say that someone wants to nuke a Twitter account but wants to have a professional-grade archive of the tweets which include media and is nearly organized, going back 10+ years with tens of thousands of tweets.

is there a service to do this? willing to pay a few hundred bucks

Couldn't make it all the way to the old town on my 30 minute ticket, so "had to" walk a bit. #Prague

I think American Hodl is a cool guy. He seems genuine to me. I like his vibe. He is young-ish, has kids and a life and believes passionately in this. We anons are like this just without the ego 😂

This is how I’m imagine it:

We’ll have many interoperable ecash federations using Lightning to clear bitcoin between each other.

Federated ecash would be perfect for everyday transactions. Anonymous, very small transaction fees.

I’m not aware of any reason why this model cannot scale to billions of transactions per day.

The federations would be geographically distributed with trusted but anonymous federation managers so they’re difficult for governments to attack and suppress.

Man I really want to set up a network attached storage device myself but I don't have the cash for it atm. And I probably have a lot to learn with disk specs, setups, etc. One day...

Please listen to Livera’s podcast with NVK. It’s not possible for everyone in the world to have their own UTXO and use it for everyday transactions. It never was possible. This “dream” — that people have that everyone can be self sovereign — is sold by folks who are idealistic but haven’t done the math.

I would love it too if everyone could be self sovereign. It’s just that I understand the limitations and I’m not willing to chase an impossible dream and compromise the decentralization of the protocol.

If you disagree, do the math. Show me how everyone in the world can have their own UTXO and make everyday transactions on L1 with self sovereignty.

Our objective is to replace central banks. Unfortunately most people in the world will be using bitcoin ecash. It’s not true self sovereignty with their own UTXO but 1000x better than the current system where central bankers control our money and print it at will.

nostr:note18w5gf2f84k4zfazs6hscr2n7tt2f85xt8ycdeedgjhchnz88rlds04q4fl

Damn! What kind of setup is this?

1000 sats to the winner who can guess which Nostr Dev bailed on me for Dev Hack Day at Prague by giving me the excuse that he's having an appendicitis.

We love him and wish him a fast recovery. This shitpost will help him heal fast and/or laugh and pop a stitch.

So when BTCPayServer integrates Cashu and we make ecash work nicely with a simple NFC tap to pay – will this mark the end of the credit card era? Just maybe 👀.

Bullish.

Have fun!

Didn't saylor do exactly this with DID proposal? Stuffing more data into limited block space

Saylor explicitly argued for throughput as a scarce resource one should not simply inflate.

I listened to the What Bitcoin Did Saylor podcast, and I really want to respond, though that may be unwise. But I want thoughtful, fearless content in my feed, so I should start making some, right?

Firstly, while analogies can provide useful guide rails for understanding, listening to people *arguing* using analogies makes you stupider. Debate the thing itself, not the words about the thing: it hurts my head to even think about doing this, so I won't.

Let's set my priors first: I assume we're talking about technically solid, well-vetted, backward compatible protocol changes: this is the minimum bar.

I don't wholesale agree with Saylor's "don't threaten anyone's investment" hard limit. This has happened multiple times in the past, from the dust limit breaking SatoshiDice, enabling Lightning threatening miner fees (real or not), and segwit breaking stealth ASICBoost. These interests can, and will, stand up for themselves and will compete against other benefits of changes.

To be explicit: I consider any protocol change which makes block space usage more efficient to be a win!

Obviously Saylor is invested in Bitcoin the asset, and can afford to do all his business onchain in any conceivable scenario. His projection of a Bitcoin world in which there are 100,000 companies and governments who use Bitcoin as the base layer is interesting:

1. This does not need "smart contracts", just signatures. By this model, Bitcoin Script was a mistake.

2. It can work if Bitcoin does not scale and is incredibly expensive to spend and hold. By this model, the consumer hardware wallet industry is a dead-end and needs to pivot to something else (nostr keys, ecash?)

3. You could do this with gold, today? Bitcoin here is simply an incremental, not fundamental, improvement. I think this is suggestive, though: that such a network would not be long-term stable, and very much subject to capture.

4. In this view, Saylor is simply a gold bug with first mover advantage, shilling his bags. That's fine, but it's important to understand people's motivations.

5. This vision does not excite me. I wouldn't have left Linux development to work on making B2B commerce more efficient. I wouldn't get up at 5:30am for spec calls, and I sure as hell wouldn't be working this cheap.

I believe we can make people's UTXOs more powerful, and thus feel a moral responsibility to do so. This gives them more control over their own money, and allows more people to share that control. I assume that more people will do good things than stupid things, because assuming the other way implies that someone should be able to stop them, and that's usually worse.

I believe the result will be a more stable, thus useful, Bitcoin network. I am aware that this will certainly benefit people with very different motivations than me (Saylor).

Thanks for reading, and sorry for the length!