pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 19 replies \ @DarthCoin 19 Oct 2024 \ parent \ on: Questions about Nov 5th: How does the new format work? AskSN
You get it wrong. We are not talking to buy shitcoins here.
We are talking about playing a game, a ranking game with up/downvotes that are using tokens bought with sats.
Some kind of ecash tokens.
If you want to use SN only with your external node with real sats, zapping 1 sats around, go ahead, but soon you will remember my words, that method si not feasible for this kind of game it is SN.
Yes, P2P payments, self-custodied, for things in your real life are OK and I encourage them, but not on SN system.
You are again wrong. It was never a sat. Was just a conversion that gives you the impression it was a sat. But inside SN, was not a real LN payment routed over the whole LN graph. Was a real sat ONLY when you withdraw it to an external wallet. Inside SN was always a token.
Please attach your real LN node to SN as external wallet and let's talk again in 2 months.
@remindme in 2 months
hey @028559d218 how is going your p2p zaps? Did you already used an external wallet to SN?
reply
I use a lightning address to receive... and i can send directly by paying invoices.
Is that what you mean?
reply
No, use p2p zaps with a real own LN node and let me see in few months that you can still want to use it as a direct "source" of p2p zaps.
My point is that SN method is not the right one, in this moment of LN evolving. Is toooo early and most of users are not well prepared and not well knowleagable to manage properly a self-custodial LN node. They mostly are WoS users LOL
reply
I don't... understand.
I use my own node connected to Zeus.
Even if someone isn't connected to their own node... Zeus runs a lightning address where you can receive sats sent to the address. Redeem them each day when you open the Zeus app...
What am I missing? Won't this work for Stacker users?
reply
The migration to fully p2p zaps was postponed after Jan 3rd
Let's talk again in Feb 2025 about this.
reply
I'm a little confused about all of this.
I thought SN switched to 'non-custodial' a few months ago.
reply
reply
I see zapping and lightning... as the 'bitcoin economy' in its infancy.
Wasn't hashcash ultimately designed to help prevent spam in forum posts?
Hash a sha-256 output... to 'buy' the right to ultimately post and consume someone's time and energy?
And if this hashing/proof-of-work can work for forum posts, why not goods and services, products, media products, podcasts, intellectual property, music, multi-media, basically everything bought and sold on the internet?
I'm asking myself - where does all this lead to? What is the ultimate long-term future of zapping? It's not to earn Cowboy Credits. It's to incentivize value and value transfer on the internet. A better 'customer experience' where stackers (in this case) are the 'customers' of the future Bitcoin economy.
If zapping can work on Stacker News in a sustainable way then it can work everywhere on the internet and that's why I think it's so important.
reply
There are technical limitations of LN and BTC that until now we do not have a solution.
Don't be so paranoic and try to understand how SN system works.
We are talking exclusively about how to use SN system of upvoting posts not about how to send p2p sats.
Are two different things.
reply
May I ask... which technical limitations are you speaking of?
?
reply
dust limit
reply
Doesn't lightning help mitigate this?
There are not only sats but in Lightning...
Millisats?
reply
- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-October/003257.html
- https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-April/003009.html
- https://blog.bitmex.com/preventing-channel-jamming/
- https://mailing-list.bitcoindevs.xyz/bitcoindev/a647a2e2-2742-4b0e-ae84-6f84b018136fn@googlegroups.com/T/#u#md98692398d3858c104cbee92637b05fecabc89f8
Hopefully with the new Bitcoin Core 28 we will have some fixes
https://bitcoinops.org/en/bitcoin-core-28-wallet-integration-guide/
After a sufficient number of nodes upgrade on the network, the LN protocol may be updated to drop the “update_fee” message, which has been a source of unnecessary force closes during fee spikes for years now. With removal of this protocol message, commitment transactions could be set to a static 1 sat/vbyte feerate. With TRUC transactions, we can ensure that competing commitment transactions with anchor spends are allowed to RBF each other over the network, and if there are competing output spends from the same commitment transaction, that RBF can occur no matter which output is being spent. TRUC transactions are also allowed to be 0-fee, allowing reduction in spec complexity. With TRUC’s sibling eviction, we can also drop the 1 block CSV locktimes, since we are no longer overly concerned with what unconfirmed outputs are being spent, as long as each party can spend a single output themselves
reply
THANK YOU.
I will get around to updating to the new Bitcoin Core version when I have time.
reply
Even if you have 1 sat HTLCs that doesn't mean is not dust.
Only that is not financially worth it to steal it with a force close channel.
Users think that LN is something magic that works out of any chain, but in fact all LN payments are onchain transactions, only that are not broadcast yet.
I could easily have a dust attack on your node attached to SN account, sending hundreds of 1 sat zaps until your node will collapse with so many pending HTLCs of 1 sat.
Then I force close the channel and your node is fucked. yes that could cost me a lot, but is doable.
That's why is kind of stupid to zap 1 sat or even under dust limit in a p2p mode.
reply
This is really interesting.
There's a lot to unpack here. I have never 'attached my wallet' to Stacker News. Instead I use an LN address.
Would this attack still work? If not... OK. However what about for all the other Stackers? How do we mitigate this attack? Mitigate it in the wild?
Also it seems you are implying it would be expensive both for 'the attacker' and the one 'being attacked'. Do I have that right?
reply
Yes for such thing you need to allocate resource and the result is just to fuck up the peer victim node.
But there are enough crazy people around capable to do such thing.
Instead I use an LN address.
And where is going that LN address? Not to a LN node? Is it your node or somebody else's node?
Bitcoin is, for me at least, a risk-assessed form of money.
No engineered system, including Bitcoin, is perfect. No question about that.
So when I ask myself, whether custodying UTXOs or sending and receiving via a lightning channel, what is the future? what does all this lead to? What are the risks or risk-factors of Bitcoin... and what is the long-term value of Bitcoin?
What is its future. And I think the future is sound money on the internet.
Then of course that 'sound money' on the internet in the long term has to unlock better transactions, better businesses, and more value for the people that use it. A better user experience than fiat money beyond just Number-Go-Up. That means zaps, lightning, Nostr, podcasts purchased by the minute with zaps... blog posts and articles, and a circular Zap and lightning economy that incentivizes value and the transfer of value.
Yes I'm overthinking it but I want to think about the Bitcoin 5 or 10 years from now, not the bitcoin today or literally tomorrow which doesn't tell us much.
reply