That's good.

It will soon break the myth that we need the government.

Let's lower their responsibilities even more!

Too late!

Plebstr. I've tried Amethyst and Primal, but Plebstr won me.

1 thing I would like fixed, is sometimes the links are broken in 2 parts and thus don't load properly.

Not sure if it's only Plebstr or other clients have this as well.

The problem I encountered with gandlaf's faucet is that it gives tokens from mints that since their donation have gone offline. This results in unredeemable tokens, and the faucet will not give a new one for some reason. Maybe the faucet should randomize which cashu to give, instead of using a queue (I assume that's how it works).

Close all escape routes!

Exactly. Want to be taxed more? Just make a donation. Unless you're the type of person that thinks only forced taxation is the right way.

Or maybe miners turned on because of huge fees. Let's see how long this will last.

From Liquid to Cashus, instantly and low cost.

LN is awesome!

You're awesome, Jack!

Looking forward to the European launch.

Looking for a place in London to get a beer with Bitcoin thru LN?

I read about Brewdog Canary Wharf, are they accepting BTC thru LN?

nostr:npub14mcddvsjsflnhgw7vxykz0ndfqj0rq04v7cjq5nnc95ftld0pv3shcfrlx any ideas?

I don't see the point of a wallet as PWA (like nostr:npub1mutnyacc9uc4t5mmxvpprwsauj5p2qxq95v4a9j0jxl8wnkfvuyque23vg ).

Can't the web host change the code at any time?

And doesn't this mean they can steal the funds on any update?

Unless I'm missing something on how PWAs work.

Or it's meant to be self hosted from "uncle Jim".

An of course, the same problem exists on auto-updated applications from play store.

And I was wondering what those up-down sudden spikes were, about half an hour ago.

At 100 sat/vByte, each block costs more than 1 BTC in fees.

With 10 min block time, that's 144 blocks a day.

So they would need to burn 144 Bitcoin a day.

In current exchange rate, $5.7m.

$171m a month.

I guess it sounds doable but wouldn't that just increase the bitcoin price in $ terms, while also increasing fees in both sats and $?

It seems unsustainable in the end...

If the btc price doubles (because the attacker keeps buying), and fees double (200 sats/vByte), that's quadruple the cost... $684m per month.

Unsustainable if you ask me.

What about agora?

If a government pays miners to mine "useless" blocks, I think they should mine them.

The goverment will run out of money eventually (either depleting their resources or hyperinflating).

I don't find the inflation bug similar to the current situation, since it was actually a bug, not a feature.

The permissionless, open and censorship-resistance characteristics are features of Bitcoin, not bugs to be fixed.

Let me clarify, I don't care if ordinals are blocked, I don't care if the US gov's transactions are blocked. But if we start this path, where does it stop?

Maybe my transaction is next.

You call it censorship because you disagree with the content of those transactions, which is subjective. Some peeps don't disagree.

Also, ordinals aside, some rich actor could spam Bitcoin without jpegs. Just move sats back and forth between their wallets, paying high fees to block everyone else. Is that spam? Should you block these transactions? I see them as valid. And we need better ways to deal with that situation than filtering whatever the miner sees as spam.

Ethics is many times subjective, so I'd prefer miners to be completely blind and objective...

Pools and miners should just mine the biggest fees. If they start filtering, they introduce censorship in Bitcoin. I don't want that. I don't care if they block ordinals or sanctioned wallets or whatever, I don't like censorship.

I thought the latest epoch started on Jan 3, 2009.

But I guess 1970 is also important.

It depends if you count in seconds or blocks.

Oh I see. So what's so bad about announced channels? Bad liquidity and failed routing (for others) is my guess, but please let me know if I'm missing something.