Thanks for the link to Timechain Codex, will definitely read it, looks awesome!

Hopefully you eventually get success convincing her or someone else picks it up. Otherwise, I'll probably give it a shot at some point in the future. Though I am also more a reader of SF than a writer, for this kind of Bitcoin themed SF, an exception is in order :)

Hi Dhruv, loved the Bitcoin Astronomy series and premise.

Do you have any future plans on expanding the Bitcoin Astronomy series into a sci-fi book, in the style of the Dune book series, to explore the fascinating premise? If not, are you open to someone else adapting it into a book, short series (animated or live action), or other medium, while crediting you, of course.

Are there any sites, GitHub repos, or other sources you can recommend for tracking known security issues in Lightning and the progress on efforts to address each?

Similarly, is there a resource with a compatibility checker for the different LN node implementations, it would be great to know what features are available in which node implementation and the known issues using certain implementations together?

In your opinion, what are some of the current challenges, tech, or proposals in the Lightning space (especially on the protocol side) that devs should prioritize to work on?

My pleasure!

I'd be cautious to prognosticate on what the future landscape would look like in that regard, or the potential unintended consequences.

However, so long as no fragility is introduced at the base layer to enable all the fancy DeFi stuff, and all the risky play happens at much higher layers then it's all good—assuming users are made aware of the risks involved.

With Taro there may be some shitcoin attempts but I'd expect you'd only see traction with an asset that has the most utility and not a scam.

In general, allowing that flexibility and programability is a plus for building novel and interesting products and services which is good, but only if it doesn't come at the cost of harming the base layer, if it does then it will be 1000% horrible for the entire ecosystem and community.

Regarding upcoming reg, our hope is it'll be positive given, a lot us stockholders here are working to ensure we bring regulators up to speed on the many benefits of letting Bitcoin flourish.

As for regulating Bitcoin in general, it doesn't affect Bitcoin at all, however, it does affect whether regular folks can access it, which is why we need it to be good reg.

Hmm, I'd say maybe the fact that it a lot safer than people think, and also that we use comedy on a daily to cope with our problems in the country and personally.

Regarding cuisines, it would have to be Nigerian Jollof. Snack wise, I'd say Kilishi (aka beaf jerky).

For those who want something heavy, in Nigeria we have a class of food we refer to as 'swallow'. They get the job done.

When I signed up for Github it was really the Taxicab (aka Ramanujan's) number that was the reason for including 1729, it's such an interesting number.

The prospect of having those who use stablecoins to benefit from staying the Bitcoin ecosystem, especially LN and no longer need to touch more fragile systems outside Bitcoin.

Back in 2019, I honestly just wanted to challenge myself and contribute to the network I was benefiting from. All the PRs and reviews ever since have been the result of realizing we need to ensure the codebase is in good shape, always.

I am optimistic that as more structure and decoupling are introduced in projects like core, it'll become much more manageable to review code, make protocol changes, and build atop Bitcoin. I am also optimistic that necessary changes to the underlying protocol would be made to give more power to layers higher up the stack, such as LN, to improve how the network operates at a protocol level.

Another good thing is with more grant programs, especially ones with mentors, it'll be a lot easier for devs to get onboarded into the space and freely contribute without worrying about their financial circumstances or having to divide their focus working multiple jobs.

This also extends into the Bitcoin startup ecosystem, I am glad to see, outside of Recursive, Ten31, Ego Death Cap, and others, an increasing number of Bitcoin VCs are coming up, which helps with strengthening the signal in the space as more sound projects get funded. It'll also encourage others to build viable companies and not have to worry about pleasing Web3/crypto funds by integrating additional projects outside Bitcoin/LN.

Beyond that, I'd say my biggest concern is if we get to a stage where soft forks are considered a no-no, that will introduce a level of complexity that would further complicate and potentially negatively affect overall development.

Oh, I'd say there are many more developers interested in getting involved with Bitcoin.

Yes, as I said, where F2F already works great Bitcoin would be plugged in to replace whatever medium was previously used to exchange value. I think Bitcoin would certainly be an alternative but would still be used over mobile-money infrastructure, specifically via USSD codes in places where this makes up the core infrastructure for transacting.

The primary one is definitely education, a lot of folks are either misinformed about Bitcoin or simply do not know about it. On a related note, a lot of Bitcoin material is language locked (i.e. English only), which locks out a significant portion of the population.

Another challenge is infrastructure related, this spans from electricity issues all the way to Internet connectivity. However, mining will play a huge role in solving the former and the later mesh network and other related internet Infrastructure.

I'd also say there are still few pathways for devs to get from zero to hero, and products and services, while having made great strides, are not at a stage where folks use Bitcoin without knowing it.

haha, good question.

To achieve the level of adoption everyone is talking about, we need to ensure gov reg is conducive enough for Bitcoin to flourish; otherwise, it'll remain a tool that very few folks can use.

Engaging with regulators to achieve this isn't welcome around "F*** the government Bitcoiners," lol.

There are quite a lot, but I'd say "on the shortness of life" by Seneca sticks with me to date.

It was a potent hit of wisdom at a time when I needed it the most.

No worries, I was excited to answer, lol.

F2F will only flourish in areas of high levels of distrust and tight networks of trust. The main thing is, that the whole point of BTC is to eliminate the requirement of trust to exchange value. However, certain transactions, specifically those outside the Bitcoin network like on-and-of ramping, sometimes require a degree of trust between the parties that necessitate physical mutual transfer attestation.

We'll likely see more and more folks moving to products and services that are smooth UX-wise and eliminate or reduce that counterparty risk. However, in places where F2F is traditionally ubiquitous, they may have high levels of that.

In general, you don't want adoption to be conditional on requiring F2F on either end of transacting as that won't scale beyond micro-communities within geographical boundaries, i.e. villages, small cities, towns, etc.

Their typical responses are (I'll paraphrase):

So I'd say I get several consistent responses when engaging with devs, usually falling into one of the many above.

... necessary to maintain a resilient on-and-off ramp infrastructure for Bitcoin to continue succeeding in increasingly difficult jurisdictions.

Everything being built is useless if Bitcoin cannot operate in hostile working conditions, whether its network or regulation related.

Can't name a specific person, but more high-profile folks & devs will continue to get involved in the space as we grow out, and they start to see the attendant benefits Bitcoin brings to the continent.

However, if I were to describe a person, I would say someone very dedicated and hardworking—preferably anonymous—whose sole motivation is to make the world a better place by working to bring Bitcoin to the Billions.

If I were being cheeky, I'd say we need more Bitcoiners in government positions across the board.

The bitcoin code base is fairly organized and structured, especially compared to other projects in the open source space. It also has way better documentation.

Regarding the aesthetics, I'd say it's more pleasing, with some parts looking better than others, lol.

Regarding regulation, it's mostly a case of them catching up and us bringing them along to make it easier for average folks to freely use Bitcoin as they so wish. It'll continue to get really bad before it becomes great.

Countries that can get good BTC reg would enjoy the benefits of allowing Bitcoin to flourish and would be a more convincing argument for others to follow.

I do not and have never traded.

While writing the Recursive Capital Bitcoin Thesis in 2019, I was looking through different theories of the Bitcoin price, then after digging the hypothesis was born, after spending some time analyzing the prices (especially bottoms) across different halving cycles.

It became apparent that some information could be deduced from that. The metric has only been used in the Recursive Bitcoin dashboard (https://btc.rcrsv.xyz). Not sure if others have put to other use.