nostr desperately needs a caching layer that isn't susceptible to consolidation. what prevents prime from being the new twitter?
sadly the definition of work is very fragile under an ever evolving abundant society
they want their pooled coinbase UTXOs "clean"
you basically need to drown every human settlement with as much trees as physically possible
Verifying my Nostr Nests identity: wyKCjNrXciyc4d1BupIgZ-roSqWEzuyY1WJmKzpdLlM
and a box?
email?
it comes from all kinds of infrastructure, but generic enough
every day of bitcoin at 30k means more solvent people holding bitcoin
there is no democracy. systems remain honest because the cost to quit is cheaper than the cost to stay
the last mile problem is how you move on-chain coins into off-chain and back. even if LN works great, with liquidity providers, reliable paths, watch-towers, and splicing, as an end-user you still need to move between the layers every now and then. you still need to splice in/out to top your account up or down and that's not something LN can solve ("inbound liquidity" is the common name for this limit)
theoretically only 500,000 splicings can be done every day and that's still not enough for 1 billion people, let alone 8
with covenant an entire new paradigm of optional UTXOs can be enabled through coordinators who control the on-chain funds, where in to optimistic scenario you don't need the chain to move between these off-chain "virtual" UTXOs while pay and getting paid
most of the 21m on-chain bitcoins will be used to provide liquidity (time value of money) for higher layers for a fee - translated into miners' fee. LN, Ark style coin-pools, all based on parcellating big chunks of bitcoin and selling their use to end-users in a non-custodial way
a good-enough covenants based coin-pool tradeoff can compress 1000s of "optional UTXOs" into one on-chain UTXO, similar to the way LN is compressing 1000s of txns into one on-chain txn
LN and ark style coin-pools are not competing, but are complementary. one is compressing the amount of times you can transact, the other compresses the amount of people who can hold a non-custodial movable balance - movable off-chain
LN solved bitcoin the way planes solved Fedex - but the last mile still remained a bottleneck. no matter how many planes you have, you still need to get the delivery to someone's home. covenants can solve LNs last mile problem
there is a good reason to believe bitcoin cannot "peg" the economy into reality if it isn't accessible enough, like gold couldn't. unfortunately the same drawbacks of gold's difficult portability are translated in a way to the limit on bitcoin's bandwidth - it's trade-offs all the way down
but - LN is adding a few orders of magnitude of extra bandwidth in a way that isn't changing base layer dynamics, and - covenants based ideas such as coin pools can expand bandwidth with additional orders of magnitude, again, without changing the game-theoretic dynamics of the base layer - and without changing the original nature of holding bitcoin through control of UTXOs, on-chain or off-chain
not all BIPs are the same, it's a subject that's worth digging, now probably more than ever
not before you give this simple book a try
https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Back-Pain-Mind-Body-Connection/dp/153871261X