@jeff
71348 stacked

I want this for two reasons / use-cases.

1- I want to run an app, but focus on the business logic of my app, not worry about channels. I want cheap channels in and out, to give my users a good experience. I'm fine to subsidize the cost to run it, because my business generates a yield, so the channels are just a cost item on my income statement.

2 - I am a rational. I want to run a node, allocate capital to it, and generate money on the fees, but don't have the time. I'm fine if it's not optimal, I just want the yield to be good enough to justify the hosting cost, cause I'm already sitting on the BTC anyway.

Thanks. Makes sense.

@k00b - I'm curious what your take is, on what regulators might say/do about KYC for Stacker.News?

Can confirm. Great show. Reminds me I need to boost, haven't done that recently.

In this context, a Citadel refers to a physical location with high amounts of sovereignty, and likely security to enable it to stay that way. In order to procure or build one, a person, or group of people, would need great amounts of relative wealth. Think castle, with sufficient land formations and farm land. My understanding is that it would be large enough for the owner(s) to invite many friends and relative, should their safety be compromised.

@romain_rouphael Did you see my follow up question? from back in June?

Your article here tries to make the case that proof-of-reserves doesn't make sense for LNMarkets. I agree with this. However, Proof-of-Reserves is really just a technique for transparency. There are other ways to be transparent, that would make more sense for your platform, given my vague understanding of the way it works.

Some examples of transparency users should demand from your platform would be:

  • a real-time view of aggregate open interest.
  • a real-time view of gross notional exposure on your platform.
  • disclosures about the other institutions you partner with, or use, in your offering. Eg. Deribit - is it just for their data? Or are you using Deribit to lay-off your own risk as well? If so, do you use anybody else?

And, if you really wanted to impress the community, you would publish:

  • aggregated, real-time, net P&L for the sum of all your customers combined. That is, a single, daily, number. It should net-out, close to a very low negative (ie close to zero, but usually less than zero) after fees.
  • a real-time view of the house's P&L daily. It should net-out, slightly positive, but not be egregiously positive. It should be proportional to your risk capital, and be a reasonable yield. Note that this yield shouldn't be funding your operations at your scale.

The reason this transparency is needed for you, where it wouldn't make sense for other platforms, is similar but opposite to the reason proof-of-reserves stops making sense for you. Other platforms aren't doing what you're doing. You're innovating. It's logical that you need innovative forms of transparency.

I want to call out, that I try to give constructive feedback to every startup in this space, because I want the space to succeed. Note my comment history on SN; I engage with most founders intentionally. I'm sincerely trying to be helpful.

Keep up the great work! Your doing really cool stuff!

Note that I might change all the above suggestions, if you answer my linked question, in a way that provides new information.

I don't think the word "cripple" is fair.

I think there are definitely business models that will work better and worse for LN.

Stuff where you pay random amounts to random other people at random intervals, I could see those kinds of transactions getting expensive or not landing in LN.

But stuff where the users/customers are pre-paying for a service today, or where you're dealing with routine and predictable amounts, especially to the same sets of recipients, I think that's going to work better.

I don't think it's as binary as you're framing it.

Thanks. That post was written in February. Do you know if it's still accurate? Or have those problems been resolved?

@petertodd you're absolutely right, but in this context, I think intent matters.

The intent of their omissions (what you call a "lie") is to abstract. I don't think it's malicious intent to deceive or steal.

They are trying to abstract away on-chain and LN fees.

It's a hard problem.

If/when solved, the UX will/could be better than any other wallet.

They are obviously trying.

I sincerely can't tell if you're a shill for the shitcoin you named, coming here to attempt to lure in devs over to it, or if you're actually just aloof about the differences between VC-funded crypto and Bitcoin.

Expecting money for nothing, aka a "Grant", is borderline fiat-thinking.

There are hackathons in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but the payouts are usually prizes you have to compete for. Not grants before you do development. There are rare ones, for actually contributing to open-source, but not for-profit apps.

Bringing food to bitcoin. So much potential here.

Are you still taking the other side of every option trade? Using your own internal model instead of market prices?

Agreed. The bitcoin-only topic, is limiting potential upside both for the site and the pace of adoption of bitcoin.

Subs are over-due.

I think agree. The data- and permission-model right now, steers application devs towards building custodian solutions, even though it is more work, risk and shittier UX at an ecosystem level.

All these folks talking about likes being swapped out for sats (like on SN), the only way that really works, with the architecture and implementations that exist today, are if users (at least either the payer or payee) give up custody.

the max block space can be reduced with a soft fork

That would drive up L1 fees from scarcity, not from adding more value. That's the equivalent of raising prices of a good, without providing more value.

My entire post is to suggest that finding a way to add more value, to compliment what a user gets from the "fees", is economically more sustainable than any other approach.

If a proposal ever landed to reduce block size, I imagine there would be an entire faction of people beating the drum of the message behind my post. The community would be divided, I'm sure.

I can't calculate that but I would feel confident

That's why I can't take my calc one step further and use the actual hash rate. I have to use a proxy for value, which is imperfect, but helpful for the analysis above.

I think my conclusion and calls-to-action stand, no?

You got it!

Your first bullet, would be kindof neat. Kindof like, "This company is doing it's part, they are helping the greater good (security wise)"

Your second bullet, would definitely be an interesting game too! It would probably require trust to setup, and therefore laws would kick in about gambling, but you get the idea.

It's all still hard money.

Not the worst outcome.

It's sub-optimal, yah, but it's hard money.

If I install a getmash.com widget, like one of their boost buttons on my site, does anybody know if my site's users have to exclusively use the mash wallet? I must be mistaken...that can't be.

But the docs for installing a boost button say... "Step 1 ... Ensure the Mash wallet is already installed."

And then this lib says...

1// Loads Mash Wallet on site 2mash.init({ id: "<earner_id>" }).then(() => { 3 // Wallet is now loaded 4})