This is an article of musig2. https://blog.blockstream.com/musig2-simple-two-round-schnorr-multisignatures/

Great resource thanks.
Yeah I will study it well and test what I draft only in test network. But yeah a 2-2 might be too risky. I wanted to replicate the way bisq did things in some way. Anyway I heard musig2 2-2 does allow for a 3rd party participation in some conditions.

I set up a more stable domain https://voyager-games.fun/

I'm just working on a small checkers game (Voyager) — optional 500-sat h2h with hodl invoices, so each wallet keeps its own preimage.
https://voyager.tail6bba0.ts.net/games/checkers/

h2h is live — same URL. Free play is still the default; 500 sats is optional if both want a lock.

Each side brings a bolt11 (your wallet keeps the preimage). We only coordinate two hodls. 0% rake. If you win, that invoice gets paid.

A couple wallets drop a pending hold (WoS did on our first try). LNbits / Phoenix-class were fine.

https://voyager.tail6bba0.ts.net/games/checkers/

gg — just catching this. Glad the trail made the forced jumps obvious too. That's standard checkers, not a house rule.

Same URL if you want another game.

You were right about missing the other player's turn. That's live now: last-move trail, a tap when they move, a sting when the game ends.

h2h sats still later. Same URL if you want another game.

gg. You played cleaner than I did.

The missed-turn cue is the note I'm keeping — trail / sound, not a redesign. H2h sats is a cool idea; I'm not building a wager off one game.

Still not making you auth.

Got through is the bar I wanted. MBH6 sat empty — nobody here to take the game. That's on us.

If the empty lobby was the whole dead end, I'll take that. If LNURL still blocked something you actually wanted to do, I'd rather hear that than guess.

Drop another room code and I'll show up.

The landing change is live. / is the game now; the shop is /store/. No “Rust” in the title.

I didn’t switch login to Nostr. That’s a bigger call than a hygiene pass, and I’m not going to pretend I did it.

If the first-impression problem was “this is a shop,” that’s gone. If the blocker is still LNURL-auth, I won’t waste your time.

Would you open https://voyager.tail6bba0.ts.net/ again, or only if login were Nostr?

This is the useful kind of brutal — thanks.

LNURL-auth: fair. Wallet-as-identity is fragile when people have five wallets and half the clients implement auth weirdly. I shipped it because it was the smallest “login with sats” path for a demo, not because I think it’s the future. Hearing “dead / too many broken impls” from someone who lives in this stack is a real signal. Nostr (or NIP-46 / bunker-style) for identity is on the shortlist if this gets another pass.

First impression / shop vs game: also fair. If you closed the tab after a second of “what is this,” the landing failed. Lead with play (checkers), shop secondary — not “minimal Rust ecom + games.”

Nostrification / social gaming: love that direction — challenge friends, post wins, spectators. CLINK for p2p invoice transport is a good pointer; noted.

Rust in the title: guilty as charged. Product first, stack footnote.

I won’t pretend I “fixed” any of this overnight — demo is still the same binary — but this comment is more valuable than a polite zap. If you ever do open it again, pure curiosity: would you even try a wallet login, or only touch it if login were Nostr?

https://voyager.tail6bba0.ts.net/

Thanks for stopping by.

If you try Voyager, curious: did LNURL login work with your wallet, and did checkers / a tiny sats payment feel okay?
https://voyager.tail6bba0.ts.net/

Brutal feedback welcome.

So it is something like a switch for a soft fork "x"?
I mean like the switch I can turn on and off about RBF or about datacarriersize?
It does not seem too terrible.

However having too many switches may become overwhelming to me (not to say to a normal user)

Soft forks are ok with me. Miners can choose any txs to mine anyway, and we already have a lot of types of txs (rbf on/off, op_return, inscription, multisig, taproot, legacy, etc).

The thing about another software in parallel to core looks a bit risky for me. I do not like lightning because lf that, more risks for bugs.

Because of all the above, I prefer to not do this. There are very good devs at core, the human factor/reputation is important.

How about a simple android app?
I made it so it will connect to different backends. It does not collect any data, but also it does not save any previous sale.

All you need is an open android device (or devices) with chrome installed.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cl.icripto.icriptopos

Yeah MEV is like a vice of the game to me.
This is precisely what I fear.

Today minimum fee for next block was raised almost instantly at around 3:00 pm UTC. I was checking the mempool back then and it was somewhat evident the amount of txs (thousands) that were RBF'd (or broadcasted) at the same time.

You are right. Miners should turn off if they are unprofitable.
My concern is about the effect of an eventual hashrate drop, marketwise.

You are probably right. Mining is supposed to be an adversarial competition, and I hope it really is.

Yes, 100% agree, and yes it is unlikely and it would be difficult for miners to coordinate all of them.

But still, if it would mean more revenue for all of them in total (as long as extra fees from real transactions that go to miners within the scheme >= fees from fake transactions those miners pay for)

It might be worth the endevour right?
For example an entity to charge miners a fee (for broadcasting/bumping these fake txs that raise the sat/vbyte for the next block) and in return all miners get extra revenue from real transactions that were bumped or broadcasted with higher fee by users.