My understanding is that SVB bought bonds (based on the feds predictions at .1%interest ) Interest is actually 4.7% (47X). So the bonds are performing below market value. If SVB sells the bonds to cover withdrawals, they have to take a loss. But the bonds should be less than deposits? It sounds like a technicality less than a bank fail, and the news feels like a shell game. Twitter is saying that all the crypto friendly banks are shuttered, yet BTC/$ looks strong. I can't tell who the patsy is, which is.. disturbing.

Can someone help me understand this thing? Not some pithy stack sats reply. Think like a chess game, mate in 3 maybe 4. You got 10 minutes on the clock.

I want to understand the moving pieces here.

Yup, thanks for the link to the github. It's right there in the Wallet Transaction Safety section.

And you nailed it with the OTS, I incorrectly assumed it was a hash.

Wow, you're hardcore!

You'll be surprised to find out that some of us interact with 'normies'. We have family and friends who don't have the time, money, or attention to get a new phone that can run an alternative OS, install a 'perfectly secure' messaging system. Whatsapp and signal are pretty good. People are already using them, it's easy to share photos etc.

And what's wrong with signal?

Like @nullama, I sell fiat for BTC (and dare I say it, ETH).

I've a note on my invoices (engineering services) offering a 10% discount for crypto payments, but never had anyone even call me about it.

His book was pretty good. Well written. I would think he agrees with you.

I hope you're wrong. Deleveraging looks like it'll cause a lot of suffering for we the people.

Yes, the wallet on SN. I don't have the keys, but it looks like all the posts have a hash, so I assume it's a wallet and not a database.

The custodial part I can see, I don't have private keys for my wallet here.

But is it a database? It kind of looks like a bunch of LN transactions that get wrapped up and verified (confirmed?) on the node that this site writes on? And the node operator eats the onchain fee?

A sovereign state can choose whatever legal tender it wants. This is noise, don't pay attention to the IMF and stop giving it headline attention.

How's that? This article makes it look like there's a base fee and liquidity fee. Are they voluntary? Is StackerNews just running a node with zero fees?

My wallet shows the 10sat spend, but I can't see or breakdown any fee associated with that spend. My understanding is that the LN node pays the fee when it sends all wrapped transactions back on-chain. Is the a record of the fees paid to the LN node?

Yeah, the lightening network would be a great addition, but I'm writing this for larger payments ($500-$2000) between people who may not understand lightning. I'd like to keep it as simple as possible for now.