@TonyGiorgio's post of a few weeks ago is getting tons of traction on nostr. I think we all should consider subscribing to Mutiny +.
pull down to refresh
pull down to refresh
@TonyGiorgio's post of a few weeks ago is getting tons of traction on nostr. I think we all should consider subscribing to Mutiny +.
Keep in mind that I know I'm getting in over my head here technically, but are these reposts focusing on the blind signature aspects while ignoring the fedimint connection? They seem inseparable. Will this restart the whole argument of whether fedimint integration is custodial?
On another topic, this seems like a good solution for Stacker News zaps, no?
That's the point, it's theater to mislead the non-technical into thinking there are better trust assumptions than just calling it a database
There's no way around the fact that servicing of the Lightning Address is still done with a web server, which is inherently single-party trusted to serve the invoice expected
Buzzwords to misrepresent trust assumptions is a sad trend in Lightning, wrote about this specific nomenclature recently: #517245
Even SN has fallen into this trend with the new wallet connections via wrapped invoices, in the blind hope that they're sufficient to scam the regulator: #534360
Now, a successor to LNURL that actually validates signatures from the source could solve much of this, but that would require Lightning entrepreneurs to be honest about their current mitigations
I see your point, but I don't think it's an attempt to mislead. This is an accurate description, no?
Also, SN has certainly been open about it's obvious custodial character.
BTW, what do you see as the prospects for this?
Parsing it carefully we can see the intent
This is misleading by false-contrast. This statement serves only to distinguish this system from a conventional custodial Lightning address, even though the trust assumptions are exactly the same.
"Contract" is used here to imply atomicity, which coincidentally is SN's plan to scam the regulator
At this point the flow of funds already happened, to the custodian, they're shroedinger's funds- rugged or unrugged.
Sounds like magic when you put it that way, but the same is true of Wallet of Satoshi
Wallet of Satoshi is decentralized too because you can simply use someone else to take delivery of your sats
Please take this as an honest question. Where do you stand regarding a solution? Is this leading to a small v big block dispute?
If so, I personally am more worried about small, affordable nodes than complete trustlessness on L2. When you say things like
You lose me, mainly because I see the regulator here as doing the scamming, with SN as the victim.
Solution to which problem exactly? Scaling?
I think most people will use Bitcoin in a trusted way and that most scaling advocates are lying to themselves by trying to scale to nowhere. Unfortunately, I also think we're near a self-custody maximum. Not for technical reasons, fees are near 0 still, it's just because its only an intransigent minority that will ever care about trustless-ness.
I agree, I don't use scamming the regulator as a pejorative- it was either @giacomozucco or @supertestnet that used this term in a conversation recently about how Tether used being a shitcoin to scam the regulator as opposed to just calling itself a bank (to great success honestly)
Wrapped invoices, ecash, federations, blah blah blah... are all similar to Tether, using buzzwords to obfuscate the trust point.
It's when scamming the regulator turns into scamming the user, by implying trustless-ness, that's where I have a problem. That's becoming pervasive. At least Tether never pretended to have better trust trade-offs.
Missed these above...
SN is pivoting though to non-custodial, which is fine and understandable, but I had to correct that post saying it would use a trust-less wrapped-invoice mechanism to achieve this... it won't be trustless. Therefore, it's also not a direct benefit to the user, just more friction and less reliability in the name of custodial deniability.
I've been transparent in shilling my project that endeavors to succeed LNURL by using Nostr, as Nostr inherently uses signatures for any data transacted so that the invoice delivery does not have to be trusted.
Building actually trustless products that create new and permission-less means producing income streams online is the only hope of breaking through that self-custody maximum. It's one thing to trust pocket change, it's another to trust an income stream.
Using Nostr to obviate the networking challenges of node running shifts the juice to squeeze ratio in the node-runners favor, that's what we should be doing... not these weak obfuscation schemes that will age like milk.
Thanks very much for your response. Now I have a much better idea of where you're coming from, and your proposed solutions. I am definitely going to check out your project.
The blind authentication has nothing to do with fedimint except that they both utilize blind signatures.
The first blinded service we offer is lightning address registration. Which we just happen to also be using fedimint for.
I see. Just got my address. I'm excited.
Appreciate the support! Let me know if you have any further questions about how this works.
Will do.
Not sure why this in particular is resurfacing. The actual article itself just recently dropped: https://blog.mutinywallet.com/blinded-authentication/
Maybe because it's less technical and more understandable for the typical user?