pull down to refresh
18 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 21 Dec \ on: Trump wants 5% Nato defence spending target Politics_And_Law
Good.
If you don't spend enough to defend yourselves, others will take advantage of your weakness. With Ukraine, Europe in general is finding that out the hard way.
Basically all these "drone sightings" are clearly ordinary passenger planes.
While I don't doubt there really are a few drones out there with unknown purposes that the US govt is concerned about. They're not going to light themselves up with FAA-compliant airplane nav beacons.
There was never a fight between Wasabi and Joinmarket, because both projects are decent coinjoin implementations with advantages and disadvantages relative to each other.
Samourai both made a lot of money, and had known, unfixed, flaws so serious it might have been a fed op. The fight there had both a monetary incentive, and possibly, a fed incentive.
I'm unconvinced that the first half of this "attack" is even an attack worthy of mention. It looks more like you're getting outbid by high fee transactions, which is an inevitable fact of life.
The low fee version maybe. I need to think about it more.
Though that "crash" could have definitely been a deception too.
I agree that we shouldn't assume anything unless he makes an actual verifiable appearance. Which may never happen.
Vaults make the self-custody scaling problem worse, not better. They're very inefficient, requiring approximately double the on-chain space to perform a signalling function that could be done just fine off-chain with a normal multisig wallet.
I need to write up a good article on them one of these days... They're just not a very compelling idea.
The legacy technical leadership in bitcoin is becoming increasingly less effective.
Right off the bat James gets something wrong: the leadership of Core right now is mostly not "legacy". They're newcomers like Chow and Zhao who got involved relatively recently.
Instead they are distracted with valuable but secondary issues like mempool policy
Good mempool policy is essential to making L2's work; L2's are the only viable solution we have to scaling self-custody to more people. While I disagree with Core on some of the detailed specifics of the mempool policy that has been adopted, the reasons why so much work has been done on mempool policy are correct.
When the regulatory hammer comes down, tens of millions will look to withdrawal their coins into self-custody. But they may not be able to.
Bitcoin can open about 1.1 billion channels/year with the existing Lightning protocol, with fairly simple changes to existing wallets. Tens of millions is not a big deal.
The irony here is that James has been wasting a bunch of time on an unimportant proposal that does nothing to scale self-custody: OP_Vault. In fact, OP_Vault makes the problem worse, by encouraging a particularly inefficient way of doing self-custody, approximately doubling the amount of chain space needed.
Meanwhile we have good reasons to not want to rush into multiple user per UTXO systems.
If you think that most people should be able to DCA and withdrawal to self-custody once a month, maybe spend once every few years for big purchases, I've got news for you
No-one has flushed-out proposals that let the world population DCA to genuine on-chain self-custody with minimal fees. Sorry. But we just haven't figured out how to do that. Ark is one of the things that comes closest. But holding a true self-custodial balance on Ark will require fees to pay for liquidity.
The most straightforward way to do DCA with minimal costs is to DCA to a trusted token, eg ecash, and periodically use the accumulated balance to resize a lightning channel. We have about enough on-chain capacity to resize about 470 million LN channels per year.
The world population with a cellphone is estimated to be roughly 4 billion people. So that gets us reasonably close.
Note that SN has a relatively small maximum payment size, and a limit on total balance. People might be running into issues due to that
In practice a lot of VTXOs will be of too small value to actually unilaterally exit... But yes, you are supposed to be able to if you're willing to pay the necessary fees.
Why not just let people do what they want?
The only possible issue here is spamming mentions. But a filter for small value zaps fixes that just fine.
On the receiver size, a 1sat payment is genuinely worth 1sat; Lightning doesn't have anything similar to the dust UTXO issue that on-chain Bitcoin has. Sure, sending 1sat is costly in terms of fees. But so what? It's the sender's money.
(Obviously I'm talking about external wallets here as the stacker.news custodial wallet is going away)
1sat is 1000msats; a 1sat payment does not trigger any issues with msats on any wallet I've ever seen, and I don't see how it could.
If they exist, blockchains and lightning channels are a worse place to do that than other systems like sql databases
Other people answered the rest of your comment well. But for this specifically, you're wrong. SQL databases have essentially zero auditing capabilities.
Even in an environment with centralized trusted third parties, blockchains are better than pure SQL databases. It's to the point where I would be very dubious about working on a trusted third party system with significant dollar value, that didn't use a blockchain for auditing.
As a store of value, they're worse than btc
No, they're different. They're a better short term value for people who need to store fiat. That's a perfectly valid use case.
Like it or not, a lot of people have fiat-denominated obligations that they need to be able to reliably pay. The volatility of BTC relative to their fiat currencies is expensive to deal with.
Jake Sullivan is the same guy that is doing everything he can to ensure that Ukraine doesn't actually win. He's put absurd restrictions on how Ukraine can fight, even trying to prevent Ukraine using their own weapons to hit targets like the Russian airfields that are bombing Ukrainian civilians. He's a coward at best; a traitor at worst.
Lots of people genuinely need a car for their job and can't accept unreliability. For example, think of a nurse who simply has to be able to show up to their job on time, whatever the schedule is. For them leasing a reliable, brand new, car is often a good financial decision and saves a lot of hassle.
Nothing wrong with paying extra for predicability.
So?
It's war. Giving Iran information on how accurate their missiles actually are helps Iran in the next missile strike.
In Ukraine it's also illegal to film to results of missile strikes, for the exact same reason.
15.1k sats \ 5 replies \ @petertodd 9 Oct \ on: Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery | Movie Review movies
Peter Todd made a post on BitcoinTalk, shortly before Satoshi disappeared, seeming to complete Satoshi's thoughts from an earlier post.
Greg Maxwell made a really good point this morning regarding that:
"Also, at the time petertodd's account was named 'retep' and didn't have any immediately obvious connection to his identity. If there had been a slipup he could have just abandoned the account and certainly not later had it renamed to his legal name!"
-https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41783503#41784045
A chat leak in which Peter Todd allegedly claims to "know more about sacrificing Bitcoin than anyone else", or something to that effect. The implication is that if he's Satoshi and he burned his keys, he'd know more than anyone else about sacrificing Bitcoin.
Utter nonsense. I was just talking about proof-of-sacrifice, a cryptographic technique used in things like Joinmarket: https://github.com/JoinMarket-Org/joinmarket-clientserver/blob/master/docs/fidelity-bonds.md
Satoshi's posting history allegedly follows a school-year type pattern, more active during the summer and less active during school semesters. Peter Todd would have been in school during those years.
That sure narrows it down to what... 1 billion people? :D