#Democrats are going to have to give up the nanny state if they want to beat the #MAGA authoritarian train. The only way to take down big government is by starving it of the #dollar. Adopt #Bitcoin to kill the beast, but in doing so the Dems drive a stake into their own heart.
Sounds good to me.
MAGA: Free speech! But only if it's speech I agree with!
What a bunch of fucking pussies.
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/brendan-carr-abc-fcc-jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-1236522406/
I think your idealistic libertarian arguments are getting in the way of practicality. Similar to this jewel:
The Dems are appalled by Trump's authoritarian political moves.
The best way to depose a dictator is to cut off funding.
The only way to do that is by ditching the dollar for a money you can't print: #Bitcoin.
But the irony is that they conflate #Bitcoin with crypto and Trump, so they'll never move to it.
Not to mention they are just as authoritarian when they are in office. They're just not so loud about it.
It seems counterintuitive, but offering a RLOC against Bitcoin collateral would likely yield more return than offering only lump sum loans.
1. RLOC's are inherently more attractive to HODLers because they pay interest only on what credit they've used. The volume of RLOCs would be so much higher than lump sum loans that those offering the credit would make more yield than offering only lump sum.
2. RLOC's are the missing pieces in many HODLers #FIRE plans. It makes more sense to sell and keep cap gains taxes negligible (spend under 96k for a married couple) than to take the interest hiit on a 100k loan while dealing with liquidation risk in a bear market.
3. As a consequence of more HODLers taking out RLOC's rather than selling, BTC trades higher and perpetuates more HODLers hitting FIRE and taking out even more RLOCs.
nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5tm8sjr nostr:nprofile1qqsg2zqd8wkhpnxu6lm5c2dyfa2mhpwte57apjae2ldp6g2mmwf3ypqpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7q2hwaehxw309anxjmr5v4ezumn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tmwwp6kyvtnx4uhzdnhv9j8wuncv3jngmrgveen2dn8dcmrg6rh0f6ksmnxvym8ywtddg6rwdnjx4eng6rtw4h85em6w9e8xdn3xaaquwrzjs nostr:nprofile1qqsp4lsvwn3aw7zwh2f6tcl6249xa6cpj2x3yuu6azaysvncdqywxmgpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzenhwden5te0ve5kcar9wghxummnw3ezuamfdejj7mnsw43rzun5d3ckxcfcwgmxzatev9mn2m34dqekcdf5xgexgmf5wde8jdty0fnx2ef5xcunven3v5u8xdn3va6kg6mnxajx5arxwvlkyun0v9jxxctnws7hgun4v5dpfm4n , y'all got connections. Can you plant the seed with the big wigs?
nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5tm8sjr, is a #bitcoin RLOC in the #strike lending pipeline? It would be amazing to only pay interest on what we have actually spent. Lump sum loans accruing large amounts of interest are inefficient for what most bitcoiners want to do: spend day-to-day against their bitcoin while hodling
nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5tm8sjr , is a #bitcoin RLOC in the #strike lending pipeline? It would be amazing to only pay interest on what we have actually spent. Lump sum loans accruing large amounts of interest are inefficient for what most bitcoiners want to do: spend day-to-day against their bitcoin while hodling.
"The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco." -- Mark Twain
What's the point of #nostr if all we talk about is #nostr?
Kids will be like, "What are cents?"
If you're from New Orleans, you know what the true inflation rate is.
We need #covenants.
This OP_Return BS has distracted us from improving #Bitcoin.
Ooooohhhhh. That makes sense. Thank you for clearing that up. Looks like I'll be waiting for covenants before I can achieve my OPSEC dream!
Liana doesn't currently help with your use case. If I understand correctly, you'd like to lock a majority of your coins so that they can't be spent by anybody for a specific length of time.
Liana doesn't use timelocks in this way.
Our current functionality allows you to place timelocks on some of the spending paths for your coins so that certain keys (ie, a backup key you store with a family member) cannot be used until the timelock expires.
We do not currently support locking coins with absolutely no spending path until the timelock expires. It can certainly be done - we just haven't had much demand for this yet.
1. We currently have 21 contributors on our github: https://github.com/wizardsardine/liana
We use miniscript for implementing our scripts and this project has significant review: at least 6 hardware wallets have implemented it, Blockstream, Chaincode, and companies like Anchor Watch are actively developing using miniscript.
2. Yes. The timelock is part of the locking script on your coins (part of the address you receive them to) and you can see it onchain.
Here's the txid of a recent transaction I did with Liana on signet:
c3fca1ec2797d31dba28eb8d3999bc8b3538707ad3eda533cd06f3ba2ebeebd9
You can go to mempool.space/signet and look up the txid.
Then if you click the details button it will show you the script used to lock the coins. You should see OP_CSV listed in the locking script. OP_CSV is short for CheckSequenceVerify which checks the stack for a number and compares it to the nSequence field to determine if the timelock has expired.
In this transaction, the coins could only be spent by one of the keys at first, but 3 blocks after the transaction was mined, another key was able to spend the coins as well.
(It was a short timelock because I was just testing something).
If you used taproot addresses (which is an option in Liana), you wouldn't see the whole script -- only the part used for spending the coins. This is nice for privacy because you don't reveal as much about your setup.
3. In the case of Liana, once the timelock expires all that happens is that the alternate spending paths you specified when you set up the wallet become available. You can choose to "refresh" the timelock by sending your coins to a new address in your wallet (we provide a button to make this easy). But depending on your threat model, you could choose to do nothing and allow the recovery key to become part of your spending keys.
4. Currently, no. Liana works great for having a single or multisig that has a recovery key become available after one year. But we do not currently allow the option to do the first part of the timelock you want (making coins entirely unspendable for 3 months).
I'm not sure that I see the use-case for such a construction. If your coins are completely locked, you may be able to say to an attacker "Look, even I can't spend them" but that is only true for the time when you just lock the coins. As you get closer to the expiry of your whole wallet timelock, you will be vulnerable again to someone trying to coerce you into signing a transaction. But perhaps I'm not fully understanding your use case.
Awesome! Thank you for the detailed reply and I appreciate your hard work in this area. With regards to the timelock, where no one can spend the coins (let's call this a "no-spend timelock"), I do think this would be helpful for locking up funds in DEEP cold storage. Basically funds that you don't see needing for a while. As you approach the end of the no-spend timelock (eg 1 month), you can reset the timelock to always have the provable deniability that you cannot spend the coins. Once again, I think this will be helpful in preventing coercion like kidnapping.
Until this functionality is implemented, I don't see much need to switch from my current setup since this is technically simpler than adding a timelock and still provides redundancy.
I'm now following you on Nostr and I look forward to future updates!
Trying to figure out if nostr:nprofile1qqsvetzrdtkpc8kz4eg54hstse8rx7cye5cvcgw9p4e7pt4s6nadw9gpzemhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skcqgswaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8w6twv55da489 is right for me. I currently use a geographicially distributed 3-of-5 multisig to avoid single points of failure as well as a wrench attack. What I would love to be able to do is time lock a majority of the funds to dissuade attackers from coercive attacks (i.e. kidnapping a loved one). A multisig doesn't help here if the attacker knows I can gather a quorum of keys in a reasonable amount of time. However, a time lock of 3 months or more makes this attack much more costly since it's hard to hold a hostage for that long. So my questions here:
1. Liana is open source. Do we know how many people are reviewing this code?
2. Can you look at a time locked address on chain and prove that it's time locked?
3. Once a time lock expires, are there any on-chain transactions that must happen? This is in regards to the unpredictability of future fees.
4. This is fairly specific, but could you do a 3-of-5 multisig time locked for 3 months (or block equivalent) and then have a reversion to a single sig in a year (i.e. a recovery key)? Basically asking if double time locks are possible on the same UTXO.
I'd like to explore the intersection of #bitcoin, #cohousing, #capitalism, and #sustainability, and build a community with others of the same mindset. Message me if you are interested in creating a low time preference community centered around these ideas.
"Stay humble and stack sats" is much deeper than it appears.
nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqnz0fd0