https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/10.md?plain=1#L14

This and above event are authored by Snort which uses both markers "reply" and "root" in the sense I thought was correct.

e-tags should contain markers. "reply" or "root". The event I first saw an issue with, had claimed to be in reply to the OP, while a secondary e-tag referenced my event. So some clients rightfully assume it is a reply to OP as it's explicitly marking it as such a "reply" while others appear to ignore this "reply" "root" marking and follow your assumption. To my surprise, Astral agrees with Amethyst. I do not know blebstr.

Are there any Muun wallet users left that do "lightning" transactions now?

Astral:

https://void.cat/d/A5Fba5B1bcxwEmeyoD9nBs.webp

Iris:

https://void.cat/d/44hTcVvhRps6xYYs99QsqA.webp

Snort:

https://void.cat/d/4nJD5TRePuQChM5tzteYbU.webp

Amethyst agrees with Astral which I suspect are both wrong. nostr:npub13sx6fp3pxq5rl70x0kyfmunyzaa9pzt5utltjm0p8xqyafndv95q3saapa nostr:npub1v0lxxxxutpvrelsksy8cdhgfux9l6a42hsj2qzquu2zk7vc9qnkszrqj49 nostr:npub1g53mukxnjkcmr94fhryzkqutdz2ukq4ks0gvy5af25rgmwsl4ngq43drvk nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z

May I ask what client you are using? The JSON marked this as a reply to OP while also mentioning my post which I assume you hit "reply" to. This looks like a bug in your client.

👀

Daniel replied on the Dog-app and with the feedback here, my conclusion is that such an attack on its own would probably be good for Bitcoin.

* Low stakes Bitcoiners would temporarily lose access to their on-chain funds but they don't dictate the valuation of BTC.

* Miners would have an extra $4-$10 billion, part of which would flow into the development of solutions to prevent their livelihood from failing.

* Low stakers would use custodial lightning. Most already have their funds on exchanges or apps that don't even let them send/receive BTC.

* Whales would run LN nodes and probably let friends and family use them, too.

All the above is bound to happen anyway, except for the low stakers suddenly not being able to use their $100 in holdings.

Maybe nostr:npub1y24gz5gwucl79vtv4ctwpysl0r5m4xyzu2rgulnr44ks3t5mt92q4nz2ad or nostr:npub1a3xjg8pngvgm8gcygvlwx3ptu2wsaz88asvmshkl9waznwf4vh3qqrx0r7 can confirm but BTCPayServer deserves another category: With LNbank and nostr plugin, one BTCPayServer can serve many people. "Uncle Jim" model. We need to give more use to existing BTCPayServers and their lightning nodes. Sadly there is an economy of scale, making bigger nodes much more efficient than the self-custodial everyone for themselves.

Getting the nostr:npub1kdvs6qnv8eta07w2t04sq3d57c2k97hek9q5x0xluww4vretrtjq6f8zev off the ground. For all users that have reputation trapped in defunct Localbitcoins or shaky sort of maybe back Paxful.

Your event only references one Jack Dorsey - the right one. nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m

With a printing press, sustaining such an attack is possible. It's $2B/month for a $100/tx price level.

Which level would be too expensive for the printing press though? Cause $100/tx is what I expect in ten years anyway even without any such attack so artificially bumping it to that level now, might just push the development of LN and other layer two solutions.

So that supposed government would have to get BTC at some point. If they speculate BTC to crash in value - after all that is the goal of the attack - they would probably not buy a stash up-front but buy BTC as needed to sustain the attack.

With 4500 tx per block, fees per block would have to be at least $450k.

A significant part of these $450k would have to come from the attacker as it would have to assume that if legit use priced the attacker out, the attack would not be an attack anymore. If 99% of the transactions paid more than $100 in fees, the attacker's transactions would be irrelevant to the mempool and the attacker would have to further up the fees.

A necessity for winning would be that the attacker's transactions would dominate the blocks.

As the attacker is primarily concerned with keeping the fees up - with paying high fees - it could buy its Bitcoin from small sellers assuming at least part of the fees. All the small holders would send their BTC directly to the attacker.

But Bitcoin wouldn't go away. LN would boom. Custodial LN for sure but also Chaumian mints and slightly bigger pockets will maintain their own channels.

Daniel suggests a nation state could buy enough bitcoin to price out all legit use of the network for a month or 20 by just pegging the fees above $100/tx.

https://twitter.com/csuwildcat/status/1655399304268218369

How realistic or damaging is that? What would happen?

So miners would be happy and expand their capacities for sure but would the price crash? Would adoption drop?

I would be curious what could be done with this api. Is it mostly limited to what you can do in conversation with the bot?

I want a bot that tells me signal from noise in my social media experience.

* Reading posts about Bitcoin for me feels mostly like proof-reading and I should skip most of it when it's not super technical or new. Similar things happen with other subjects. I would love if a bot could help me identify posts that I'd probably like/share or comment on. So if the claims in a post were similar to what I had liked 12 times before, the bot could like it for me. If I liked it twice before, it could suggest to like it, condensing it to a phrase. "Post promoting self-custody you probably want to "like"."

* I'd like to "dislike" posts - just between the bot and myself - so it could tell me which posts better not to read.

* Of course, the bot should proof-read my posts considering my past style and suggest edits if a significant issue is found with a post. If I usually don't care about casing or use to use z inztead of s or something like that, it shouldn't criticize or edit away my style though.

* The bot could quickly read through the last 100 posts and check likes/re-posts of people I interact with and introduce them to me when I'm not following them already. "Tom is a gamer, interested in Monero. He liked your post with a cat video last week."

I was just dunking on them for taking emergency action over the obvious fee increase, only to row it back when the users ran for the doors.

So Binance stopped withdrawal of funds due to high fees.

https://void.cat/d/NPR16VNLtKoxpGwWBKKAhk.webp

See if you can spot in the second picture at which point this high fee situation resolved, so they could resume letting their customers use their money.

https://void.cat/d/G4NMTV5qVYJa2L1hGCo7oU.webp

Not really. Not in terms of sats at least and depending on what you care about, that might be the relevant metric. I'm waiting for the week that miners earn more fees than block rewards. So far we had some hours of fees being a significant portion but not quite more than the reward.

https://void.cat/d/Mj13Hm1fvnqTnyehD1vUKz.webp

My kid has me googling stuff frequently, too. My dad never got tired of explaining the world to me and I intend to keep it the same and circle back to her questions when I have the answer or explore it with her together.

Never kill a kid's curiosity!

nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx if you still have contact with Lionel, I'm so excited to listen to a follow up interview in a few months or so. You clearly went over her head there but who knows ... I doubt she has a better plan.