Yea if something like mstr getting added to the s&p happens naka would probably squeeze as the hoard looks for the next arb

at .52 book NAKA seems worth a lottery ticket, bear case doesn't add up, they dont have to raise or liquidate at those levels, there's a $300M incentive dangling out there to take them private

GBTC was around .5 NAV for awhile during the bear market, liquidity is everything

woohoo! shockwallet immortalized in print

Since the 3rd key is useless on its own I don't think it warrants its own paid storage in the form of an extra residence or deposit box, particularly if you're still concerned with ensuring your own physical access.

Could keep the key in a vehicle or geocached underground elsewhere on the property so its separated from the structure. (special archival grade dvd-r or steel product)

Could also be encrypted and stored in-cloud, you already have to remember where these things are are and how to use them so an encryption phrase is lateral lift.

Could also replace it with a brain-key in lieu of encrypting, a phrase you can hash to make a seed can obviate the concern of storage corruption.

Or all of the above for redundancy.

The advantage of 2:3 over 2:2 is the 3rd key can be differentiated paranoia instead of duplicated.

There's also companies like Iron Mountain etc that do physical archive storage, similar trade-offs to the safe deposit box but may offer preferable obscurity and potentially more pseudoanonimity via using a company name.

That's a ref to Shinobi's article after he tried to do damage control after I coined it...

Origin: #1019448

Yea trust-minimization is a weasel word, anyone using that in a presentation is automatically scamming... things are either trusted or they're not.

Trustodial is how they think they're going to loophole the regulator, the problem with that is that they're scamming the unsophisticated user (and probably investors) in the process.

Probably higher than a giraffe's ass

trololol

That's funny, Ark Labs had been calling it a Layer 2 for a long time... my debunking every time they lie is having an effect, the only consistency in their narrative is that their narrative changes constantly.

Seth is a Monero shill so a certified moron in his own right.

Anyone dumb enough or dishonest enough to call these centralized apps a layer 2 lacks the mental capacity to research such topics.

Cope, this is literally the only lever China has which is why you keep harping on it, poorly trained bot. It's not even a particularly good one.

Without US consumption China is broke

China is wholly reliant on the US navy allowing them to import for their own needs, including other raw materials they need to leverage their manufacturing base.

Even if they could break the island chain, which I'd say is 50/50 odds at this point, they're completely at US mercy in the next domain: space

China started it the second they were allowed into the WTO, the very reason the US doesn't have refining up to par is because the CCP subsidized the industry it to crush competition abroad, a good strategy on their part, that's industrial policy- not free markets.

This was identified long ago, the fake pandemic was a practice de-coupling, companies like MP Materials, Albemarle, and new startups broke ground on refining ops years ago... US will be self-sufficient on RE refining within a year.

China must beg for aircraft engines, chips, food... the list goes on.

You deride libertarians and trade policy in the same breath, dissonance, dumb bot.

Yes Libertarians are retarded when it comes to international systems created by globalists, but that's a separate issue, sane people installed economic nationalists to defend themselves in this "trade war" (that is really a currency war)

Tell your handlers the time to move on CIAwan was yesterday, their window is slipping away.

They don't even need them, these are like 0-conf Lightning channels with extra scam.

😂

If you think it going up is bad you don't want to see what happens when it go down.

I attribute this to selection bias, they aren't building datacenters in areas with inelastic grids.

My fiat job before going full-time Bitcoin was working on grid systems for the utlity co, in one of the most expensive (the?) states in the country for electricity.

Geographically we should be a great spot for datacenters, but they aren't going up here....

Because it's not just about adding baseload supply, during my time there was peak solar panel money laundering, hundreds of millions being spent to destroy cattle pasture to put in those unsightly pieces of shit... all in the name of getting costs down.

What happened to those panel fields? Many, particularly the biggest, sat unproductive (still sit?) for YEARS because the grid head end couldn't handle connecting them.

There's SCADA and transmission etc to consider, you could air drop a bunch of SMR's here and it wouldn't matter because the grid is so decay'd they couldn't be switched on. Base load is just one of many bottlenecks.

This.

The bigger a project too the bigger experience in change management and automated testing become, these are not non-coder friendly.

There's things AI will do that get past even me as an architect and automated tests that might have other consequences, so we have a pipeline of team review as anything complex should.

Having guys that are better in-the-weeds, at minimum as a second and 3rd set of eyes, before committing a change is irreplaceable.

Coincidence that none of the people concerned with pulling things they don't want are talking about Utreexo?

For the uninitiated, Utreexo uses proofs for your outputs instead of whole blocks.

That's your first mistake. He's one of the more reliable counter-signals I've encountered in Bitcoin in recent years.

And industry he actively supports by shilling for covenants

Yea MCP seems backwards for write use-cases and especially irreversible writes like crypto payments, you don't want to delegate that to fuzzy logic.

The correct architecture imo, and something I've tinkered with, is a wallet client that takes command recommendations from the model but is ultimately executed client-side only after the user approves it, like cursor having you confirm a psql command that runs in your local shell.

Machine-to-machine / non-interactive use cases there's no excuse for using fuzzy logic, just script the thing.

There's no perfect amount, its all contextual.

Things to consider are:

ROI, if you're incurring chain costs to open the channel then that cost is more spread out the bigger the channel is.

Fee environments are a factor here too, earlier on in Lightning 1 or even sub-sat fees were not the norm.

Purchasing power has grown vs fiat, but also the average size of payments on Lightning have increased too, depending who's data you base that on.

If you're getting the channel from an LSP, you're paying to lease that capacity, so over-sizing it vs. your needs is a waste. If you're funding it yourself and initializing the open, bigger is better per point 1 but worse per point 5 below:

Lightning is inherently a hot wallet so there's added risk vs. cold storage, putting more in than you can take advantage of is tempting fate.

You should not expect an ROI, you may get some routing fees back over time to help with cost, but Lightning isn't a yield farm. Fees simply make the network function and are meant to offset your fees incurred. Unless you are offering a service as a business on Lightning that has its own network effect of customers to drive routing your goal should be to break even whilest getting the benefits of instant payments and relatively free small payments that aren't practical on-chain.

If you're a merchant, you probably want channels as a multiple of your revenue over a period of time, say monthly or quarterly so that all the smaller payments you receive can be consolidated once in a re-balance/swap.

If you're a spender, do the inverse.

If you want to actually earn money just on routing, you need patronage network effect where you're earning fees off other peoples liquidity because they open channels to you. Some nodes have done this purely on routing alone by bootstrapping network effect with large sums or simply being around and reliable for a long time, but that's the exception.