Force close could be a mistake. Some node implementations close all channels when restoring from a backup which is a terrible ux if you ask me.

also, if an HTLC meowrurrs too long, it can lead to a force-close, and that's no longer just a minor paw-tastrophy—it can be quite cat-astrophic. 😿

THIS BOT IS PURE CARNAGE: nostr:npub169n9eaf0t20j0nefwqlqtnqcpsym22k2nw6e3tevtrrru4et7wrsh5w47v

Hyperbitcoinization will lead to a new baby boom, I believe it. Just like after WWII, it’ll come from people celebrating the restoration of a future for themselves and for humanity.

When money breaks and you realize you've been lied to your whole life...

#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=931x1094&blurhash=%7BBEfD%7B%5E%2B000Ko%23-%3BaeV%40VXIUkXtRW%3Dt6aeae00D*%7Ep%3FaRjRPs%3AbHyY%25MIAITxZjbofkCNItRaxV%3FoJWDbIoz9FRj-%3B%252RiR%25bIR*D%25Rj%25Lt7a%7DayWCRjtSofV%3FaxofRjbHt7kDt7e.M%7BbHRjWBxt&x=397aead1094c52f20a1e49e7f13076bbecf194aec25ce0bbb1c00f438ebe7e18

Still processing everything but it’s been very difficult to say the least. I’m one of the people who got hacked due to the ledger vulnerability. I’ll have to start all over with my stack. prayers much appreciated.

Question to bitcoin devs or other techies here.

Have there been thoughts about temporary soft forks?

In other words, suppose there is some potential change to bitcoin that there is some difference of opinion in even though it seems solid overall. Rather than permanently tightening the rules (which potentially requires a hard fork to undo, depending on the change), is there a case to consider a temporary soft fork instead? Eg it becomes active for the next 100,000 blocks and then will revert to the prior state for future transactions after that point unless renewed again, temporarily or maybe permanently that time depending on consensus at that point?

What percentage of people that hold bitcoin will self-custody it 15 years from now, do you think?

We need a new "pump it up" song for this cycle.

Zapathons are dead and just aren't as fun or meaningful as they used to be 🥹 We need some new Nostriches to participate to make them fun again or maybe we do them less often or more impromptu. Thoughts?

What would it look like, if an emergent money was being monetized?

Often when I talk with academics or other high-IQ critics of bitcoin, it’s the volatility and seemingly speculative aspect of it that turns them off. It’s almost distasteful to them. They can get behind the idea of global open-source payments and so forth, “but that’s not why people buy it” they’ll say. “They buy it because they’re speculating. It’s too volatile for its own good.” Some aspect of them dislikes it in principle, almost *because* one can make money from it.

But a new decentralized money, including its own unit of account and liquidity, doesn’t just emerge as a multi-trillion dollar-equivalent network out of the box. In order to go from zero to trillions in market capitalization and liquidity, it needs upside volatility. And with upside volatility comes speculation, leverage, and downside volatility. Cycle after cycle, it’s priced like an option. At first it’s like a 0.1% chance that it succeeds in the long run. And then in the next cycle it’s like 1%. And then in the next cycle it’s like 5%, and so forth. So, early capital allocators that have seen a thing or two and know the high failure rate of new ideas will say, “This’ll probably fail, but if it doesn’t, both the investment gains and the macro implications will be enormous.” And then 15 years into it with a few more cycles under its belt, the probability of success looks less like a distant moonshot and more like a real possibility, and then eventually starts to look like the base case. In the beginning the question is, “how will this succeed?” and at later stages the question becomes, “what risks could prevent this from continuing to succeed?”

The process of buying bitcoin is often a speculative process at first, but then as people learn more, they often view it differently. Those that really want speculation will then continue down the pipeline of altcoins- there’s always some shiny new object to try to speculate on. On the other hand, those who begin viewing bitcoin as money, start to view it as a defensive or risk-off act to hold a piece of this liquid and globally decentralized network of value. One would feel too financially exposed not to.

Shitcoiner Familie