We don't want to cut corners like that. "Lightning addresses" require DNS which absolutely sucks frankly, BOLT12 is Lightning native and the correct way to do things.

We don't though I would be interested to know. Miners on OCEAN don't use accounts, and can split among as many addresses as they like so we don't have super reliable data to go off.

This question is deliberately deceptive/leading. If you're running a node you're "pretending to censor" as well. Happy to discuss what we're actually doing if you're interested in being genuine.

No, I think if/when they leave it'll be because FPPS just becomes unsustainable for the pool. It's overkill as far as variance reduction goes to such an extreme degree that miners at some point get fed up paying for it. Sadly clown world economics persist and as a result money finds its way to places it shouldn't.

Miner-side template construction whilst still pooling rewards is the holy grail of practical approaches to decentralizing mining. Asking everyone to go lotto-mine is not realistic, and pools naturally centralize (due to how much better they work at scale - limiting Bitcoin to < 40 or so pools realistically).

So it's about designing a pool in such a way as it doesn't really have much influence over anything which is the goal of OCEAN. If we were to turn rogue it should have minimal impact on the network and everything we're doing works towards diminishing our role.

Can go into more detail if needed, your question seems like you just wanted me to keep it broad-stroke level so I'll stop there.

This isn't really a scalable approach. We ask that OCEAN miners who want to get paid out over Lightning figure out how to get decent liquidity and reliable payments from the network in general rather than directly connecting to us.

Mining has a bunch of elements, hashing is just one of them.

Miners only hash these days which means the guys who choose what goes in/doesn't go in to Bitcoin's blockchain became a tiny centralized group. This means Bitcoin is censorship resistant to the extent we trust that group rather than PoW. This undermines everything and makes us look like every other "DINO" crypto.

I don't think we'll see one, but I'm not against them - assuming no social contamination a la Wiztards/OPCAT and well-reasoned about.

Fundamentally I believe Bitcoin's use as a permissionless payment network (as opposed to gold 2.0) is hindered by capital gains tax and general disinterest, not lack of OP codes.

Obviously in theory one day that can change and it'd be good to have the primitives necessary for scaling that MoE use-case should it happen but not my first rodeo. The likelihood of sophisticated tech getting added to Bitcoin actually being used the way anyone predicts is almost zero, the scammer-to-bitcoiner ratio is way out of whack among proponents of these upgrades (meaning that's the use case that'll actually get fleshed out - NFTs and other scams rather than coinpools/ARK etc). There's non-zero risk of any upgrade/unintended consequences (learnt my lesson post Segwit).

tldr: if something like CTV can happen in a fairly non-contentious way then it's likely no more scary that CLTV/CSV. I would love Symmetry. But I'm basically not under any illusion that unlocking this stuff would change the way people use Bitcoin. Currently almost no one ever uses Bitcoin as a permissionless payment network compared to the millions using it as Gold 2.0 and it is currently trivial and cheap to do so.

The desire for this stuff just doesn't exist, and if it were to in the future there's a 99% chance that no one can handle the complexity involved and they just resort to centralized solutions - this is why I am not fussed if nothing progresses here.

Final point - adding new OP codes rugs devs attempting to build on what we have already. It takes years for the ecosystem to adapt after each change, that's a significant and not always obvious cost.

How captured mining is. Revenue simply isn't the motivator it's cracked up to be.

How it still even works at all in its current state.

[edit]: apparently I don't know how to read: LND is not functional as they still don't support BOLT12.

Yes, requires CLN until the ecosystem (cough LND) finally starts using BOLT12.

(Phoenix would work but they don't support descriptions yet, but working on a workaround for that).

Nothing unique, just praying one day the near monopoly ends.

DATUM adoption.

With a Macbook Pro CPU in 2011 lol.

If ribeye - anything except rare and well done is great.

Technique is to always order "medium" in restaurants as if I get rare/well-done I can always complain. Medium rare is ideal but then when they make it rare I feel too British to complain about it.

That using closed-source-everything isn't the least bit OK.

(Bitaxe miners agree with me but they make up probably <0.01% of the network hashrate.)

That StratumV2 fixes anything.

It's monthly, we've done four(?) I think now.

I think the third Satoshi Roundtable with Guy Swann.

Jason Hughes (wrote the DATUM protocol in a few months).