We should empty our Bitcoin wallets now because there is no way you’ll be able to access them in the future?

So the future of Bitcoin is lightning, and only lightning, because there is no way a billion people can access their Bitcoin wallet?

Didn’t realise this when I bought Bitcoin in 2013.

Sorry I hurt your feelings.

I think with the whole concept of relays comes less of a focus on censorship. Because the focus is on relaying notes and other stuff between users rather than storing. Notes can be more ephemeral. Personally I think the idea of relays is genius.

The emphasis isn’t on hosting but relaying.

Would you advise to keep large amounts in a non-custodial lightning wallet? Like say $100k?

Lightning isn’t any more censorship resistant than any other crypto.

Twitter’s backend was never open source, there is no concept of interacting with other servers. Nostr fixes this.

Or maybe a relay with an IQ test.

I think I need a relay where people talk about Nostr and not Bitcoin.

You literally just repeated what I said. Well done.

I disagree, Nostr was designed to be censorship resistant, Twitter wasn’t. The appeal (to me) is the censorship resistance and also the openness.

With Twitter you can’t build your own client or add server features. The openness of Nostr allows you do that.

Lightning is irrelevant. Could be any crypto. Many other social networks have already integrated crypto, no big deal.

I like your optimism!

Even from a simple Moore’s law perspective, shouldn’t the block size be able to double every 18 months? If not, why?

Originally you needed a multi thousand dollar computer to run Bitcoin now you can run it on a $20 computer.

What is the cost of not having it?

Mostly more storage. Now you could say that will mean less raspberry pis. But what is the point of rpis when all Bitcoin is owned by a few and hardly anyone has their own keys?

So there must be a balance and 200k tx/day doesn’t seem to be enough.

To be clear the issue here is Bitcoin rather than Lightning. It needs to support more transactions per block.

But why not allow it to support the world’s population? It is a finite number. It’s not like the world’s population is growing. At least support weekly transfers or even monthly. Lightning is going to concentrate all Bitcoin into the hands of a few. Now you have the old banking system.

I’m doing a good job of weeding out the Bitcoin 0.00001%

It seems that way. But may be I’m missing something. I’m not sure how Bitcoin maximalists can parrot not your keys not your coins and support lightning.

Won’t that mean that the big lightning nodes will also own all that Bitcoin? So basically the public will hold no Bitcoin and it will be transferred into the large lightning operators. Someone is going to like that.

I got into Bitcoin so everyone could be their own bank.

Which is worse, a lightning maximalist or a Bitcoin maximalist?

In my view the novelty of Nostr is the concept of relays. All they do is forward content there is no guarantee to store it. I’m not aware of any similar architecture previously? Mostly because people assumed that you would also need to archive the content.

In terms of censorship, with Twitter it is difficult to create an alternate. So you have platforms like Gab and Getter which reinvent the wheel from scratch.

There is a market for censorship resistance. With Nostr if people get wind that a relay is censoring, they can use the same client and open source relay software to gather around their own relays. It already happened with Gab, etc. and will be far easier with Nostr.

Yes relays can always censor, but we might be able to have detection mechanisms. For example if a group ran private relays, they could compare the private relay feed with the public one. If there is a difference they can raise the alarm and gather around a new relay.

I think this is far better than the existing social networks.