pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet OP 11h \ parent \ on: Scaling DEBUNKED: No More Than 5-10 Million Can Use Bitcoin, EVER! bitcoin
I agree, part of the motivation for the OP too... illusions to the contrary are just going to disappoint. There will be some re-balance, but its naive to think the people with MOST of the capital now won't still have an outsized share.
Now this is contrary to the OP, but that's not to concede to security budget FUD either.
Fact is we can't possibly know for sure, but the trend is that there's less on-chain demand as Bitcoin becomes more institutional and less of a test network where people hit the chain often with low-value transactions.
Amen.
It's the same model, an account system using a local database.
Our thesis is everyone is trust smuggling anyway, so we may as well make tooling that's transparent and reliable for that. With this people can make those trust trade-offs hyper-locally, community/business/family settings etc.
Also we've made the whole thing nostr native, the accounts are Nostr based and the API works over Nostr... this solves the networking issues with self-hosted and allows us to get wild with UX and Enterprise-class features on top of it.
For example, inviting friends or family to your node is just sending them a link with your nodes nprofile encoded, or use a lightning address for debits not just payments.
11 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 12h \ parent \ on: Question of trust regarding LSPs lightning
ty
lightning relies overwhelmingly on such 'custodians'
Not so much Lightning itself, but yes Lightning users certainly do... it's extra unintuitive steps to avoid the LSPs... you can always just fund an outbound channel to another node directly if you know what you're doing and are inclined to do it.
As in routing tx fees?
Correct
service providers
This one, they need to be compensated for tying up and risking capital in a hot wallet.
Yea LSPs are absolutely selling a convenience product, it's just a bad business without charging high fees... and it's the high fees make mobile nodes non-sustainable.
11 sats \ 5 replies \ @justin_shocknet 12h \ parent \ on: Question of trust regarding LSPs lightning
It's definitely trusted until it's confirmed, I don't know the specifics of the implementation as to when it's broadcasted... the 0-conf in this context is that its a real channel but you can make state updates BEFORE its confirmed (can also be rugged before its confirmed)
Actually you're trusting them not to generate a thefty wrapped invoice too that doesn't forward to you, Stacker News does this too for ... because optics
Its all theater, its effectively no different than using a custodial wallet to save and buy a channel when ready, ShockWallet and Lightning.Pub lets you determine when this is to make it more cost effective beyond being a shared node
prices increase with demand? Has this already happened over the life-span of the lightning network?
Channel prices used to be absurdly low, because LSP's thought they'd make it up in transaction fees before reality set in.
LSP is a terrible business, you're trying up capital in a hot wallet which involves risk for very little return in tx fees... so lease rates should trend toward reflecting both risk, and eventually opportunity cost once there's more legitimate Bitcoin "yielding" opportunities.
So, I expect prices will go up further. You'll probably find the channel closed if you don't use it enough or its too unbalanced to be economical for the LSP.
For a bit of history, Voltage created the "Flow" spec for LSP's selling channels that Zeus is now using. Voltage themselves stopped selling channels (at least to their non-hosting customers?) altogether last year, they were insanely cheap... Zeus is at least sane and charges a much higher rate.
This is why mobile nodes are a dead-end, they're too costly to maintain for the low volume and online-ness of a mobile device. The solution is a shared node used by multiple things to consolidate utility, we use Zeus as the preferred LSP in Lightning.Pub so you can have multiple devices / apps connected to something always online and accessible over Nostr.
11 sats \ 12 replies \ @justin_shocknet 13h \ parent \ on: Question of trust regarding LSPs lightning
The JIT uses 0-conf still per the docs, so the received amount is still trusted at least temporarily
There was a epidemic of trust smuggling when it looked like the boot was going to come down last year, all this fragile JIT/Wrapped Invoices stuff worked its way in for optics
change the culture, is by definition to lobby
kill shot
So maybe this means the BIP to write and lobby for is one that archives the repo, lol
Agreed it's not the fault of the repo itself, but the culture in Bitcoin around it, where changes are lobbied for implementation in the default rather than just implemented and left to sink or swim
Most people blindly use or upgrade Core without regard for what changes are or are not in it, because of the reputation of devs past. If there were no "default" bitcoin repo, then it would be more of a marketplace for what is a good and bad idea... not coat tails taken up by modern devs.
-
James is against Core because it doesn't implement what he wants
-
I am against Core because it is churning too much
In-congruent wants yet making us both happy simply means eliminating the appeal to authority, just archive the repo to reset the defaultism culture
The more I think about our convo, and a convo with James OBierne where he actually suggested this, the more I think private mempools could be an interesting model for miners, its already kind of happening with tx accelerators etc...
You can have out-of-band spam protection to lower the entry cost, and normalize revenue over time with a subscription/membership model
Is it trusted? That depends. Is it sovereign? Also depends...
But, its an alternative to the lobbying over a centralized code repository, which is untenable... its not just consensus changes but stuff like tx relay policy that people need to be allowed to try (and fail if warranted)
lol I checked with Grok: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_3104cccc-fbcc-43f9-aba8-1bc515cc1147
Not seeing anything that tickles my fancy but might be a nice trade if you can catch the knife after lock-up
Not familiar, at a glance it seems like cloud services arbitrage... not sure if there's a moat or anything
At least MSFT and GOOG have massive datacenter moats for cloud, with energy contracts and all that... I do have some of both because of GOOG ventures exposure to SpaceX and MSFT with the nuclear exposure and underwater datacenter ventures
The also both have distribution and massive data warehouses for that AI to run on, data is the new oil and all that
you will do what you can to keep it that way
Where did I say that? I have no control over Bitcoin.
propping up a new oligarchy
Where did I say that? I'm just a shell dev with no say in anything.
Stop projecting.
I may very well create my own shitcoin
I have no doubt about that, you're mentally ill and projecting things, seemingly predisposed to ignore reality just to grasp at imaginary levers of control... so a shitcoin sounds right up your alley
Virtue signal harder, hipster: #906514
C'mon, I even muffed an order of magnitude and it still holds
Your snark in the face of facts is whats embarrassing, shitcoiner energy... guess you'll never understand what Bitcoin is at this point.
Somehow I'm down on AMD after holding it for years, I think chips are overvalued future commodities at this point... though I think ARM will grow share in the datacenter
Been sitting on some SMR and OKLO since energy is the real bottleneck
Also picked up some CENX for all the aluminum shit we're going to need domestically
And obviouslty TSLA...
Academic paper? It's napkin math AI slop to troll shitforkers and even being off by an order of magnitude it still checks out... there's no bandwidth problem.
Clown, we're talking about the chain, because you can't use Lightning without the chain, you can't get ON Lightning at all without the chain.
msats ARE NOT REAL THEY ARE SHITCOINS
Also #912607
divisibility causing increase in supply argument is completely factually WRONG.
No, it is correct, you are wrong... THERE IS NO DIVISIBILITY
Bitcoin is not floating point, there are not 21M bitcoin only 2.1q sats
That's not to say a supply increase in this context is DILLUTIVE