Just one, and easily secured in a cold storage.
Cashu mints run a business too, but reputation usually begets KYC, and dark markets beget rug pulls.
The best argument I read so far is that some ASPs could offer longer expiration periods with higher transaction fees, and users can use that for long term savings.
Time to push https://bdsmovement.net/donate
My baseline is Phoenix LN wallet where presumably the worst that could happen is they close the channel and I pay high fees, or they try to steal and a non custodial watchtower can bail me out.
If Ark is a step forward (no need for opening channels) I hope there are no steps backwards on the other end.
Ok it is nuanced I will grant you that, but I think our goal is that users can receive bitcoins without any more of a ceremony than having an address, and that money remains passively safe somehow, even if by employing a watchtower, as long as this watchtower can't steal (only fail).
This is the least people expect from payment systems.
However, operational/maintenance fees are acceptable, but losing all the funds wholesale on a such short timeout is just not going to fly.
If by "technically" you mean according to consensus rules, I hope you realise not a soul cares about that, not users and not regulators.
Just because people send sats to custodial LN providers addresses, doesn't make that a donation.
You designed this contract (I presume because that is the best you can do with Bitcoin smart contract), but you didn't design it to enable time bomb donations to operators... that is bug not a feature.
Unless of course you do advertise Ark as a time bomb donation to operators, then good luck with adoption and actually good luck with regulators still.
Yes I mean this requirement to deal with expiration of vtxos.
I have a server, but I don't want to trust it, I want it to help me keep my vtxos safe if I didn't open my phone for long time (actually happens, I haven't opened Pheonix for ages and forgot battery mode on for weeks), but I don't want the server to be able to steal, or more importantly I don't want to run a server for others that is legally a custodian of money.
ICYMI nostr:npub1hf5sgehj874r3y2hps9r36qap20cffauc7t895var2ajlsg32mcqa7dp8n launched a new deep dive section about Ark for an intermediate grokking session.
And for the balls' deep session, a litepaper https://docs.arklabs.xyz/ark.pdf 🔥
You'll also find integration docs for our (early) SDKs: notice how simple using Ark is! https://docs.arklabs.xyz/integrate/sdk
Lazy question (promise to read more later); is there any way for a non custodial server to deal with the "remixing" of vtxos on my behalf?
Asking because if that is at all possible, I would like to add that as a native function or a plugin to the same Homeservers hosting users private data and republishing their Pkarr keys to the DHT.
Or in Nostr terms, user's paid relay.
Doesnt make sense to me. If someone is selling the same service with the same Fiat price, it doesn't matter for regulators to chase that any more than they previously did.
But you are right about my notion of NGU, if more volume is going through bitcoin, they will want to capture more of that dark market, whether they can (cost effectively) is another matter.
Sounds depressing, but I disagree, Bitcoin main value is permissionlessness, it doesn't have any other reason to exist (except maybe short lived hype), so why would it survive increasing KYC?
Good opportunity as any to say; if you think anything I do can be useful to you and are willing to pay in Bitcoin, hit me up, I will give you significant discount.
Not because I need extra income, but purely because I like to do business with no intermediates.
I hope more of us express this bias explicitly more often.
I don't why are you angry about, but yes knowing that you will spend years from now changes your perception of volatility between now and then... if that sounds retarded to you, that is fine by me.
I again disagree, but maybe because I am much more of a saver than spender.
But I really do think stable prices are not that hard nor do they need central authority, at the end of the day stability of Fiat is just a small part of businesses concerns, the rest is hedging against volatility of prices of inputs, which is not done by central planning, but through futures, and I see no reason why can't there be Bitcoin denominated futures for the inputs of the digital economies.
There is also over collatorization and somewhat trustless oracles like the UTXO analysis thing...
Anyway, I think it is doable, but I don't personally care about it that much, if you do, I hope you will work on it instead of thinking it is impossible to fix.
I disagree with the first one, I have seen more than my fair share of unstable currencies that still have a lot of demand, on the other hand I don't think it is too hard to make a stable coin that is not linked to a Fiat currency, the hard part is finding demand for it with no taxation behind it, but it is not important point so we can ignore this disagreement.
As for the second point, I agree there is no plan, and I don't think you can plan anything that big and vague vision, but big and vague things happened before and will always happen, organically and one step at time.
If you on the other hand of the opinion that there is some inherent in Internet economics that make a state necessary unavoidable intermediary, then that is definitely depressing but I don't fight reality, if you have a strong argument for that I can be convinced... I did my fair share of telling people that some things are impossible, it is OK.
As for the real physical economy.. that is a bit more tricky, but at least where I live, even businesses that pay taxes, would still prefer taking cash, so why can't Bitcoin win if it had as good UX and as good liquidity as cash?
Not sure what you mean, but I don't personally prefer wishful thinking, on the other hand there can't be a "plan" in a distributed system. The best one can do is think about the problem, possible solutions then cooperate with others to build these solutions.
My current thinking is; maybe if Bitcoin can scale much better, it would be used more for internet commerce, at least as much as Tether is being used in developing economies, which makes KYC chokepoints less destructive.
If you think this is a red herring, and a scalable private Bitcoin won't make a dent, please explain what do you think the main problem is? And what do you think we should do instead.
I can make a counter argument to my own argument; people want fiat not Bitcoin because they have to pay taxes.
But honestly that doesn't make sense for Internet commerce, at the very least not for digital services where the entire market can be ungovernable because it is hard to observe and meter... stuff like VPSs and VPNs, SaaS and apps etc.
Number go up, but the number should be the people making a living on the Internet without a kyc permission from the empirial center.
Users don't matter, the brand does. Unfortunately.
You only trust the farmer because the farmer is not immune from the threat of violence... that is regulation even if there is no government or laws.
My point is, the vast majority of products can't be secured by math, some shit needs good old violence.
It is not just commercial viability, some things simply requires either huge scale which is easy to regulate, or actually requires regulation to guard people's rights.
Not everything can be solved with cryptoeconomics or whatever... sometimes I just want to trust the food I am eating.
A bit extreme but I guess you meant in our context.
But even then, a bit extreme, many useful products can't be made safe from regulation.
Single point of regulation >>> Single point of failure
Whenever someone says Microblogging is not the main usecase for Nostr, I want to remind you that the entire architecture was based on the needs of low latency public threaded discussions and fresh feeds.
If you gave up on that, at least take a chance and rethink the choices that was made and their cost. Can you simplify? Can you increase reliability? Can you gain more consistency? If you no longer face the demands that the protocol was designed to meet?
Http tunneling makes more sense than Iroh for servers behind NAT, because this way the client doesn't need special software.
Really the main reason to use Iroh is if the node is run by someone who isn't technical, or for mobile phones where there is simply no way to open a port or have a static IP.
Yes servers are just nodes with a human that can be bothered with maintenance, because so far no one invented a server that doesn't need baby setting.
If you plan on building any p2p network, Iroh should be the first thing to try, and you most likely won't try anything else, because it just works.
Caveat is; make sure you actually need p2p, because Iroh can't magically solve all the other challenges inherit at leaderless distributed systems.
No need for users to run servers for that, all of this can be done client side as long as you have mail system to share keys through.
Yes you can't immediately get a permission to read or write if none of the moderators are available, but the scarcity here can't be solved by an always on server, given the fact that you want humans to moderate spaces not robots.
Remember... Nostr already doesnt have gossip and actually started as a critique of gossip (Secure scuttlebutt), and Negentropy was invented on top.
Yet somehow you make it sound like Nostr relays are inherently gossip friendly, well, extend the same grace to Pkarr relays.
You get exactly what you want, but also a DHT to fall back to when your system inevitably fails for the vast majority of web needs.
You are just mistaken. DHTs don't stop you from what you want to achieve as futile as I think it is, but the DHT doesn't make it any harder.
My relay has thousands of packets, nothing can stop me from gossiping with other relays, I just think it is a bad idea.
Says who? Who is preventing you from scrapping the DHT and build a push system or share what you downloaded on a USB stick?
I did my best to explain why you can't have the features that a DHT offer any other way, I never said you shouldn't do more on top.
Also, privacy can be achieved in other ways.
It seems you weirdly want to download the entire web and read it locally because that is awesome and private, sure, do that.
My question remains; what about phones and people who don't have 500 GB of RAM or storage at all? How should they find the data they are looking for?
Good for you, not sure how is that relevant for rest of us and our phones, should we all query your RAM? Or who should we query?