yes, when designing the strike logo we made sure we flipped off the legacy system at exactly a 69 degree angle

nostr:note1wwpcgyjq2cgc7yzv40w2vv2dfwmc5uzayuffvlucpr03yt8ffc0q02ak8x

has anyone built nostr discussion forum software yet

once a UX like this is nailed down, the TikTokers and Instagramers can use Nostr as a replacement for their ad laden and censorship enabled apps.

nostr:note1knzjmryywaklj7flt3k4s7tz09995yxegg7phhy8kyecdlu7e7gst4zvan

GM. We had a hunch that the e.coli burger tweet would be deleted. We were right.

When all merkle branches for a pool match another pool (colored cells), it means that they are using the same block template.

You can also see custom transaction prioritization, like a tx accelerator, when there’s a lower than normal fee rate for the “first transaction”.

That's feasible; we are also considering it.

“When the balance exceeds 100 sats, you can melt them back into Lightning Network sats. If the balance falls below 100 sats, you can mint some ecash sats from Lightning Network sats.“

If the amount is more than 1 million sats (approximately $700), put it in an onchain wallet. If it is more than 100,000 sats (approximately $70) but less than 1 million sats, put it in a Lightning Network wallet. If it is less than 100,000 sats, put it in an ecash wallet.

Everyone can set their own acceptable values.

How many sats would you put in an ecash wallet at most? You can distribute them across multiple ecash mints. nostr:note1w7agdjcmyufqt34y8c0p40tuvj7pf9es5k0ttjq975lwqm8em2zq37av2v

Sure, but the mint can still issue more tokens than it has in reserve.

Don't use Phoenix then.

If I have $50 of Bitcoin on the Lightning network. I don't care about custody.

If I put $1000 of Bitcoin on the Lightning network, I'll make sure I have my own keys.

"Bitcoin e-cash" is a misnomer. It's not Bitcoin. It's some shitcoin that may or may not be backed by Bitcoin.

Admit that they won. Liquid Network is your only alternative, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's too late now.

yes, it's impossible to know how top zaps will actually be used out there in the wild. there is probably a lot we still don't understand about this feature.

but even if some portion of it ends up being an ad space auction, imho that's still very interesting. 100% of the proceeds going directly to the content creator is kinda wild.

top zaps will evolve for sure. we'll just have to observe how they are being used and improve things. the obvious next step is to provide some level of customization to note authors, so they can disable disable this or set threshold amounts. we want to do this in a standard way so all nostr clients can benefit.

in any case: 🍿 🍿 🍿

Ok I've built this for fun and it's incredible.

A Cashu gateway: it's a normal Cashu user who has a Lightning node (or another Lightning payment backend). Everyone can act like a gateway as long as the mint supports ecash HTLCs (NUT-15).

If you as a Cashu user know of such a gateway, your wallet can send your Lightning payment request to it instead of to the mint.

The gateway responds with an amount (it can take a fee). If you agree, you send it ecash, and it pays your Lightning invoice. The process is atomic.

What does that mean? Let's think a little ahead and imagine this was deployed on a significant scale.

Even if the mint is full KYC for peg-in and peg-outs, a user could still make Lightning payments anonymously with the help of other users.

(!!! this alone would be huge !!!)

This would also enable us to make on-chain-only mints which opens up a whole new way of building mints (reserves could be in a multisig for example).

Crazy part: Gateways can be lazy and use custodial Lightning backends. The user doesn't care as long as the invoice gets paid.

Yes. That means you could use your Strike or Blink or LNbits account to act as a Gateway for a Cashu mint you like.

There could be many of crazy people like you. Nobody would ever know. Neither the mint. nor your LN service provider would notice. They all just see invoices.

It gets weirder. Gateways could use *another Cashu mint* as an LN backend. I know sounds like an inception nut but bare with me.

A user of mint M1 can ask a gateway of mint M1 to pay an invoice. The gateway could pay the invoice via mint M2 and receive ecash from M1 in return.

I always thought "you could run a mint for a thousand users on a Strike or a Blink backend without them even noticing the smallest thing".

Now I think you could probably run a mint for 100k users without them noticing, if there are other gateways handling payments for everyone.

Note: this is still experimental. Only paying works right now over the gateway, not receiving (more complicated).

The bast part though is that it doesn't require any Cashu protocol changes and the mints don't have to give you permission to do this.

It's all pretty nuts.

nostr:note142qdxj9dnp9nsmsuet9vw5pgtgtwj4e7vxv5qa0wvk8vdqy76cdqw3d5kr

A couple months ago I had a discussion with the head of digital assets at a multi-trillion AUM financial institution about the topic of whether bitcoin is a risk-on asset or a risk-off asset.

This wasn’t about what it is conceptually (i.e. globally portable finite bearer assets are conceptually good to own in a crisis, neither of us disagreed on this), but rather how its price would *actually* behave in a crisis currently and for the next several years.

Their view was that it could be marketed as a risk-off asset, meaning something that is likely to go up in a crisis, and that if marketed this way it would allow them to put bitcoin ETFs into more portfolios and weight it bigger.

My view was that while of course people should own bitcoin, it’s not yet a risk-off asset in practice in terms of price action, and that marketing it that way is likely to lead to disappointment for those that expect it to perform like that.

We then got into a discussion about how bitcoin went up in the March 2023 banking crisis. They suggested that this is evidence of emerging risk-off behavior, to their point.

I disagreed, and clarified that in my analysis the closest correlation to bitcoin price action is measures of global liquidity. Some types of crises are pro-liquidity and some are anti-liquidity, and will likely affect bitcoin’s price accordingly.

The March 2023 banking crisis was a pro-liquidity event because it was quickly apparent that the Fed/Treasury would bail banks out fast and slow their rate hikes. Therefore, bitcoin went up not because it was a risk-off asset per se, but rather because it behaved as a pro-liquidity asset as it frequently has.

The Iran/Israel event this weekend was an anti-liquidity crisis because it contributed to a flight-to-safety move toward the dollar (i.e. the unit of account for which the most debt is denominated in, and debt represents inflexible demand for that unit). A sharp move up in the dollar is bad for global liquidity because it hardens the debts of various foreign entities (sovereigns and corporations) relative to their cash flows (which are to varying degrees partially or completely denominated in fiat units other than the dollar). And so bitcoin behaved as it normally does: it went down amid falling global liquidity.

At this stage (with its relatively small size, high volatility, and poor understanding of most people for the asset), I continue to view bitcoin price action as likely to be pretty correlated with global liquidity for a while. Understanding that dynamic is helpful when communicating expectations to people and when determining which types of crises are likely to push its price up or down. Yes, bitcoin is a risk-off asset conceptually, but in practice in terms of macro price action it is still a pro-liquidity asset primarily.

When bitcoin price action starts to behave differently from that trend, I’d be happy to report on that observation.

i don't understand how it's even profitable to mine this shitcoin.

Your flex isn't a flex.

No one cares about your car.

Or your bigwig job title.

Or your watch.

I was just in a room full of c suite execs from fortune 500 companies.

People that have reached the pinnacle of traditional success.

But they aren't in control of their time.

Most of them completely missed their children growing up.

Many of them are unhealthy.

And few of them know how to enjoy life, because they have spent their lives focused on the next rung of the corporate ladder.

Conditioning themselves to live for "someday" that will never arrive.

In their defense, when they started their careers decades ago, it was a lot harder to achieve a high quality of life outside of the big corporate setting.

But now the status symbols they aimed at (the title, the big house, etc.) have lost value.

The new status symbols are:

- Control over your time

- Control over where you work

- Freedom to watch your children grow up

- Ability for your spouse to stay home

- Ability to travel whenever you want

- A fit body and a healthy mind

Just like the old status symbols, nobody really cares whether you achieve these things.

But your family will. And that's what matter most.

So how to get these things?

We live in an age of incredible opportunity.

The opportunities for individuals and small teams to build wealth via business have never been greater.

You no longer need to slave away in an office for decades to bank $10+ million.

Traditional media used to monopolize the power to influence; today that power has been decentralized by platforms like X.

Similarly, corporate influence has lost ground to individual influence.

Authentic individuals are the brands that people now trust.

And people will always prefer to buy from brands they trust.

This is an opportunity for those who recognize it and act upon it. That alone should make you optimistic.

But what if you don't want to start a business?

You can still get there by choosing to save in #Bitcoin

Families that have adopted a Bitcoin standard for their savings have seen dramatic increases in living standards compared to people who save in assets like the S&P500.

For every Lambo-flaunting crypto scammer, there are probably 1,000+ families spending more time together because of Bitcoin.

And at the end of the day, that's the only status symbol that really has any substance.

Repost from @Stack Hodler