Federations/cashu is really only useful if everyone uses the same mint

I get that it adds a layer of privacy

But for no fees, everyone needs to be using the same mint

....also custodial

#ecash #cashu #minibits #fedimint

rights aren’t given, they’re taken.

bitcoin and nostr help you take and defend them, peacefully.

why would have you to pay on chain fees if using Cashu?

Sometimes I’m so pumped about #bitcoin and #nostr that I can’t stop myself!

?cid=2154d3d7t6yh5v4oelwxxd9f2s718quvu1mqk11qqsm0l7tw&ep=v1_gifs_related&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

Dear Kiwis,

It is with regret that we announce that we have been debanked in New Zealand 😢

Our NZ payment processor can no longer provide services to the 'crypto' industry.

We will search for a new bank, but in the meantime, please do not deposit any NZD, as it will bounce back.

Remember: This is why we #Bitcoin.

Last hot take for the night: the live-action version of One Piece has some of the worst lines I've ever heard delivered. The sort dialogue that can cause physical discomfort even to someone watching alone and unwitnessed — just as the perfect crime cannot erase the awareness of guilt. They tried so hard, too. A shame.

“We should change Bitcoin now in a contentious way to fix the security budget” is basically the same tinkering mentality that central bankers have.

It begins with an overconfident assumption that they know fees won’t be sufficient in the future and that a certain “fix” is going to generate more fees. But some “fixes” could even backfire and create less fees, or introduce bugs, or damage the incentive structure.

The Bitcoin fee market a couple decades out will primarily be a function of adoption or lack thereof. In a world of eight billion people, only a couple hundred million can do an on chain transaction per year, or a bit more with maximal batching. The number of people who could do a monthly transaction is 1/12th of that number. In order to be concerned that bitcoin fees will be too low to prevent censorship in the future, we have to start with the assumption that not many people use bitcoin decades out.

Fedwire has about 100x the gross volume that Bitcoin currently does, with a similar number of transactions. What will Bitcoin’s fee market be if volumes go up 5x or 10x, let alone 50x or 100x? Who wants to raise their hand with a confident model of what bitcoin volumes will be in 2040?

What will someone pay to send a ten million dollar equivalent on chain settlement internationally? $100 in fees per million dollar settlement transaction would be .01%. $300 to get it in a quicker block would be 0.03%. That type of environment can generate tens of billions of dollars of fees annually. The fees that people pay to ship millions of dollars of gold long distances, or to perform a real estate transaction worth millions of dollars, are extremely high. Even if bitcoin is a fraction of that, it would be high by today’s standards. And in a world of billions of people, if nobody wants to pay $100 to send a million dollar settlement bearer asset transaction, then that’s a world where not many people use bitcoin period.

In some months the “security budget” concern trends. In other months, the “fees will be so high that only rich people can transact on chain” concern trends. These are so wildly contradictory and the fact that both are common concerns shows how little we know about the long term future.

I don’t think the fee market can be fixed by gimmicks. Either the network is desirable to use in a couple decades or it’s not. If 3 or 4 decades into bitcoin’s life it can’t generate significant settlement volumes, and gets easily censored due to low fees, then it’s just not a very desirable network at that point for one reason or another.

Some soft forks like covenants can be thoughtfully considered for scaling and fee density, and it’s good for smart developers to always be thinking about low risk improvements to the network that the node network and miners might have a high consensus positive view toward over time. But trying to rush VC-backed softforks, and using security budget FUD to push them, is pretty disingenuous imo.

Anyway, good morning.

Welcome to a GROUP GAME of Choose Your Fate (beta) by #[0]. We have selected a superhero themed game. Anyone can participate and affect the outcome but you MUST reply directly to each specific action message with only the action number itself. The first reply each round will decide what action is taken. A pool of 500 sats will be split among all that participate correctly if the game is won. Good luck! This game will time out in 6 minutes if no one responds. #games on #grownostr. Win #bitcoin

Round 1:

You find yourself standing atop a skyscraper, overlooking the bustling city below. As you take in the view, you realize that your superpower is the ability to manipulate time. You can slow it down, speed it up, or even pause it completely. This incredible power will surely aid you in your mission.

Suddenly, a distress signal blares through your communicator. The city is under attack by a powerful supervillain known as The Shadow. He has unleashed an army of shadow creatures that are wreaking havoc on the innocent citizens. Your task is to defeat The Shadow and save the city from destruction.

What will you do?

1. Use your time manipulation power to scout the city and gather information about The Shadow's whereabouts.

2. Head straight into the heart of the city to confront The Shadow and his shadow creatures.

3. Call for backup from other superheroes in the area.

Remember, your choices are crucial, and the fate of the city rests in your hands.

{Which option will you choose?} [1693697012]

Good people,

When you argue about government censorship of mis- and dis-information, please up your game. Do not argue "who determines what is and isn't true?" and "nobody knows what the truth is, it's all in the end a matter of opinion." This is a bad argument.

Government have been determining what is and is not true for a very long time now in the judicial branch. Did person X commit a crime or not? You should admit that in some cases, governments need to make a best-effort attempt at determining what is and is not true, but in other cases they don't need to do this and the potential for abuse of power is rife. The judicial system has many mechanisms to prevent abuse of power including innocent until proven guilty, jury of peers, appeals, etc. It is distinctly a-political (in theory). Other branches of government that want to get into the business of censorship do not have such checks and balances.

Election misinformation is no special case. When the NZ Labour government just got caught lying about what National would do if they got into power, did they censor their own advertisements? No. IMHO that is how it should be. We have a right to lie and trick each other. Sure, it's nasty. But that nastiness sticks to the reputation of those doing the lying.

The power to lie, even about elections, is in balance. All sides can and do lie. Any sort of enforcement of censorship by the powers currently in charge tips that balance towards the party currently in charge. And not by a little bit. It makes a mockery of an open democratic free society. We see it, and we counterbalance. Do not vote for those who would usurp power this way.