0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 10h \ on: Arguments for not having kids? culture
There's no valid argument for it, there are only deceptions from the great deceiver.
Solution to which problem exactly? Scaling?
I think most people will use Bitcoin in a trusted way and that most scaling advocates are lying to themselves by trying to scale to nowhere. Unfortunately, I also think we're near a self-custody maximum. Not for technical reasons, fees are near 0 still, it's just because its only an intransigent minority that will ever care about trustless-ness.
I see the regulator here as doing the scamming
I agree, I don't use scamming the regulator as a pejorative- it was either @giacomozucco or @supertestnet that used this term in a conversation recently about how Tether used being a shitcoin to scam the regulator as opposed to just calling itself a bank (to great success honestly)
Wrapped invoices, ecash, federations, blah blah blah... are all similar to Tether, using buzzwords to obfuscate the trust point.
It's when scamming the regulator turns into scamming the user, by implying trustless-ness, that's where I have a problem. That's becoming pervasive. At least Tether never pretended to have better trust trade-offs.
Also, SN has certainly been open about it's obvious custodial character. BTW, what do you see as the prospects for this?
Missed these above...
SN is pivoting though to non-custodial, which is fine and understandable, but I had to correct that post saying it would use a trust-less wrapped-invoice mechanism to achieve this... it won't be trustless. Therefore, it's also not a direct benefit to the user, just more friction and less reliability in the name of custodial deniability.
I've been transparent in shilling my project that endeavors to succeed LNURL by using Nostr, as Nostr inherently uses signatures for any data transacted so that the invoice delivery does not have to be trusted.
Building actually trustless products that create new and permission-less means producing income streams online is the only hope of breaking through that self-custody maximum. It's one thing to trust pocket change, it's another to trust an income stream.
Using Nostr to obviate the networking challenges of node running shifts the juice to squeeze ratio in the node-runners favor, that's what we should be doing... not these weak obfuscation schemes that will age like milk.
Parsing it carefully we can see the intent
neither the lightning node gateway nor the Hermes server can redeem any ecash locked to the user's pubkey
This is misleading by false-contrast. This statement serves only to distinguish this system from a conventional custodial Lightning address, even though the trust assumptions are exactly the same.
It still requires the Hermes server to set up the contract correctly
"Contract" is used here to imply atomicity, which coincidentally is SN's plan to scam the regulator
otherwise, it is not involved in the lightning flow of funds
At this point the flow of funds already happened, to the custodian, they're shroedinger's funds- rugged or unrugged.
It doesn't require us to have a node or any liquidity
Sounds like magic when you put it that way, but the same is true of Wallet of Satoshi
further decentralizing the whole process
Wallet of Satoshi is decentralized too because you can simply use someone else to take delivery of your sats
Keep in mind that I know I'm getting in over my head here technically
That's the point, it's theater to mislead the non-technical into thinking there are better trust assumptions than just calling it a database
There's no way around the fact that servicing of the Lightning Address is still done with a web server, which is inherently single-party trusted to serve the invoice expected
Buzzwords to misrepresent trust assumptions is a sad trend in Lightning, wrote about this specific nomenclature recently: #517245
Even SN has fallen into this trend with the new wallet connections via wrapped invoices, in the blind hope that they're sufficient to scam the regulator: #534360
Now, a successor to LNURL that actually validates signatures from the source could solve much of this, but that would require Lightning entrepreneurs to be honest about their current mitigations
Reintroduces*
The Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act was first introduced by former Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) in 1999 and hasn't been reintroduced since 2013.
lol, WEF listed the one legit Lightning implementation on their site and punked you into wasting time on Bolt12... the digital dollar standard for the Federal ECash Act
oh the irony
Gives you something to go on at least...
This is odd though since you didn't say it was a data loss / SCB closure, so its either the bug I mentioned before or something else altogether. You should take this to the discussion boards on the LND github to be safe.
My guess is they'll direct you here after further diagnosis: https://github.com/lightninglabs/chantools/blob/master/doc/zombierecovery.md
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 14 May \ parent \ on: Recover force closed channels lightning
Because it's "waiting close", not "pending force close"
Since there's no closing txid there's nothing to bump
Use the command in my previous comment, the txid is the channel point and the vout is the :0 digit at the end of it (usually 0 but might be higher)
45 sats \ 5 replies \ @justin_shocknet 14 May \ parent \ on: Recover force closed channels lightning
The fact that they're waiting_close and not pending_force_close implies they weren't actually force closed (ui you used to do this may not have handled it correctly)
Try force closing one of them again with
lncli closechannel txid vout --force and see if that changes thingsThere's a potential scan bug that could be at play too, if the force close doesn't change things the LL folks will be best to help https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/8560
Your funds don't appear to be in jeopoardy though, just don't panic and do anything dumb and you'll get your coin back eventually
CoinShares Group
Ah, more cope over Lightning from a shitcoin fund...
Someone tell them the high-fee FUD only works on forktards now
Looking at comments at this point you should only be looking at the CLI to ensure you're correctly getting any errors that might be present
How did you close them? Any errors or odd behavior at the time you closed/force closed?
Did you maybe clean out the node before closing not leave enough in the wallet for anchor fees?
Use
./lncli listchannel to be sure LND doesn't they're just open./lncli pendinchannels to get the closing tx id, if the closing tx id doesn't exist in the mempool then it might not have gotten broadcast or was pruned already due to low fee./lncli listunspent to check if you have any utxo's that came back from closuresIf some closing tx's are confirmed and you're just waiting on the timelock, you can power off the node and turn it on later to spend those UTXO's, it doesn't need to be online if you just want to keep your state for later use.
Global MoE doesn't have a hard number, so you're speculating
How is a user defined? A lightning channel? Could batch a few billion over 5~ year hyper growth
But that assumes there's even that many people with assets
Reality is there's no technical ceiling in sight, it's a socio-economic ceiling of the golden billion who largely own equity and not money
Sure there's no true line if demarcation, but general adoption waves
The bigger issue is when people gripe about anyone with an SoV focus, that's always a first principle and not mutually exclusive to MoE
The MoE tools I build are only possible because they bring the prospect of being monetized with a SoV
This sounds like a time preference grief.
I came into Bitcoin as an agorist interested in MoE, but thats a latter act in the story.
The farmer needs to save in Bitcoin otherwise he has no reason to exchange for it.
Stingy people exist in fiat too, there's far more of them clutching their shekels earning yield below the rate of inflation.
Enough for what?
If you buy into the 8BN framing it's not a serious conversation, it becomes a divisibility issue long before it's ever a blockspace bottleneck. Dust will always be dust.
Just as there's not 8BN houses, 8BN refrigerators, or 8BN cars... there's not 8BN custodians. Families share things... nodes will be among those things: Lightning.Pub
Depends on your definition of onboarding the world
Your math is also wrong, we can open a billion lightning channels per year with existing batching
This is an overly simplistic view.
SoV is a pre-requisite to MoE...
I personally came into Bitcoin as an agorist interested in MoE, but without SoV we may as well do that in an SQL database.
The correct framing is Act 1 vs Act 2
realization of scaling woes
There's been no such thing, a small cohort of shitcoiners and virtue signalers PROJECT scaling woes...REALity is that fees are barely 10% of the newly halved subsidy.
Bitcoin is money. It doesn't solve for people not having money.
It does however enable permissionless earning of money, but the middle bell curve can't process that's a task now for the shell and not the core.
Wait, we don't want you to spend but also want you on Lightning?
I think you forgot your morning lithium shake, Princess