You might like fig.io

Also I believe https://discopay.cc had slash commands first, could be wrong. There was a post on here a while ago shilling it.

32, by far

I know it’s bullshit but at this point it’s kinda what we need. The mainstream is not going to be able to understand the nuances of PoW & miner incentives so it’s probably for the best to just make blanket statements like, “lightning offsets bitcoins energy footprint” fuck em.

Well I’m sorry you might be delusional then. Think on it more and I will as well. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your response, John.

The only value that matters (as the block subsidy fades) as far as miners are concerned is transaction fees, which is why I’m not really worried about bitcoin in exchanges, etc.

You make an argument that bitcoin has always had stablecoins so it’s a non issue, but that totally neglects the dwindling block subsidy. Things that may not have seemed like a problem could very well become a problem when miners solely subsist off fees.

Lastly, I admit that i cannot decide how you use the blockchain.

People seem to think that bitcoin is immortal or “inevitable” and nothing they do can fuck it up.

Imagine tether on bitcoin/lightning is so wildly successful that the majority of usd settles on bitcoin. Do you really think bitcoin (as a censorship resistant money) survives that?

I think stablecoins on bitcoin are a terrible idea, and potentially an existential risk. If stablecoins become widely accepted the issuer has immense influence over forks. This is doubly so because the users of these stablecoins likely don’t value Bitcoin’s inherent use case ( censorship resistance) or they wouldn’t be using stablecoins. So that culminates in a bunch of people who don’t really care about bitcoin using it and paying mining fees to do so and the issuer of said stablecoin getting to point those users’ mining fees at whatever fork they want, causing a larger financial incentive to mine on their side of the fork. What are the problems with this argument?

I think custodial balances are totally fine and jumping through hoops to remove the custodial nature of it has a real cost to speed of feature development. Also what most projects do to be “non-custodial” is ask for your node’s admin macaroon which is FAR worse than keeping a tiny balance with the site.

Thank you ❤️

If you do comment: DO NOT MENTION THE ENVIRONMENT AT ALL.

Change the dialog to focus on the humanitarian benefits bitcoin provides persons in unstable communities.

Property rights for those whose governments cannot protect. Etc

What are you gonna use the money for? I think you should start paying bounties for GitHub contribution.

It’s nowhere close to enough.

A simple vpn. No fuss. Download the app scan a week code pick a country and go.

IMO if you are responsible for creating a coin and you hire people who’s implicit or explicit goal is to make that coin worth more money the SEC should come after you.

Wait what? That’s amazing.

Let’s focus on earth first. Not making needed changes because we’re worried about it not working on Mars is very dumb IMO.

Of course I just don’t know what I want first eltoo or segwit v2

Yeah that’ll be amazing. I wish we could do all of this faster.

Yeah it was on a recent episode of slp. Trust me I totally understand the argument about a small blocksize. The more expensive it is to run a node the less number of nodes we have. The amount of lightning adoption in this last year has been incredible. So many new people joining this space running a lightning and a full node for the first time. I don’t have numbers on this but I think there are a ton of people running a full node now who wouldn’t be doing so if it weren’t for lightning. If lightning adoption continues to increase like this we will start to see that channel opening fees will become too expensive and become the bottleneck. TLDR: Demand for L2 creates more L1 nodes. If supply on L1 can’t meet demand of L2 we still get less L1 nodes.