pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @supratic 11 Jun
shared earlier here #984466
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 11 Jun
I wish I could share directly a mp4 file instead of twatter or YT links, so people could watch the video directly in SN page.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @supratic 11 Jun
SN has some limits, last time I tried was at 250MB
reply
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 11 Jun
No need to upload directly the file to SN CDN.
You can use other CDNs. For example from Bitchute, you can extract the mp4 address of any video posted on bitchute and post the link. It will play on SN from Bitchute CDN.
Or use compressed and low res video files.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @supratic 11 Jun
Great, I'll check it out!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 11 Jun
After the ads are played, these buttons appear on the video in bitchute page
reply on another page
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bishop 11 Jun
Here's a summary generated by "AI"(NotebookLM).
Based on the source provided, the discussion between Francis Pouliot and Giacomo Zucco covers the state of Lightning adoption and the debate surrounding OP_RETURN data within the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Lightning Adoption:
- Technologically, Lightning is considered an incredible success. One of the speakers states they use it daily for non-custodial payments in shops in Lugano and El Salvador. Payments are described as instant, almost zero fee, and with immediate security.
- However, there was perceived failure in communication within the inner circle of developers who knew about Lightning's limitations from the white paper, such as onboarding problems, high channel opening fees when on-chain fees are high, and rebalancing issues. It's suggested that the marketing may have been exaggerated due to fighting to promote off-chain alternatives during the scaling wars.
- Another communication failure was not clearly explaining that "Lightning" refers to two things: the point-to-point channel construct and the network standard for swapping and routing across different security models. The channel construct is seen as potentially being complemented or replaced by other solutions in the future, while the network standard (invoicing, routing, swapping) is considered an unequivocal success.
- Security is presented as a spectrum with associated costs. Different security models exist, ranging from full custodianship (bad) to e-cash (slightly better), Liquid (same as e-cash but with Bitcoin interoperability), state chains (coordinator cannot rug pull, but can collude), ARC (non-custodial with windows of trust), point-to-point Lightning channels (way safer, instant and long-term security), and on-chain (highest security).
- Challenges with self-custodial mobile Lightning wallets were highlighted, such as the scalability issues with just-in-time channel opening, especially when on-chain fees are high. The cost of pre-purchasing channels due to the liquidity required from LSPs (Lightning Service Providers) was also mentioned, potentially leading to costs passed onto users.
- The potential of Liquid as a "Bitcoin stable coin" (backed one-to-one by Bitcoin) was discussed as an alternative for wallets, although it's not considered a second layer of Bitcoin because it lacks unilateral exit. Liquid also faces challenges being perceived as a proprietary network due to its creation by Blockstream.
- ARC (Atomically Replaceable Coin) is seen as a promising non-custodial security model that could bridge the gap, closer to Mastercard/Visa than the point-to-point Swift model. ARC has a liquidity cost for the provider but is presented as a good compromise with windows of trust.
- The idea of "auto-swap" wallets is gaining traction, where the wallet automatically selects the appropriate network or security model (e-cash, Liquid, state chain, ARC, Lightning channel, on-chain) based on the transaction amount, making opinionated decisions for the user to simplify the experience. This helps address the friction created by different payment methods in different contexts.
- Innovation at the application level (UX, libraries, infrastructure) is seen as key to Bitcoin's evolution, even if the base protocol layer undergoes ossification. BIP21 universal invoicing is highlighted as a great invention that allows for flexibility across different layers and services.
OP_RETURN Debate:
- The debate is framed within the broader context of whether Bitcoin's base layer protocol should ossify or continue to change. One perspective is that ossification at the base layer is necessary, and innovation should occur at higher layers or in application development.
- The discussion delves into Bitcoin's mempool policies, which are stricter than validity rules and historically served to protect nodes from spam and DDoS attacks. These policies filter out transactions deemed undesirable, even if they are technically valid.
- A philosophical debate exists about whether the mempool should filter transactions if they can eventually be included in a block by a miner (mempool should equal block). Some argue filtering is a difficult cat-and-mouse game, while others believe increasing friction for spammers is still beneficial.
- The taproot soft fork unintentionally created a new attack surface for including data (like ordinals) in the witness section, bypassing previous mempool filtering for OP_RETURN data. This led to a controversy because some developers, instead of acknowledging it as a bug, allegedly changed the documentation to frame this behavior as a feature.
- This incident triggered reactions because it highlighted perceived governance problems within Bitcoin Core development, where a "smaller faction" or "separate echo chamber" might disregard concerns from others, including users and power users. Accusations were made regarding potential biases related to developers being friends or receiving funding from "shitcoin" companies that benefit from this kind of data.
- The term "spam" is discussed as subjective within the debate, contrasting with the general understanding outside of Bitcoin (e.g., email spam). This redefinition of terms is seen as a red herring distracting from the core technical and governance issues.
- Concerns were raised about the neutrality and balance of the Bitcoin Core repository's governance. Examples of community members' contributions being marked as "abuse" or "spam" were cited. The reliance on a single reference implementation (Bitcoin Core) and the risks associated with miners running custom patches or using less reliable implementations like BTCD were mentioned.
- Despite these concerns, there is a general sentiment of stoicism and optimism. It's argued that while governance issues are serious, they are unlikely to lead to Bitcoin's collapse due to the inherent decentralization and the conflict resolution mechanism (potential for a fork). The intense debate, even over seemingly innocuous issues like OP_RETURN data size, is seen as a sign of the ecosystem's health and resistance to sneakiness. Having developers with extreme opposing views (like Luke Dashjr and Peter Todd) is considered a richness, but the process needs to be balanced.
Physical Bitcoin Hubs:
- Physical Bitcoin hubs like the Bitcoin embassy and BHB were discussed as paradoxical but effective tools for the cypherpunk community. While cypherpunks value online anonymity, physical meetings are crucial for building trust, cooperation, and emotional bandwidth that are difficult to achieve online.
- Physical proximity can facilitate spontaneous collaboration and idea flow, citing the Bolt specification for Lightning as an example that emerged from a physical meeting in Milan.
- Running physical hubs is acknowledged as very difficult. Despite past challenges with networking hubs, new initiatives like the Plumbing Network are aiming to create interconnected online resources and physical locations in various parts of the world (Lugano, San Salvador, Tokyo, Taipei, Turin).
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin OP 11 Jun
FUCK YOU SHITGPT BOT!
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @YewTuBot 12 Jun freebie
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=NsoGI-6zNQg