirement with disproportionately more worthless fiat.
It’s a force close. Could be due to HTLC on expire, could be one side publishing an old state. It’s often automated by the node software, and not a conscious human actions. It happens. State gets corrupt, node tears down a channel to restore a known state. I have had several, out of my control, costing me lots of sats :-(
This all demonstrates the lack of sustainability of Lightning. The bleeding of sats will continue until the spam goes away. The fact some morons can break Lightning for $60 worth of jpegs shows you this tech isn’t working as expected
This might be an appeal to authority, but if someone with high Bitcoin and Tradfi credibility; like Saylor or nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m said publicly that Bitcoin as a project is too important to go off track hosting arbitrary data - we have known for many years it’s possible, it’s just most of us know better not to do so. It’s a cultural issue, not a technical issue. It’s a lack of respect for building something good.
Way too many people out there don’t even know why they do what they do.
Why is a time chain enforced data storage needed for jpegs? Or other random out-of-context strings? It isn’t. And it’s worse, it’s actively harmful.
If it doesn’t relate to consensus, or the claim to sats, it doesn’t need to be on chain. Every byte should interact with the client, be efficient!
Storage is not for the blockchain. Using it for storage is an attack on the integrity of the ledger.
Non-Monetary use cases, like eternal storage, will eventually out-price monetary use cases, there are many more cases and often and have a different fee heuristic. Eternal storage can be especially insidious because losing 98% of an UTXO in fees is acceptable for that use case.
This out-prices the rational monetary user who is seeking a reasonable fee to transact funds.
Myself, and other Lightning operators are bleeding millions of sats with these fees. Channels are not getting reestablished. Eventually all liquidity concentrates, and payments fail.
If this continues, myself and others may shut down their nodes, further concentrating the problem.
Not feeling especially bullish on Bitcoin right now.
Had a channel Force close (channel not created by me) drain my node onchain funds burning most of it in fees for the CPFP and HTLC timeout.
Cost to me was about 280k sats.
Total value recovered from force close about 50k sat.
Something is very broken here.
We need to fix these fees, because this is highly uneconomical and a risk to funds at 600sat/vb. Makes me not want to run an LND.
Alternative clients are a menace. Satoshi warned us of this — the fact we have such a schism with CLN/LND is unfortunate, and I have seen first hand compatibility issues and loss of funds scenarios with LN. Luckily implementation differences are usually peer to peer problematic, rather than network consensus level problematic — but with the base layer, there can be only one.
Development efforts should be concentrated on layer 2.
The developer of a “prominent” alt mainnet client recently started a pool and is accepting user hash to mine blocks based on its templates.
I wish nothing but the best for the “Tonal Bitcoin” altcoin when it eventually hits a consensus breaking bug and forks off the Bitcoin blockchain. Please patch for replay attacks!
I paid the 100k sats just now but I notice there was no BTCPay order ID associated with the invoice. Payment went through but no change on the payment screen. Hope you got it and can tag me as a mortal. Also cool tshirt ❤️
Hey nostr:npub1xnf02f60r9v0e5kty33a404dm79zr7z2eepyrk5gsq3m7pwvsz2sazlpr5 I went to pay at pubkey last night and the new Zeus app had erased my remote LND config and I was not able to pay in sats. Launching it now just starts a local node. I can reconfigure the remote node but I think it’s a bug that it lost the old config.
Turns out this was a thing on iOS. No problem. I think I’d like to donate to get one of those beautiful T-shirt’s!
Hey nostr:npub1xnf02f60r9v0e5kty33a404dm79zr7z2eepyrk5gsq3m7pwvsz2sazlpr5 I went to pay at pubkey last night and the new Zeus app had erased my remote LND config and I was not able to pay in sats. Launching it now just starts a local node. I can reconfigure the remote node but I think it’s a bug that it lost the old config.
Excellent, the ignorefeelimits option in setchannel Core Lightning 23.08 allowed my LND node with stuck channels to connect and continue using channels. Previously I have been unable to establish a connection between my LND and CLN nodes since 23.05, and several other peers with channels established when fees were lower. I think the topology of LN will improve as 23.08 rolls out, several of my channels roared back to life. Route sats n bits!
I am concerned that various client compat issues between CLN and LND will lead to LN fragmentation and split capital access to the network. CLN has a channel state bug with LND peers offering too low or high fees, and CLN will disconnect them. I have some sats locked in channels between nodes that will autodrop the p2p connection due to this. Maybe will force close later.
There is a fix in the works on both sides, but this will take a while to make its way to the servers. Satoshi, of course, warned that clients need to be in lockstep, and multiple implementations are menace…
Ran into an issue between my LND 0.16.3 and CLN v23.05 nodes where CLN will terminate the peer connection with a : update_fee X outside range Y-Z (currently A). The ignore-fee-limit param is currently broken in v23.05 (CLN issue 6362) but proposed fix today. On the LND side, (LND issue 7805) is a proposed fix for the update_fee rate changes. I’m tempted to close the channels so peers can reconnect and reestablish, as it may take time for both sides fixes to make it to the nodes. nostr:npub1wg2m9ku823y5l5699dlj6294dc3cvwu4g34ldrtelxq20t27clxsd7dzaw
Some Glasgow street art. Spent the day exploring the city. 
