Zap to Zero Day 10
I will mention two days today. If I stick to writing this "daily newsletter" every day early in the morning [0], then I can write about a single day basically. I can mention how much I got rewarded that day (for the day prior) and how much I stacked and spent during the day. Should be less confusing. A little additional confusion today saves a lot of confusion in the long run? However, in the long run, we're all dead but we should still try to improvise, adapt, overcome, right?
Also, ideally, I would write this daily newsletter just before the rewards for the new day come in. So I can also solve the problem of what "zap to zero" actually means:
I also realized that "zapping all my sats away" is hard to define. Currently, I just zap to zero and then I put the phone away and go to bed but people might keep zapping me before the next rewards come in. So I could game it by just going to bed very early (which I didn't so far).
-- #379231
If I am awake before the rewards come in, I could zap all my sats away before the new rewards come in. Is this this geoarbitrage this blog is talking about? Since when it's midnight in Texas and the rewards come in, it's a good time to wake up where I live?
Date | Spent | Stacked (Rewards) | Posts | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|
2023-01-04 | 11.4k | 11.4k ( | 3 | 38 |
2023-01-05 | 11.3k | 11.4k (3954) | 1 | 41 |
2023-01-06 | 6691 | 6282 (3665) | 0 | 38 |
https://m.stacker.news/11005https://m.stacker.news/11015https://m.stacker.news/11017https://m.stacker.news/11020
Interesting. Even with only
6691 sats
spent, I still made it into the top 6. Maybe that's weekend related? Maybe we will see a pattern in the long run in these charts that I mentioned a few days ago but didn't deliver so far:also wanted to include amount of posts and comments but I leave this for another day.
However, what is also worthy of a mention: Seems like @siggy47 is in full FOMO mode regarding the upcoming halving and is stacking as hard as he can. He stacked almost 3x more sats than @bitcoinplebdev on the second place!
But I also noted that it shows that I made zero posts yesterday (2023-01-06). Mhh ... must really be a time zone issue as @Undisciplined mentioned in some previous post of this series iirc but I can't find it (also didn't search much).
Zaps of 2023-01-06
- @benthecarman has made it easy for me to start with this section today. He posted that we need to rethink lightning (or at least he does). He mentions how lightning still relies to some degree on low onchain fees and thus it's only a leaky abstraction which does not scale enough, especially when it comes to ownership:
When you lay out all the different tradeoffs a lightning node needs to make, especially in a high fee environment, it makes me think, what are we doing here, are we going down the wrong path? Lightning is still fundamentally a fantastic payment protocol but its limitation is that it requires scale. Basically every problem I've outlined goes away when you have a large lightning node with lots of liquidity and high uptime so many we should optimize for that. The market has been telling us this for years already, +90% of lightning users are using custodial wallets because it works so much better at scale. So how can we use large scale lightning nodes without custodial wallets?
However, he not only complains but also has a vision for the future: Covenants
Are we doomed then? Is there no way to scale bitcoin in a self-sovereign way? Luckily, the answer is no, but we need some soft-forks. Covenants are the way to scale bitcoin ownership. There are a bunch of covenant proposals but at their core what they propose to do is to add a way, so you can have a bitcoin address that limits where and how the coins in it can be spent. This can seem scary, but we already have these in bitcoin today, OP_CTLV (Check LockTime Verify), which was soft forked in 2016, only allows you to spend from a bitcoin address if the transaction has a given locktime, this lets you gate when a utxo can be spent. What the current covenant proposals do is let you gate where a utxo can be spent. With that simple primitive many different protocols can be built that allow for scaling ownership.
If you didn't read his post yet, then wtf are you doing here? Stop reading this and read his post. You will thank me later. Here is another link to his post that you can click if the previous link was too short for you.
I really liked his post because it contains a lot of things that need to be said. For example, I myself don't run and never did run a routing node because I am too scared to lose sats because of mismanagement or stuff I might not even be able to control. I almost once did, but one day before my onchain tx was confirmed to fund the LN hot wallet, my SSD died. I was basically about to open channels and I would probably totally have lost funds if my LN node died the moment I opened some channels. Recovering the onchain funds was annoying enough.
However, tbh, I don't even run a private lightning node. I only run a lightning node for delphi.market but that one is running on mutinynet so not sure if that one counts. I haven't gotten to running a private lightning node yet but I am still planning to for the experience. Phoenix worked just too well for me so far so I never had the need. This is also exactly what @benthecarman mentions: Lightning works well at scales like ACINQ even though Phoenix is self-custodial but it still relies on the existence of @ACINQ's node. Mhh, that reminds me that I wanted to fork Phoenix one day to check how much work it would require to connect Phoenix to a different LN node ...
I also liked his post because it looked like a good investment opportunity. However, zapping wasn't rewarded today so I would like my sats back, too even though @benthecarman definitely earned his spot on the top and got an additional
6391 sats
for a total of whopping 35.2k sats
on his post.But I also liked this comment from @niftynei that I would like to see more discussion around even though no discussion will replace the need to do my own research. But it might enhance my research that hopefully exists in the future:
Fundamentally, all current lightning channels could become entirely useless if on-chain fees went high enough because a single payment would require too many reserves.All layer two designs suffer the same problem. Fundamentally, transacting off-chain is going to be beneath “economic feasibility (if questioned)” for the median user.Attempts to build larger coin pools suffer from exit-ability and consensus problems (how do people agree on the state of the L2 accounts to consider it valid?). I don’t expect this to ever change, no matter what new primitives get forked in or protocols for “sharing utxos” get invented.Choosing fedimints is deciding on one set of tradeoffs (no supply auditability, risk of jurisdictional kyc ban hammer for federation withdrawals) — every choice has different drawbacks. There is literally no “best” solution. Saying you’ve found one without enumerating the tradeoffs isnt very useful imo for helping people understand the problem space.
I hope I didn't put any wrong words into @benthecarman's mouth with this.
- Next banger is from @davidw: The Law That Will Ruin The U.S. Tech Software Industry.
He mentions that Section 174 was amended:
Many US software businesses amassed surprisingly high tax bills in 2023, seemingly out of nowhere, due to a tax change which took effect in July the previous year, which many small companies knew nothing about until finalizing their 2022 returns.The change was expected to be repealed (reversed) in December 2022, so many accountants didn’t inform customers for that reason. So, businesses got a surprise when the first tax payments fell due last April.The amendment to Section 174 meansemploying software engineers can no longer be accounted as a direct cost in the year they are paid
– unlike the norm, globally.
He also gives a nice example what this means in practice and includes further implications so go check it out.
- Next is actually a link from myself from yesterday that I accidentally found. I didn't read it until @davidw included it in his post about articles to persuade people on privacy. It's a blog post from Gloria Zhao from 2019: Digital Panopticon: Why Privacy is a Human Right
It's a very interesting (and scary) post about how a very efficient prison architecture (panopticon) can be applied to the digital world. However, unlike a physical panopticon, this digital panopticon has billions of windows:
I’m not lying, initially: their data isn’t worth anything just like having a window in my home isn’t an invasion of privacy if nobody is looking through it. But I now have billions of windows, ranging from helpful smart thermostats to life-saving heartbeat monitors, in every person’s home.
In case you didn't know what a panopticon is (like me):
The panopticon is a design of institutional building with an inbuilt system of control, originated by the English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century. The concept is to allow all prisoners of an institution to be observed by a single security guard, without the inmates knowing whether or not they are being watched.
The blog post also goes into depth how privacy erosion works and the role of machine learning in surveillance.
btw, thanks @davidw for archiving the link! I noticed (and was annoyed) that the original was posted on medium.com but I don't have the habit to use web archiving services - yet.
- Next would have been the Daily ~Devs Hangout post from @bitcoinplebdev because I really like this territory, the idea of a daily post and noticed that I didn't give it a shout out here yet, but ... I realized there was no daily post yesterday! So here are links to all the days before: Jan 5, Jan 4, Jan 3 and the ~devs introduction post.
these links should also prove that I wasn't simply confused but there was indeed no daily hangout yesterday.
Now go tell all your friends that this is the end:
[0] when will I feel confident to write "daily newsletter" without quotation marks? Writing it with quotation marks feels like keeping a door open for an exit scam.
I pay 1 sat for every typo or other mistake that you can find that I didn't edit out within the 10 minute timer.