Avatar
techfeudalist
98a386c766ac9250f4ce1b500662fd08e4d464a1915743eedc83bd50521decac
Blessed by tech; working to bring the benefits to everyone. Freedom, incorruptible money, privacy.

Eventually everyone will learn…

We need to harden deeper layers of our stack.

Eg. Nostr must have IP privacy before we can rely on it in adversarial environments. And we’ll need to burn our existing doxxed npubs.

Also, we need to have a IP private, pseusdonymous source code hosting platform.

How to perpetuate the cycle of violence… murder children and watch their families become violent and seek retribution.

Replying to Avatar waxwing

FWIW there have been a number of thoughts over the years in this general area. I came up with SNICKER in 2017, there's a draft BIP on my gist (AdamISZ), not sure why it was never assigned a number. I actually even implemented it in Joinmarket and the code is still there. SNICKER was the simplest way you could do a coinjoin non-interactively (post encrypted proposals, encrypted to an onchain address pubkey; works better with taproot but can work anyway), this way proposer puts the encrypted blob on a bulletin board half-signed and the receiver can decrypt and broadcast it if they choose. Realistically only 2 party so a very limited model but imho still interesting.

Earlier than that people had ideas around SIGHASH_SINGLE|ACP ... but then always gave up on that because of the index/positioning limitations of *SINGLE.

Somewhat later in 2018 a group of us in London brainstormed around ideas like "stuff floats in the mempool and gets coordinated, perhaps with miner involvement" but it hasn't got anywhere yet. In that same meeting we came up with payjoin (well that was my name; others called in P2endpoint, which is a slightly different idea), not actually novel but just tried to pin down more exactly how it could work. that is also in Joinmarket btw, as well as btcpayserver. Nowadays Dan Gould has worked on a different aspect/version of that idea, which is great. But I still like SNICKER's pure non-interactivity.

When it comes to your thoughts around covenants, I agree. I tried to make case in the last Adopting Bitcoin that we need to understand that that extra bit of power in scripting is going to be needed to make actual steps forward in scalability and privacy, in other words it's not because we want evm style smart contracting, it's because we want bitcoin to actually work as money, and that means it needs both scale and privacy, which will come from offchain contracting (though a little onchain contracting, coinjoin style, will imo always be needed too, for larger entities).

So yeah being able to constrain spending destinations as a way to reduce the coordination requirement of a coinjoin is quite a neat thought, i don't remember offhand if anyone has pursued that yet; it's probably not simple!

Lastly I'd say nothingmuch has been having some of the most interesting ideas about coinjoin coordination recently, but not sure if he's active here nowadays.

Please explain how covenants help solve scalability. I’m wondering how these proposals address the uncertainty of fees.

It seems to me that restricting payments to a particular address assumes that the transaction can be actually made or that fees are negligible.

With fees growing, would it be possible for the payment to be uneconomical? And even if the payment is made, the actual amount received may be less than expected?

“I think Americans are used to seeing people arrested for bullshit technicalities and thrown in jail for long periods of time. But in the rest of the world, it is quite uncommon. For a non-US Bitcoin entrepreneur, the US is a scary and dangerous place. American authorities seem resourceful, competent, and motivated to destroy your life just to prove a point. This line of thinking is not paranoia, nor is it cowardice.” 🤔

This has a ring of truth to it. 🇺🇸 now a police state? nostr:note1npsllunn4wnt3dpaagk4435pp85ptpqxefjgz5q3vh5l8thm8zwqmxhsd3

I just watched MicroStrategy’s launch video of their new Orange ID platform and honestly I don’t get it.

As Saylor has previously pointed out, bitcoin has value partly because of its tie to the real physical world through its proof of work process. Its link to the real world is what makes it relevant.

But consider those IDs that Orange will issue. What links them to the real world? Who or what verifies that the ID that says it’s from me was actually created by me? Anyone could write in my name and publish it to the blockchain. Where’s the link to the real world?

Presumably he would need some central registry 🤮 or some web of trust 🤷‍♂️ to complete the picture but that wasn’t mentioned. I’m confused.

FYI, if you ever decide to get a green card you should delay that as long as possible.

Green card holders become taxed like citizens after holding a green card in eight calendar years.

Once you cross that milestone you must pay that expatriation tax like Ver. But if you surrender your green card before the milestone, then no exit tax.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/early-bitcoin-investor-charged-tax-fraud

It looks to me that the allegations are that Ver sold $240 million worth of bitcoin in November 2017, during the blocksize war.

If he used those proceeds to buy bcash (created in Aug 2017) then he’s down ~70% on that amount.

It really hurts when the tax bill on the sale is about the same as the amount you have left. 😬

Yes, it seems likely that lightning will just be used by large custodians and federations. We, the plebs, will be using some sort of federated ecash.

I guess, technically, most of us have never used non-custodial lightning. Primal is one of the most popular nostr clients and it’s custodial.

Lightning is easy when it’s custodial. On Mutiny right now, there is a large setup fee to open the channel. But when you use a federation, there are no setup fees. Foreshadowing the future, I think.

Does it get better after the first episode?