Everytime I zap someone vie Lightning from my wallet, it takes 5-10 seconds for the zap to settle and for everyone to see it happen on nostr.
Everytime, I think "this could've been an instant nutzap". "Tap, boom. Tap, boom. Zap zap zap. I would be zapping so much more."
The reason a nutzap is instant is obvious. At this point, I hope that everyone knows that a Cashu nutzap is just an instant transfer of an IOU from one user to another.
Let's step back and look at a pure Lightning zap on nostr for a second. We all know that the vast majority of Lightning zaps is effectively an exchange of one custodial IOU against another one as well. Most people use custodial wallets. So why is it still so slow? It's the Lightning settlement between the two custodians that often takes 5-10s to complete. Note, some users actually do run their own node, manage channels, run LNURL servers, etc. But they still get the same UX.
Here is an idea. Let's say a user doesn't want to use Cashu. Pure Lighting maxi which I think is great. I've been a Lightning dev for years before I started working on Cashu. This user could still be nutzapped and even remain fully self-sovereign if they run their own node.
What if the receiving user's Lightning wallet (custodial or non-custodial) was able to melt all nutzaps it receives by watching the nostr wallet ("nutsack") of its user? Either for every nutzap or whenever enough nuts are accumulated, the service could withdraw the nuts to the user's real Lightning wallet.
Effectively, this would improve the zap UX by showing everyone an instant zaps. The receiving user's custodian (or themselves) would have to run something like a nostr-cashu-wallet-watcher on a server to receive while being offline, but they have to run a Lightning node and LNURL and all that anyway (they already have a server).
Even without a server, normal nostr clients without true nutzap support could withdraw all nuts accumulated while they were offline back to their Lightning wallet everytime they come back online. The only real difference to a normal zap is that noe it's the receiver's job to settle via Lightning, not the zap sender's.
Nevertheless, zaps on permissionless social media like in nostr will never be completely trustless. They can't solve the sybil problem for instance. If you want, you can zap yourself an infinite amount of normal Lightning zaps on nostr without moving s single Satoshi. We faked zaps in the early days like crazy just to have fun.
But it actually turns out, all that doesn't really matter too much at all. First, people seem not to abuse the sybil issue. We had fun for a few weeks but then it got uninteresting There is not enough to gain, no algorithm to fool, no benefit of lying (at least not yet). Second, zaps are literally free money given to you from a random person. Why would someone rug you if they want to literally gift you money? It doesn't make much sense.
I think we have a lot more to learn. nostr:nprofile1qqs04xzt6ldm9qhs0ctw0t58kf4z57umjzmjg6jywu0seadwtqqc75spz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wshszxnhwden5te0wpuhyctdd9jzuenfv96x5ctx9e3k7mf0dv4ph5 recently said he thinks we have explored 1% of what zaps can be. He might be right. I think the reordering of events that a bearer zap system like with Cashu brings could open new doors for insane UX and it looks like we're actually going to find out. We have zero-config wallets now. Imagine how cool it is to bring your money wherever you go with your nsec.
Keep exploring, cypherpunks. We do live in the best of all times. Bullish on Bitcoin, bullish on Nostr, bullish on Cashu π§‘
I agree with your conclusion, since zaps are donations, not payments. Just a small nit pick: in my experience, slowness in LN is usually the receiver problem. I've seen well-managed nodes settle in under a second. And I think it's still worth pushing for better LN.
Of course this is not related to Nostr which can do its own thing. But also the clients should make the distinction between settled and not settled visible to the receiver in case people start selling services for zaps.
OMG, that's crazy! Great content but should I incentivize you risking your life by zapping?
40 might too much TBH. If it's completely random letters it's already more than 128 bits of entropy - more than what Bitcoin itself uses and considered unbreakable.
However if it's words or such it may be appropriate.
My problem is I'm avoiding spending even when I probably shouldn't. π
A length limit on paswords suggests they don't hash them.
The thing is, those "left" and "right" are actually very close to the center. So yes, in minarchy a slight deviation from the center doesn't bother me nearly as much as authoritarian extremists.
I don't think solidarity can be meaningfully marked as "left" trait. I know a shitload of people who consider themselves "right" but do have solidarity. Once you're libertarian those axes lose meaning.
"left lebertarian" doesn't exist. The square political compass is a BS. The real compass is a triangle.
Very unlikely. Programs are simply more precise at describing exactly what's intended than human language.
nostr:nprofile1qqsw79gu0guq7s98t473fyavx3akwaafmx6l5z4rehd50lrcl2mf4zcpr9mhxue69uhkzer4d36zuvfcwpk82uewwdhkx6tpdsq3vamnwvaz7tmpw3kxzuewdehhxarj9ekxzmnyqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hssn2wwz is one of the best. I think you'll like him a lot. Though sadly, he doesn't post on Nostr that much.
None that I know of. I personally use likes for things I agree with but don't expand my knowledge and zaps for more valuable content. And I tend to choose higher zap amounts.
I'm copying a pattern used by Facebook Messenger where all UI state is stored in SQLite and the UI is a thin, pure function render:
- https://engineering.fb.com/data-infrastructure/messenger/
- https://www.droidcon.com/2019/10/25/the-light-way-2/
In the demo I can kill the app and re-open it in exactly the same place because the router state is stored in SQLite.
Processing the data into a UI state that is trivially 1:1 mapped to the UI makes a lot of sense and was very helpful at my past work. Just the sqlite thing is weird.
It's also a rather popular method of getting rid of KYC-related coins. Sell them at loss (no tax) then buy them back without KYC. Now you have coins that the government doesn't know about. And if you also sell without KYC the government doesn't know how much taxes it should charge you.
Might still be up since when they bought it and nobody can time the market.
WARNING:
If eggs and meat are your baby's first foods, their first words may be a perfect recitation of Dr. Anthony Chaffee's "Plants Are Trying To Kill You" presentation
https://video.nostr.build/acbbb196a3e6be40fe5a354fa8f76256b21b9a4da77cca1b361b8ea31b9ed0e4.mp4
A problem with that study is that mothers might also have inadequate iron intake.
It cannot help because you have to load javascript to verify the javascript. It'd have to be a modified browser but also, very likely, multiple signatures.
The last part is not the issue. A Ledger could blind sign Bitcoin hashes too. It can be fixed by Safe developers making a Ledger firmware app that could parse all Safe txs, instead of using the generic Ethereum app. The same thing acinq did for lightning txs. https://x.com/acinq_co/status/1894036594866212894
The problem is Ethereum is way too complicated for HWWs to handle. So clearly, LN is simpler than Ethereum.
Bitcoin HWWs. Just avoid shitcoins, buy a good HHW and you're safer than ByBit.
Air gap is not an issue, not needed and not realistic - you have to transfer the data somehow. The correct solution is specialized, well-audited signing devices (AKA HWW) that have their own screen and buttons. (or simply touchscreen)
But that can't be done with Ethereum easily.
2FA, as implemented today, is a massive joke. See the recent Bybit hack. You never know what you're signing.
Bitcoin hwws like Trezor and Coldcard are shining exceptions.


