@nerd2ninja
632,986 sats stacked
stacking since: #28117longest cowboy streak: 33
by
for
Ramen is bad for your health. Health determines how long you live. How long you get to live is a commodity scarcer than Bitcoin. Time I get to live is worth more than Bitcoin.
Eat a steak.
My brother, I just told you about how we need to develop a GUI that writes to the config file when options are selected. Same UX as umbrel, but yes the backend under the hood works differently
The reason people use Umbrel is because it packages a bunch of software together that users would otherwise have to configure independently. NixOS installs software based on configuration files so it can serve the same use case.
That's why nix bitcoin is a thing: https://nixbitcoin.org/
The crypto territory is for cryptography not cryptocurrency
What this territory is about This territory is about the original meaning of crypto: Cryptography involves the application and study of techniques aimed at securing communication, while cryptanalysis focuses on identifying vulnerabilities within these channels. What this territory is not about Since this territory is focusing on the "crypto" part in "cryptocurrencies", this territory is not about anything that can be considered to be "crypto news". Some examples: announcement of shitcoin ETFs some shitcoin making another ATL shitcoin adoption shitcoin politics rugpulls, exit scams or implosions like FTX ICOs shitcoin influencers getting arrested on livestream
I'm saying shitcoins are shit for technical, regulatory, legal, (social) and other reasons. Even using an exchange that sells shitcoins bears more risk that it will go bankrupt due to shitcoin exploits/rollbacks than an exchange that just has Bitcoin.
What seems narrow minded is actually just a conservation of energy. Its not worth taking your post seriously and damn you're making me regret what little effort I've put in already.
I had this paragraph typed out, but fuck it, its not worth taking your post with any degree of seriousness. Shitcoins are a joke, so why should I do anything with this post but laugh?
So I made a post with my own Bitcoin centric take lel (because I didn't see this one) #442277
I think surge pricing is gonna make for some interesting conversations when people talk about Bitcoin being volatile in the future.
The major benefit for the average joe is exactly what Umbrel was created to do for the average Joe.
Later, when we have an app store GUI (GUI interface that writes program names to the config file) we can also have entire set ups, like Bitcoin core connected to electrum server ran over Tor as though it were an app that you select and install.
That's what I'm working towards...just gotta figure out how to get glimmer working...its not in the default nixpkgs gemset unfortunately.
Back then I was reading people saying there was no need to use LN because the on-chain fees were too low to make them care enough to try it. I knew things would go in the other direction back then, even if the particulars for why are different each time.
Even then he's still right. Lots of node runners don't understand the particulars of technical changes.
This has become a rare thing to see someone write these days, but noted.
Yes, you're right and not only that, they're scared of changes right now, which is why patience (likely years of it) and presentation of facts is important. They are however complaining about the things I mentioned. I only say that covenants are one way of doing it and wouldn't be so closed minded as to say its the only way. If you have other ways of doing it (that don't compromise rehypothecation risk, theft risk, or censorship risk to unreasonable degrees), I'd want to read on it.
Yes? Wealth concentration was never a fail condition in my mind. The fail conditions for me are more about whether we shake custodians or not.
There's actually 3 fail conditions I think of specifically (because people have gone and made very complex things that I've had to explain my disdain with)
  1. Rehypothecation risk If we can fail due to rehypothecation and move and learn from it, then we take a temporary fail (hopefully limited in scope fail) and turn it into a win long term.
  2. Theft risk (as a constant normal part of using the protocol) It was weird how I had to separate rehypothecation from theft risk, but it became necessary in explaining my distain for certain things people built. Again this can be limited in scope (individuals being at a loss for how to protect themselves) or at scale (entire countries using custodians and being at risk of being rugged) which means individuals can fail or entire countries can fail.
  3. Censorship risk If you can't send to someone you want to send to, and you can only send to people, as an example, who would give you a bad deal, that's a fail.
If these failures are systemic and impossible to correct with effort no matter how long that may take for either technical or social/cultural reasons, then that in my mind is an absolute and total failure.
To the contrary. Users are asking for better LN experiences that handle force closers better and ease channel open tx fees and liquidity management issues.
TX batching works well for the channel open tx issues, covenants via timeout trees as detailed by John Law can help with both onboarding with the initial channel open and a graceful exit, and eltoo (which can be enabled with APO or CTV + CSFS both methods being covenant enabling) help to smooth out the force closure issues which in turn helps to build out multi-party channels which help with liquidity management issues.
Now that's all to say nothing about delving bitcoin. Is it a mechanism to subvert the perception of consensus proposals? That I'm merely reading this thread and observing to find out. It's outside the scope of my criticism of your post which is simply a laser focus on the idea that users aren't asking for covenants.
Ayy LNHANCE right? That's another person who has socially flagged in support! Good to know