Bitcoin Dev mailing list deplatformed from Google Groups \ stacker news ~bitcoin

I'm sure this all went through each of our individual minds as "what can possibly go wrong" when the move happened and we all fell into the trap of gaslighting ourselves that this would not happen.

It happened. Sovereignty is a thing.

0 new comment

1000 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 3 Apr

we were all witness to it, sn has a long memory.

#307922

0 new comment

150 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 3 Apr

The abuse of the term gaslighting needs to stop. It's getting as bad as the use of the word ironic.

0 new comment

75 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 3 Apr

Ironically i agree. sorry couldn't help myself.

0 new comment

3000 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 3 Apr

Eh, I'm not proud of my comment. Glad you took it well. I need breakfast I think.

0 new comment

73 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 3 Apr

Coffee is on me ❤️

0 new comment

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 3 Apr

Thanks, you didn't have to do that :)

reply on another page

194 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 3 Apr

Nostr?

0 new comment

270 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 3 Apr

From @petertodd:

Strong NACK on nostr. It's a badly designed, centralized, protocol that needs a significant redesign to be usable. While off topic for this mailing list, some of its many issues include:

Reliance on single-key, cryptography that often results in people having their keys compromised. This is a serious problem in the context of bitcoin-dev, where faked messages published could easily have market-moving results.

Inability to mirror relays: since nostr deliberately ignores the lessons of blockchains, there is no way to be sure that you have a complete set of messages from a given person, for a given topic, etc.

Highly centralized design: since mirroring relays isn't reliable, in reality nostr operates in a highly centralized fashion, dependent on a tiny number of relays that can't be easily replaced if taken down.

source

0 new comment

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 3 Apr

It should be fixed now.

0 new comment

19 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitByBit21 4 Apr

0 new comment

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 3 Apr

I mean, come on.... What did they expect?

Maybe time for nostr or perhaps a SN territory?

0 new comment

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @itsMoro 3 Apr

hopefully it gets cleared up, but there must be a better solution long term.

0 new comment

13 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 3 Apr

That didn’t take long. I thought that was an odd choice.

0 new comment

100 sats \ 7 replies \ @SimpleStacker 3 Apr

@k00b @ek

I zapped 2,370 CCs to this post, which I think might be a bug of some kind. I did try to zap 30 sats to it, and you can see that it failed and retried multiple times until finally succeeding. But somehow it also made me spend 2,370 CCs (my entire CC balance) on it.

I'm pretty sure it's not user error, because zapping that much would have required me to long-press and enter 2,370 into the field, which I'm 100% sure I didn't do.

0 new comment

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 3 Apr

Leading hypothesis is that saunter's attached wallet times out slowly, and because we have network error retry logic on the client, we retry as it times out, then those retries time out, which triggers the retry again, and so on.

I've disabled the retry logic on the client for anything that costs money. We are currently trying to reproduce to confirm this is the exact issue.

0 new comment

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 3 Apr

I'll refund all zappers on this item. Looks like saunter's wallet triggered the bug perfectly well for nearly everyone that zapped it. Me most of all.

0 new comment