Buncha reasons:

1. We have a lot to do that is specific to our system. Designing a "better" note-sharing protocol isn't a burden we need

2. Nostr is good! And has lots of clients and a decent adoption curve.

3. I think our tech can actually fix a lot of problems people have with Nostr relays. Good opportunity to introduce ourselves to a community with a positive contribution

4. Plunder should be viable as a "backend" personal API for anything you want to throw at it. Gobbling up existing "Earth data" and remaining compatible is part of the goal (vs just reinventing everything on the inside and not being able to talk to Earth)

Yeah fair point.

But at this stage I'm so SSI-pilled that when I see a "relay" "node" or "server" of any kind I can't help but think, "but this would just be so much better as a dependency-free, portable binary with all data serialized in a single-level store event log!

I have a mental problem :)

Shitcoins are not the answer

What is next on Bitkey roadmap?

Who said self-custodial Lightning is not viable?

Viable for what purpose in particular?

“The only hope” is a bit of a general/sweeping statement, which I tend to try and avoid. (I still make such statements, of course).

But in general, at least right now — assuming we’re referring to the goal of Bitcoin sovereignty for a global population (which I think is usually the underlying question here) — I’m of the mind that we don’t have the “solution” yet, if there is to be one primary, all-encompassing solution, which also may not be the case.

But Lightning, ARK, eCash, sidechains - it’s all pretty cool and interesting and new and cutting edge. Perhaps none of them are “the” solution. If there is *one* solution, it probably hasn’t been invented yet!

And just like the way that Bitcoin was discovered/created after decades of experimentation with other projects that solved different parts of the problem, I would expect that bringing self-custody sats to the masses will require the synthesis of various projects into something that checks all the boxes.

Also worth noting: Bitcoin successfully dis-intermediates central banks, and offers global citizens a currency with a monetary policy that can’t be fucked with by those banks or governments.

That is a HUGE gift to humanity.

If (and when) an era of digital free banking, using eCash or Lightning or something new, is then built on top of a Bitcoin standard, it will be a massive improvement to the lives of all people. The “best” banks can publish verifiable proof-of-reserve. Or they can offer a transparent, fuckery-free fractional reserve model to those clients who wish to take on a bit more risk, in exchange for some interest (rewards), while other citizens will choose a simple and transparent custody model where they pay a small amount of fees (instead of being paid interest) to have a responsible third party protect their wealth. Humans - many humans - want this, and always will. The market will deliver it.

And for those of us who *don’t* want to rely on any third party for this service? Well, now, we finally have the tools and the means to do it the way we want to.

Freedom = (choice x privacy x autonomy) + confidence that the other factors will not be encroached upon

Or something like that.

You got me thinking 😁🫂🤝🤙🫡

Between custodial lightning and custodial ecash, custodial ecash wins.

The question is can we add custodial services without building incentives to never self-custody anything?

This is how nation states will screw their citizens in 50 years. For now, we're still on the Bitcoin standard, but I'm convinced the commies have already invaded this space to get back to money printing.

Central banking is central to communism. It's a devilish design, but the need it, or everything else falls apart.

It depends what you are willing to accept as money.

If you want private money, ecash is it and it has some great properties for payment.

If you want sound money, ecash ain't it, but it is redeemable for sound money so you can always have both and interchange and without worrying about conversion rates or anything like that.

Self-custody Lightning is tied to an on-chain UTXO, yes.

But a custodial Lightning provider could just as easily create “paper sats” as an eCash mint could.

Bitcoin eCash doesn’t purport to solve everything. It’s still custodial, so a user can still get rugged and the Mint could still play paper games. Same incentives - and approximately the same risks - as a basic custodial Lightning wallet provider like Alby or WoS in this area. Gotta choose to trust a mint the same as you’d choose to trust Alby etc.

But eCash offers a significantly better privacy schematic than a standard custodial Lightning wallet provider. That’s the primary improvement over regular (custodial) Lightning.

It also can offer faster transactions and smoother UX in some cases, and the cryptography/tech (the little of it that I understand) is extremely cool.

Why do you think ecash is f&g?

I've been learning about it over the past day or so and I'm liking it a lot for particular use cases.