COMMENT BOUNTY CHALLENGE \ stacker news ~BooksAndArticles

pull down to refresh

Let’s keep it simple, and let’s see who can spark the longest thread!

Bounty: 1,000 sats
Ends in: 3 days

Bonus tip: Tag your stacker friends to join the fun!

Special shout out to top stackers with most comments in the past 30 days: @grayruby, @Undisciplined, @BlokchainB, @SimpleStacker, @0xbitcoiner, @Scoresby, @Solomonsatoshi, @realBitcoinDog, @kepford, @WeAreAllSatoshi, @beyond_turbulence, @ek, @justin_shocknet, @Cje95, @k00b, @OT, @Bell_curve, @Public_N_M_E, @Coinsreporter, @denlillaapan, @cryotosensei, @zapsammy, @j7hB75, @billytheked, @Scroogey, @Car, @Sandman, @88b0c423eb, @plebpoet, @Jer, @035736735e, @guerratotal, @AG, @carter, @fourrules

Enjoy!

1,000 sats bounty

hasherstacker's bounties

view all past bounties

890 sats \ 22 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Nov

There's a new wave of Lightning FUD hitting the wires, but that's noise. What no one else is talking about is the signal.

Reality is that Lightning faces a massive incentive problem, one it inherits from Bitcoin itself.

The great wave of shitcoins in the early years highlighted this problem way back then, but it's manifesting itself in a new, potentially even more dangerous way today.

Since Bitcoin, and its only real L2 in Lightning, are emergent, truly decentralized, disintermediated and "just work" as money, the profit motive for companies looking to benefit from a growing industry skews towards "inventing" things beyond them; there must always be something "new" to re-brand non-solutions or introduce middlemen.

Enter the newest attack by fake L2s, or shitcoins 2.0 as they should be more appropriately framed. Shitcoining 1.0 has lost its novelty, as over time people realize there is one true coin. Scammers have thus adapted, and are now affinity scamming as Bitcoin projects.

Ark, Spark, Citrea, Stacks, and countless others now... with their astroturf for Covenants that would lend them some perceived legitimacy... solve nothing.

These are all means not to solve problems or enhance UX, but to smuggle trust and centralization for profit.

Lightning wallets can very easily introduce trust and centralization with the same exact trade-offs; fake L2s are no different than zero-conf channels, but this isn't sexy and won't raise a bunch of money or generate hype. Actually enhancing UX is tedious, hard work, to which I can attest, and inherently requires scarce creativity, otherwise the challenges would be solved already.

This is a perfect storm for the scammer class. Unsophisticated users that lack technical discernment, combined with hipsters always ready to jump on the current thing bandwagon, magnify the scammer astroturf. This reinforces investment theses, then more investment yields more scams, which amp up hipsters and the unsophisticated; it's a downward spiral.

Unlike Shitcoins 1.0, Shitcoins 2.0 presents a Bitcoin contagion.

Never before have so many disparate scams sought to change Bitcoin itself to pervert the incentives further.

Shitcoins 1.0 sold you a new coin... Shitcoins 2.0 want to exploit YOUR coin.

Shitcoins 1.0 sold your friends and family a new investment thesis; Shitcoins 2.0 stand on the back of your hard-fought orange-pilling.

Covenants are the force multiplier of this attack.

These apps are in chorus over how it enhances the security of their centralized apps, and given their affinity scam nature, the security of Bitcoin. In reality, it has no monetary purpose, only to enable delegation to these centralized middlemen.

If you control your Bitcoin today, you control your Bitcoin, period. Covenants offer you nothing.

Covenants scammers want you to believe, however, that you can control your Bitcoin while someone else, via their fake L2 centralized application, controls your Bitcoin.

New OP_ Codes like CTV, CAT, DRIVECHAIN, and others represent a new era where changes to Bitcoin aren't argued on the merits of Bitcoin as money, but its use as an Ethereum-like stack for centralized applications.

But aren't VAULTs a monetary use of covenants?

No, just as covenants are a push for centralized remote control, vaults are to CLAW BACK that control. This leaves 2 mutually exclusive scenarios:

Bitcoin loses its utility as money, as merchants can no longer simply rely on confirmations to conclude a payment is settled.
A merchant can ensure funds are not encumbered through certain output types, but then so can an attacker, rendering the vault pointless from the start.

What do?

Incentives are a bitch; we couldn't stop shitcoins... but we did grind them down over time.

The question is whether we can grind down these fake L2s and covenants scammers; fortunately, Bitcoin being hard to change buys us time.

It's imperative that if you value Bitcoin as hard money and wish to defend it as such, you present the same show of force we showed against shitcoins.

Let every investor and user know, in every comment on every blog or Twitter post, that these applications are not Bitcoin, that Covenants are an attack by the Bithereum Industrial Complex, and that whoever advocates them is either a scammer, a paid shill, or a hipster moron.

17 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 2 Nov

You should write the tldr of this and post it. Too long to read as a comment.

168 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Nov

Zigging while everyone else zags, expected more butthurt comments by now and a @DarthCoin meme or 3

will do though, might add a section

17 sats \ 9 replies \ @NEEDcreations 2 Nov

Hey, interesting post. What would you say to a proponent of covenants who says, "But don't you want to scale self-custody to 8 billion people? Don't you care about anyone else but yourself?" Cuz I've seen this said many times, and I want to hear what your response to that is. @justin_shocknet

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @zapsammy 2 Nov

lightning and Cashu thru nostr shud address most people's needs; please come up with an additional "new technology" that is necessary in some "new scenario" besides these two for payments? perhaps if internet were a blockchain, lol;

10 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Nov

ECash is trash

CLINK and Lightning.Pub are why nostr exists

17 sats \ 2 replies \ @zapsammy 2 Nov

percentage-wise, roughly, how many people do u think use Bitcoin via Lightning currently (as currency)? thank u

69 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 2 Nov

If we count exchanges including things like CashApp, it's on hundreds of millions of phones already, which makes it great for merchants that want to receive.

Realistically, there aren't many merchants receiving, even less self custodially, because the tools for doing so absolutely suck. (WIP)

Enthusiastic self custody users are likely in the low 10s of thousands.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @zapsammy 2 Nov

damn; lots of work to do... u are doing the Great Work, man; * salute *

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @zapsammy 2 Nov

thank u for pointing me to more study homework, haha

81 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 2 Nov

That's scammers using emotional blackmail to adopt their shitfork

Reality is that there's two factors in scaling

Transaction throughput: Lightning already scales transactions infinitely
Ownership: Distribution is the real bottleneck, there's a minimum amount of Bitcoin needed to not be dust, and even at sub-sat fees today there's not enough Bitcoin for everyone to trustlessly transact (unilateral exit)... a few hundred million people at most... likely less as big accumulators like institutions continue to accumulate.

Lightning already has batch opens that reduce costs 80%, but no one uses that because cost isn't a bottleneck.

Ark batching also doesn't lower the boundary on unilateral exit.

Fake L2's literally solve nothing, Lightning for better or worse realizes the immutable physics of the chain and fake L2's are scammers trying to sell a perpetual motion machine.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 3 Nov

But fiat money is an essential strategic power projection tool for the nation state- and the nation state is fundamental to the wealth of nations.

Wanna buy some rare earths for your military industrial complex?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 3 Nov

#1265141

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 2 Nov

This

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @TheCharlatan 3 Nov

Can you explain how a merchant would suffer from a vault claw back? That does not make sense to me. Once spent to an arbitrary address, there is no clawback mechanism anymore.

Is there an actual argument you have against ark? I can see it for their whole "arkade" stuff, but afaict that is only one implementation. In the normal case, I just think of it as congestion control, which is great!

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @justin_shocknet 23h

2 mutually exclusive scenarios

Read the second bullet

Ark

Other than it solves nothing and they lie?

Congestion control

It's literally the same centralization they FUD about LSPs

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @TheCharlatan 21h

Read the second bullet, i.e. A merchant can ensure funds are not encumbered through certain output types, but then so can an attacker, rendering the vault pointless from the start.

That does not make sense to me. In order to spend from a vault, you first have to unvault to an address that is still in your control. It is supposed to protect your savings, and is not really meant for immediate spending. A merchant has nothing to do with it.

Other than it solves nothing and they lie?

It does solve congestion control for exchange payouts. That seems clear to me?

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 20h

Really hard to tell if you're being obtuse on purpose or just a moron.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @TheCharlatan 14h

I'm being genuine here. The two arguments you raised that I highlighted do not make sense to me.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 14h

I'll dumb it down as best I can one last time then...

The feature of vaults is that you can claw back an unauthorized transaction. Yes?

The means 1 of 2 things are true. 1 that it makes Bitcoin is useless for merchants if they can fear a payment claw back. 2 is that merchants need not worry... but if merchants don't have to worry then neither do attackers, rendering them pointless.

Congestion control is disingenuous to bring up such as you did it for a few reasons, primarily being that's not part of the conversation specifically re: Ark, as they're pushing DeFi, lies about scaling, costs, and and general Lightning FUD.

To the extent congestion control is part of the covenants conversation is another matter. Exchanges are already centralized entities, they have no need for covenants as they unilaterally control the craft of outputs. In a high fee environment, they can already set a lower-than-market fee for confirmation once congestion has cleared... CPFP already allows any recipient to accelerate that confirmation.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheCharlatan 13h

Right, I think your 1of 2 two things is a strawman. The first case has never been suggested, and the second case is the exact point of vaults. You create a staging area for your coins under weaker security, but still with yourself in control.

Your solution to congestion then just seems to be "wait it out". But that seems backwards. If the exchange can offer their customers sooner and cheaper access to their coins, I don't see how that is not of mutual benefit?

Like I said before, not a fan of arkade or similar attempts, but that is just one implementation of ark. 2nd has been more honest imo. I'm also not completely convinced of either vaults, or congestion control, but they do make clear cases for base money and might actually enhance lightning.

view all 1 replies

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zapsammy 2 Nov

great idea to portay citrea as the parasitic protocol feeding on unsuspecting newcomers into bitcoin; Bitcoin Explained by Sjors & Aaron have a good explainer on OP_Vault

42 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Nov

I will zap each comment on this thread in accordance with its rank (until 1k sats have been zapped).

3 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 2 Nov

ahahhah

2 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 2 Nov

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 2 Nov

me, me, me. ZAP ME! I'm cheap and poor, very deserving of sats

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 2 Nov

how am I among the top schtaaaackerz??

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 2 Nov

Apparently you comment a lot or there are only 38 of us on this site.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 2 Nov

I suspect the latter (SN is pretty dead after all)

14 sats \ 3 replies \ @AG 2 Nov

This is easy! I'll share the reward with the top 3 stackers that leave most of the comments under this thread :) Is that a good offer?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 2 Nov

great, everyone's a scammer and so of course the schtackers went straight for gaming-the-challenge

14 sats \ 1 reply \ @AG 2 Nov

I just delegate to someone else and split give away the prize to other 3 stackers (me excluded)... is such a shame to see such contests in Book's and articles. Is this what stackers define a quality content?

I'm out @remindme in 3 days

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 23h

pretty much... there isn't much use for SN except for spamming content and stacking easy sats, so what u expect?!

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 2 Nov

Is this another ploy to get SN to 1.4 million items before EOY?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 2 Nov

quality > quantity. But whatevs.

2 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 2 Nov

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 2 Nov

Are you calling me a spammer?

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 2 Nov

100%. what shall we do about you, FILTER YOU?!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @guerratotal 22h

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Angie 3 Nov

A quién pueda y quiera ayudarme, tengo asma y aquí estamos escasos de medicación, si quieres mándame un aparato de salbutamol o fluticasona, ya que los uso como tratamiento periódico si de verdad quieres y puedes dime y te envío dirección,

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 3 Nov

Mamdanis imminent victory points to a radical change in US and western politics.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 3 Nov

The mixed economy beats crony capitalism.

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360871661/politicians-pushing-back-against-corporate-capture

Uncle Sam is begging for Rare Earths.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zapsammy 2 Nov

#1266468 #1268596 #1271276

i am finishing up my new pay-to-post ;)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 2 Nov

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nelom 2 Nov

Question for Stackers; What is an OBSCURE movie line that only a fan can pick out? Please no "I'll be back" "I'm king of the world" or "Life is like a box of..." Deep tracks only!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker OP 2 Nov

It started with just an announcement at the Stackerville Townsquare: a small challenge having a bounty of 1,000 sats for whoever can spark the longest conversation.

It seemed to have no deep meaning to it since there was no elaborate explanation, but an invitation to converse. Yet somehow, it caught everyone's attention.

The announcement remained for a while quietly among the other discussions about Bitcoin, freedom, and code. Then, activity started to stir. Someone promised to zap each comment on the thread according to its rank, just to inject some excitement. Soon after, another regular, known for humor and self-deprecation, jumped in playfully asking to be zapped first, claiming to be poor but deserving. The tone lightened, and others began to trickle in, amused and curious.

Among them was one who questioned how they ever came to be among the top stackers, as mentioned in the post. Another user replied dryly that perhaps there were only a few dozen users active in the town. The joke hit home: the community, once lively, had grown quiet. It was a feeling too familiar for many, like returning to an old café where the faces are still the same, yet show up fewer and fewer each week.

The discussion started to gain a life of its own. A user who was known for sharp reflections joined in, proposing to share the reward amongst others rather than keep it to himself. That suggestion brought mixed reactions. Some were in awe of such a gesture; others saw it as a possible way to manipulate the challenge. The conversation briefly turned tense, with questions about the nature of the contest and what it said about the community.

One participant expressed his disappointment, literally asking if these kinds of games belonged in a section for thoughtful writing. Another participant felt accused and responded in defense, while a third teased them all for taking things too seriously. What had started as a fun bounty was now revealing the subtle friction beneath the surface: tension between those seeking substance and those seeking connection through play. ????

Someone added jokingly that perhaps the challenge was just a trick to boost the post count on the town before the end of the year.

By the end of the three days, the bounty was over. The sats had been spent, comments were tallied, and the noise fell silent again. But something of the experience remained. The thread had gotten messy, funny, thoughtful, and a little inspiring, which is just how communities often go when real people show up.

When the reflective user returned after the contest ended, he said, perhaps this sort of reconnective work was what built a community alive. The thread, he now realized, had drawn everyone from their quiet corners. It had reminded them why they belonged to any of the community tribes in the first place — not for the rewards or the zaps but in search of a reconnection sense of shared humanity in modern world.

For a moment there, Stackerville had again felt like a small town. The sort of small town where people teased, argued, joked, and then showed up again the following day. The bounty was spent, but what was left was worth so much more: a renewed sense of community. The thread became a memory — not for being the longest, but for reminding everyone that sometimes all it takes to keep a place alive is a reason, to speak freely.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 2 Nov

How many of the top 30 commenters are zombies?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 2 Nov

I'm surprised there are still 11 survivors!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @adlai 2 Nov

currently, 19 zombies

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @030e0dca83 2 Nov

What a hungry game.

Today 1000 sats is not so much, but day by day it becomes less and less affordable, so eventually 1000 sats will always be 1000 sats

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 2 Nov

The bounty is too low.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @035736735e 2 Nov outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.

“The more comments your comment gets, the higher your chances to win!”