Replying to https://twitter.com/SimplestBTCBook/status/1729929803841573317:
@SimplestBTCBook @ocean_mining "0% fees! (For a couple months until it goes to 2%)" just seemed a bit too wordy, I assume.
Replying to https://twitter.com/SimplestBTCBook/status/1729929472759984564:
@SimplestBTCBook @ocean_mining Answer: They are non-custodial for those with enough hashrate to receive 1m+ sats out of a found block reward. They hold (read "custody") the sats for the rest of us until lightning payouts go live SOMETIME next year.
Replying to https://twitter.com/ChrisBlec/status/1730203395636486289:
@ChrisBlec @ocean_mining "Non-custody for the big farms" didn't sound sexy when they are trying to market themselves to plebs whose sats they will be custodying until 1. they reach a 1m+ threshold, or 2. they get around to activating lightning payouts.
Replying to https://twitter.com/DoDockin/status/1729925697018458280:
@DoDockin @Simply_safe88 @ocean_mining Exactly. And conversely, if you can't be profitable with 1, there is no number of miners where you will suddenly become profitable.
Replying to https://twitter.com/sethforprivacy/status/1730227049099411849:
@sethforprivacy What happens to an Ordinal transaction that doesn't make it into an OCEAN block (assuming they find one sometime)?
Oh yeah, it's still in the mempool and probably makes it into the very next block. Great censorship, eh?
I say this as someone who is currently mining on Braiins and who is likely to continue mining there at least until I accrue enough to pass the payout threshold:
This whole "OCEAN is censoring transactions" thing is WAY overblown. The pool has yet to find a block since it was relaunched. That means there hasn't been a single Ordinal transaction that has failed to make it into a block due to OCEAN. Real effective censorship, eh?
Moreover, even when OCEAN does find a block, it's not like the Ordinal transactions they didn't include disappear from everyone's mempools. They'll probably make it into the very next block that is found by another pool.
Is nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft's 140 character max relay engaging in censorship because it rejects notes that don't fit that criteria? No, because you can get any other note you want to show up in your feed by getting data from other relays.
Likewise, I would not be engaging in censorship if I ran a relay that purposefully rejected pornographic content due to my own moral convictions about it. You can get the same notes from any other relay that IS willing to host them.
The same applies here. If you personally don't mind Ordinals, or even want to encourage them to continue on Bitcoin, then by all means point your hashrate to virtually every other pool out there. If you personally don't want to participate in encouraging Ordinals, then consider pointing your hashrate at the only pool out there that has said they will exclude them from their block templates.
Either way, OCEAN deciding not to include those transactions is absolutely not going to censor those transactions in the slightest if they don't make it into a single solitary block out of who knows how many before OCEAN finally finds one.
I guess the long and short of it is this:
Bitcoin is censorship resistant for the same reason that Nostr is censorship resistant.
It's not because NO ONE can reject transactions they don't like or notes they don't like, but because there is enough decentralization of mining pools and relays, with a variety of views about the types of transactions that should make it into blocks or notes that ought to be available to interact with, that it is impossible to prevent someone from transacting as they want, or prevent a note from ever being seen.
Ordinals will make it into blocks so long as even a fraction of the overall hashrate points toward pools that will include them.
I say this as someone who is currently mining on Braiins and who is likely to continue mining there at least until I accrue enough to pass the payout threshold:
This whole "OCEAN is censoring transactions" thing is WAY overblown. The pool has yet to find a block since it was relaunched. That means there hasn't been a single Ordinal transaction that has failed to make it into a block due to OCEAN. Real effective censorship, eh?
Moreover, even when OCEAN does find a block, it's not like the Ordinal transactions they didn't include disappear from everyone's mempools. They'll probably make it into the very next block that is found by another pool.
Is nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft's 140 character max relay engaging in censorship because it rejects notes that don't fit that criteria? No, because you can get any other note you want to show up in your feed by getting data from other relays.
Likewise, I would not be engaging in censorship if I ran a relay that purposefully rejected pornographic content due to my own moral convictions about it. You can get the same notes from any other relay that IS willing to host them.
The same applies here. If you personally don't mind Ordinals, or even want to encourage them to continue on Bitcoin, then by all means point your hashrate to virtually every other pool out there. If you personally don't want to participate in encouraging Ordinals, then consider pointing your hashrate at the only pool out there that has said they will exclude them from their block templates.
Either way, OCEAN deciding not to include those transactions is absolutely not going to censor those transactions in the slightest if they don't make it into a single solitary block out of who knows how many before OCEAN finally finds one.
Replying to https://twitter.com/jmbushwrites/status/1730313691050983719:
@jmbushwrites I'm an Elder at my church and we accept Bitcoin donations for tithing. Set up with Lightning and an on-chain multi-sig cold storage.
Only a few members are using it at the moment. I tithe USD that the church receives as Bitcoin.
Replying to https://twitter.com/BraiinsMining/status/1730355329651601790:
@BraiinsMining Looking forward to seeing how this will work with managing liquidity predominantly going in one direction.
In other news:
#mining #Bitcoin #plebchain #plebmining
Replying to https://twitter.com/BraiinsMining/status/1729897435793690648:
@BraiinsMining Lightning?
Interesting... While nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze is kicking off a new pool with their TIDES payout method, Braiins Pool is going the opposite direction by switching away from their current Scoring method to FPPS starting December 12th...
Where are you pointing your hashrate #plebchain?
#Bitcoin #mining #plebmining
I solved this issue by hooking my S9 up to a dehumidifier. Using twice the electricity, but my water bill is now reasonable.
I am very interested in seeing how lightning payouts would work for small miners. I would think that liquidity would constantly be an issue since virtually all lightning transactions would be going in a single direction.
Would each block found result in the need for a new lightning channel? What about the liquidity of the channel partners to the broader network? Or would Ocean have a channel opened to each entity mining with them and the channel would just need to be rebalanced once in a while?
You guys rock! Upgrading to this from my current Pi node. Looking forward to finally getting serious about my Lightning setup!
Replying to https://twitter.com/pray_hodl/status/1728973130209910815:
@pray_hodl @ZacharyKoch13 I would be careful about building an argument about the morality of anything based on a Biblical narrative without something solid as teaching elsewhere in Scripture. Just because something WAS done doesn't mean it SHOULD have been done.
Replying to https://twitter.com/DavidShares/status/1727697776950026610:
@DavidShares @mononautical Hmm... Maybe there's a reason for that? 
Starfield a bit. Enjoying it so far.
Sovereign Craft - The last remaining Bitcoin Minecraft server that I know of.
They want it all permissioned, and they want us to pay subscriptions to use it.