Subnostr

So now we have GitHub KYC, Twitter KYC, what else?

And what else do the Bitcoin gang of Twitter need to migrate to Nostr, the same people who would scream in disgust if they ever encounter a Bitcoin KYC wallet?

Elephant in the root 1y ago

Migrating out of US is more convenient than migrating out of GH though. 😃

Replying to

Juraj

I got an email from Amazon that my account has been suspended. Apparently they did not like I've been buying gift cards with lightning. What are they even for then? Why do they sell them in stores?

My evening reading is gone, the books I "bought" are gone and it all came from no-reply email address. You can reach customer support, just login to your account. Wait a minute.

I'll be replacing my e-reader with nostr:npub1a00wj229auzjswlq4s77y4u8eqdx5k9ppatgl8rtv8va65f6mwksum9q3h when it arrives. And will switch to Nostr with whatever I can. What a shitshow.

Elephant in the root 1y ago

Fuck this. Piracy is justified.

Elephant in the root 1y ago

I'm warming up towards covenants. Originally I thought you can do everything interactively and not complicate Bitcoin/add data to chain but now I realize there's a lot of complexity in that and a bunch of weird edge cases that are difficult to solve.

I can't speak for any specific proposal though.

Replying to

Janneke

https://threema.ch/en/open-source

Elephant in the root 1y ago

Oh, looks like I missed an announcement. Nice!

Replying to

Chiefmonkey

The EU are voting on Chat Control this Wednesday 19th June

If passed it will be the most devastating blow to privacy not just to Europeans but people around the world

All service providers will be forced to scan ALL content of their users

Get involved

Say No to Chat Control

https://blog.cryptpad.org/2022/05/19/against-chatcontrol/

Elephant in the root 1y ago

Let them do it, I'll just switch to whichever FOSS app I find usable.

Replying to

Janneke

All these 4 leak your MetaData !!!

Check this:

SecureMessagingApps.com

Rate:

🟩=3 🟨=1 🟥=0

Results (and where the money comes from)

1. Threema = 86 = most secure Messenger (User pays one-time)

2. Signal (OTF / Brian Acton / Ex-WhatsApp) = 80

3. Session (Loki Coin & suspicious Chinese) = 77

4. Wire (Janus Fries / Ex-Skype) = 68

5. SimpleX Chat *= 67

6. Wickr (Amazon) = 61

7. Element / Matrix (Amdocs / Morris Kahn) = 56

8. Apple iMessage (Hardware sales) = 37

9. WhatsApp (Meta) = 32

10. Google Messages (Ads) = 28

11. Telegram (Putin) = 27

12. Facebook Messenger (Meta) = 26

13. Microsoft Skype =10

* SimpleX Chat got 380.000 $ from VillageGlobal = Jez Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, ect.

OFT = OpenTechnologyFund = US-Goverment

Elephant in the root 1y ago

Not being Open Source disqualifies Threema immediately. No more digging needed.

Replying to

jimmysong

1200 gram wagyu

Elephant in the root 1y ago

That'll be $100M

Replying to

Rusty Russell

It's always cheaper to mutual close so it's only when you're going to close unilaterally. And at least this peer is very unlikely to open a channel with you again if you're a pratt. It's hard to quantify reputational damage though, to be fair.

Elephant in the root 1y ago

Ostracizing may be harsher punishment than taking sats though.

Replying to

Elephant in the root

If I'm going to close the channel anyway why wouldn't I use whichever state is the most favorable for me? Sure with watchtowers the probability of success is low but I don't see any downside trying. If failure meant losing $5 worth of btc it'd be at least some reason not to.

Elephant in the root 1y ago

Note that I do think that losing whole channel on backup failure is excessive punishment. No punishment is also a problem.

Replying to

Rusty Russell

No, because the defense is now *also* much easier. Watchtowers are trivial, since they just spend the latest tx.

I was originally of the same mind as you, but this seems to be our direction anyway, since people want zero reserve for UX reasons...

Elephant in the root 1y ago

If I'm going to close the channel anyway why wouldn't I use whichever state is the most favorable for me? Sure with watchtowers the probability of success is low but I don't see any downside trying. If failure meant losing $5 worth of btc it'd be at least some reason not to.

Replying to

techfeudalist

💯

It seems we’re fighting the blocksize wars all over again. It’s like every few years someone thinks bitcoin’s fees are too high and we need to compromise bitcoin’s decentralization to “fix” the problem.

Rusty is making the same arguments the bcashers did. Hopefully the community rejects it a second time.

Changes to the core protocol are always risky. We need to ask ourselves:

1) Can the issue be solved in any other way, other than a change to the core protocol? Have we waited long enough for other solutions to emerge?

2) If we must change the core protocol, what is the most limited change we can make that actually solves the problem?

Elephant in the root 1y ago

How is whichever change Rusty advocates for compromising decentralization? Bigger blocks surely did. But you can't claim he's like a bcasher if you can't specify how he's proposing harmful ideas.

Replying to

MindMining

Yes indeed!

And maybe we need to remind ourselves that #Bitcoin the protocol uses proof of work, not proof of stake.

A person with a big #bitcoin (the coin) stake should never have a bigger say(lor😉) in Bitcoin's (protocol) future progression. This mindset is the totalitarianism bitcoiners should want to avoid if the cypherpunk and anarchy(no rulers) way is to be pursued and maintained.

Saylor is just a guy. A smart guy, but just a guy. Because he's a wealthy guy some people (weak/jealous/sheeple?) prefer to listen to what he has to say over any normie pleb, like those relatively unknown plebs who ACTUALLY build and maintain the code!?!? 💔

TL;DR: A bigger bitcoin "stake" should not mean a bigger say on the topic of Bitcoin's future. Saylor is a rich and popular influencer, and should be treated as such.

Elephant in the root 1y ago

People who produced more value should have more say. And they in fact do. Economic majority decides the rules.

Replying to

21 Stackage 🦡

The overuse of analogies makes it apparent he doesn't fully understand what he's talking about. Classic Gavin Belson move. He's mastered the financial side of bitcoin, but when it comes to bitcoin development, he should just shut the fuck up.

"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."

nostr:npub10jnx6stxk9h4fgtgdqv3hgwx8p4fwe3y73357wykmxm8gz3c3j3sjlvcrd calls Saylor a "bitcoinbug" and I think that explains his incentives perfectly, where Microstrategy is using bitcoin as a means for getting more dollars

Elephant in the root 1y ago

She uses analogies to communicate. He wants as wide audience as possible.

Replying to

Rusty Russell

I'm delighted to hear that!

There's an old proposal called "eltoo" (or, these days, called "ln-symmetry") where there's no penalty phase if one side accidentally publishes an old state: you just fix it up instead. This does some cool things:

1. No more risky backups, where you can lose all your funds by restoring an old backup.

2. You can now have more than 2 parties sharing a channel, and build on top of that.

3. We can reduce latency for payments in some cases, making it twice as fast.

4. It's generally simpler: you only need to remember the last state, as you can fixup and old ones

As to not knowing who I am, that's totally fair! I would much rather people evaluate a proposal on its merits, not the reputation of the proposer. As a non-expert, it can be impossible to distinguish someone who is good at their job, from someone who is good at self-promotion :(

Elephant in the root 1y ago

The problem with penalty-less channels is they destroy the strong disincentive to cheat. There needs to be a penalty for LN to stay secure. It doesn't need to be 100% of the channel capacity, just an amount high enough to deter abuse.

Replying to