Awesome work, very unique approach.

What's the privacy implications of broadcasting the connection to your node over nostr?

Hah I've had my eyes on that property for 2 years now... There's a few other freehold islands that look appealing but Vatuvara is particularly beautiful

I read the post before I commented.

I don't know anything about you, but I'd be willing to bet that you've obviously never worked in professional financial services.

Your 2 points in the "what should I do instead?" Section are laughably stupid...

TL;DR -- author spent MORE time writing a post trying to debunk DCA, than he did learning what DCA is

Fair enough. Yeah maybe my previous post was too hand-wavy... AFAIK there is no implementation with bitwise symmetry to Core's consensus.

I guess if Core went rogue there would be disruption to global consensus, but my overall point is that theoretically there's nothing that stops everyone from abandoning core and migrating to an existing or a new alternative in the future.

I think there's even compelling reasons why Core should be abandoned in the future for a memory safe alternative like a rust implementation because of security reasons alone. I think ~30%+ of CVEs are memory safety issues, which a Rust implementation (with its own consensus engine) would be immune to by default.

Karma is a fiat social currency.

Lightning/zaps is the real deal.

Welcome, refugee!

Bitcoin Core is overrated. I mean it's great, and it deserves a lot of praise, and the people working on it are super geniuses... But it's overrated in the sense that a lot of people mistakenly think that Core is essential to Bitcoin. It isn't. It's just one implementation of the Bitcoin protocol. There are competing implementations to Core... I think Luke maintains one called BitcoinKnots. There's also at least 2 implementations in Rust.

If the individual developers working on Core go off the reservation and start acting against the best interest of Bitcoin, people will just switch to another Bitcoin implementation... And by "switch" I mean both node runners will switch and also the funding and grants will move.

Anyways, that's my 2 sats.

Ultimately yes I agree with Sailor and Finney.

I've said for years that while there's nothing wrong with self custody and hardware wallets, it's naïve to think that even 1% of people will go that route.

Being a custodian is a 3,000 year old profession. It doesn't matter if it's gold, or fiat, or livestock, or books... People WANT to pay other people to keep their stuff safe. And Bitcoin is stuff. And people want other people to keep it safe for them.

People can complain all they want about nyknc etc., but the reality of human psychology, let alone the transaction scaling problem, is that custodians will always exist.

Given the axiom that custodians will exist, the Bitcoin ecosystem owes it to the world to build the best possible custodians. Not building them is not an option. Either scammers like sbf will do it, or good actors can step up and make it happen. The sooner the community stops ostracizing the idea custodians the sooner we can professionalize and clean up the custodian industry.

Thanks for sharing.

I think human drama is looked at poorly in any ecosystem, not just Bitcoin.

I know several other LDK contributors and none of them seem as concerned as you are about the project's longevity. Maybe they're wrong, idk.

What is the point of even posting this?

I guess that's where we have a different vision. I think Bitcoin is 100% private by default (proven by the SN case study), and some users have chosen to opt in to bad privacy practices either out of ignorance or convenience. If you don't opt in to losing your privacy, then you stay private like SN did.

Anyways I appreciate the dialogue, good luck with your privacy quest! My final comment on the topic is just that VC backed coinjoins are absurdly expensive. If you must coinjoin for some weird inexplicable reason, try joinmarket.

I ask the question again though... How does SN making a payment today help chainanalyzoors find his identity though? I don't understand.

His utxos weren't always dead. We know for example that SN received and sent to Mike Hearn from 1PhUXucRd8FzQved2KGK3g1eKfTHPGjgFu - even knowing the real name/ID of his counterparty and knowing with 100% certainty that SN owned the address, we are still clueless about who SN is. How would Satoshi be any more (or less) private if he had coinjoined the balance of the address before paying Mike Hearn, and received from Mike using a paynym rather than doxxing his address?

Perfect pseudonymity. If today SN sent more bitcoin from 1PhUXucRd8FzQved2KGK3g1eKfTHPGjgFu to you or me, we would still have no idea who he is. The timeline is irrelevant.

Why does the timeline of Satoshi's utxos matter? If he moves some sats around today to any arbitrary recipient, how would that help chainanalyzoors find his name?

Even if you buy Bitcoin on an exchange that's 100% KYC'd, all you need to protect yourself from the feds is plausible deniability that when you withdrew from the exchange you weren't in possession of the utxo. I.e. it was a gift, or it was a payment to a contractor, or it was a donation to some overseas charity.

Once you have plausible deniability that your utxos don't belong to you, then all you need is common sense UTXO management (stop consolidating everything) to prevent your utxos from being linked to one another.

PS: Samourai is definitely a VC company. There's even a publicly traded Canadian company that owns a piece of them. The fact that more people don't know this is a testament to how effective their psyop operations are.

Satoshi never used a coinjoin and still maintained perfect pseudonymity.

Why are you giving 5% of your sats to the coordinators anon?

Coinjoin is the dumbest psyop ever. The VC-owned coinjoin corporations like Samourai and Wasabi are rent-seeking off your privacy paranoia. Stop paying the idiot tax.

Common sense UTXO management is a better privacy tool than coinjoin, and there's no coordinator fee.

It's a quick and easy way to give your life savings to Craig Wright.

This is the whole point of it. Go back and read Paul's 2015 blog post where he proposed it. The idea at the time was that Bitcoin was going to fork into a bunch of alt-chains, so Drivechains would help you buy BitcoinUL, or BitcoinXT, or BCH, or BSV.

While I fundamentally agree in free economics and people should be allowed to buy whatever scam they want, I think it's dumb to change Bitcoin's consensus algorithm specifically to accommodate scams.

Also, Paul tends to lie alot in my experience. While some people think that we should only evaluate Drivechain on its technology merits, not the personalities behind it, I disagree. I think it's a mistake to allow liars hide behind some code, as if their moral shortcomings won't have consequences down the line. An example of a recent lie of Paul's is the claim that miners don't get any revenue from Lightning, while in fact they've collected millions of $ worth of fees for channel management.

Not compatible with the most popular lightning wallet used today, wallet of Satoshi.

Nor strike, nor cash app.

Yadda yadda self custody nyknyc... But most people aren't, so you're cutting out most of the world from being able to log in.

Based!

Interesting, never thought about this but it makes sense...

What LTV would you consider favorable?