The current state of payments, lol. Bitcoiners feel you, Dennis. nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx nostr:npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424 nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m
Can you orange pill someone on with a bitcoin atm on a keychain? Yes you can π
https://nostr.build/av/1ee4d4b37fb0781903adc40068bee2b216bee7373316ef312fe6e0f3fb8b638a.mov
3M sats on WoSatoshi.
Bold move Cotton
Rhode Island is a psyop. It's no island.
nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
nostr:npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424
The path to hyperbitcoinization is an unmagic carpet ride.
nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
Just an AI podcast recommendation based on an AI podcast.
I see a tendency for Lightning to become increasingly centralized to fewer and fewer well-connected LSPs, essentially replicating existing payment providers (e.g. VISA). This can reduce privacy and make for "fewer doors to knock on" for influence.
Lightning node operation is significantly more complex than a typical Bitcoin core node, and carries a higher risk (uptime, hot funds, watchtowers to catch cheating, etc.). The long term health of Bitcoin depends on relatively high fee cost, complicating Lightning operation further (e.g. channel closures during high feerate environments).
There is hope though, as introduction of PTLCs, anchor aproaches, etc. can help in rease privacy and reduce risk. Still much more of an active endeavor than flipping a coin 256 times and generating an address.
nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
Why might there be an expectation for prices to change at a rate that would justify e-ink price tags?
#Mandibles
That moment when you see a good tweet, reach for the Zap icon, then realize that it's not Nostr.
#[0]
#[1]
π Mandible Dispatch mentioned and linked in Newsweek
https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-indictment-blunder-historic-proportions-opinion-1791893
It's at first exciting (freaks on Newsweek), then disappointing. The best thing that we could hope for is that our view of what can happen doesn't happen. We don't want to be predictive, but looks like we might unfortunately might be.
Also, while non-KYC is much better, it's not without risk. Purchasing UTXOs linked to surveilled/criminal activity can be an issue, and coinjoining a non-KYC UXTO presents a similar "red flag risk" as any other CJ.
True, but most purchase with KYC due to convenience, so we do need better post KYC purchase privacy tools. Earlier today, saw some hype for a method to use Lightning as a pseudo coinjoin technique. Interested to learn more.
I'm with you on hoping things stay "from the ground up." Satoshi hornet's nest comment comes through mind. It's a delicate balance. Authoritarian govs can't stop Bitcoin, but they can make it very punishing for citizens to hold it (e.g. EO 6102). I'm optimistic that we can grow organically and slow enough to prevent, attack, but fear the attacks have already started (e.g. Signature).
Great point about naivety. Sometimes when people say "Bitcoin is for money laundering," I love to say, "Only for the ones that want to get caught. It's an open ledger."
Privacy in Bitcoin sometimes seems cumbersome at best, impractical at worst. This is one of the most serious risks to long term adoption in my opinion. In the future, coinjoined UTXOs may be red flagged at exchanges. Unless there's a realistic circular Bitcoin economy, this makes things much more difficult when needing to spend Bitcoin.
That and I think the best chance at adoption is education and making politicians become invested in Bitcoin's success. They won't ban what they are invested in.
It's difficult to see an outcome that prevents dollar devaluation...
Due to fear of bank runs, liquidity flows from small banks to large systemically significant banks (in hopes that the large would be bailed out if needed).
Besides the risk of de-diversification of the banking system (eggs in fewer baskets, more reliance on the risk management practices of fewer banks), it's prudent to consider next order effects.
If the large banks encounter liquidity issues...
Bail outs (or even bail-ins) would likely cause money printing (the money needs come from somewhere), and further devaluation of the very dollar people are hoping that the banks will custody for them (fractionally reserve).
Spreading money over several < $250k accounts might seem like protection, but if many did it in mass, the FDIC insurance would likely be unable to cover all insured deposits (currently about 1%). To backstop the FDIC, the fund would need to increase (either through political intervention, perhaps through more money printing, or through increased contribution from banks, either increasing fees, lowering depositor earned rates, or drastically through bail-in).
Perhaps if there was a form of money with less counterparty risk and debasement risk...
#[0]
#[1]