pull down to refresh
262 sats \ 5 replies \ @DarthCoin 11h \ on: Help Build Circular Economies. Open a Channel with Cuba Bitcoin bitcoin
Nope. If you want your public node to be a good one for its users as "uncle Jim", you must have good peers and channels. A small channel will be depleted instantly and will became obsolete, a burden for your node.
LN is not like a Facebook to open channels with random people just for fun. LN is totally an economic network based on efficient routes supported by fees and liquidity. Think about it as a "capital flow" through some pipes.
I see you have only 2 channels bigger than 3M sats. For a public routing node that is really low. All the rest of the channels are useless.
Do not "expose" publicly your public node to all kind of trash "balcony" and "jungle" nodes. Those will make your success payment rate to go so low that you can't even use that node. Avoid at any cost Tor only public nodes, those are doing more damage than good for a public routing node.
CHOOSE WISELY YOUR PEERS! You want to offer good payment routes not just an unusable public node.
- open from your side a well sized channel with some good LSPs. Always bigger than 3M sats. For less than 3M sats should be private channels not public.
- buy some inbound channels from well known good LSPs
- constantly maintain good channels if your users number grows.
You have been warned.
200 sats \ 1 reply \ @zuspotirko OP 13h \ parent \ on: Would you use AI on phone if it was actually good? AI
not give the model access to everything, but instead, allow everything to access the model. This may feel counter-intuitive, but I see this as "multi-modal LLM" being a (permissioned) API with a service worker behind it
Interesting.
I mean both approaches would be behind a "safe" API. But I hadn't thought about whether it would be nicer if the application uses the LLM as an API or the LLM retrieves information through an API.
Is one of these inherently more powerful than the other? Is one inherently safer than the other? If so, which way and why?
I found out he has a young child. So my pitch will be I’ll tip you cash and tip your son some sats.
Thinking of on boarding him with strike and then he gets a LN address by default that will make it easy to tip both him and his child with sats
I already tried this method once and it’s working quite well.
When I give adults the option to take cash or bitcoin 95% of the time they choose cash
that means unreliable electricity, limited internet,
This setup wouldn't work if the internet goes down right?
I like the overall take, and the reasoning about targeted disruption of proprietary models through open-weight model releases, regardless of who does it 1, concurs with what I've observed and how I extrapolate that phenomenon too, as laid out in the linked tweet from the article:
China thinks it has an opportunity to hit US tech companies, boost its prestige, help its internal economy, and take the margins out of AI software globally (at least at the model level).
I just wonder how long it will last.
It's easy to now celebrate that FOSS is currently the weapon of choice in the global LLM-race and that there is evidence that the CCP strategy is to align with open weights, but I remind myself daily that this is weaponization only and not the embrace of open source principles. We often see that once market share is determined to be sufficient (or a competitor sufficiently hurt), the tools used for capture are abandoned or weakened. 2
Nit:
Polytheistic/Monotheistic feels like a bit of a misnomer, especially since the rest (of the article) focuses on utility and not that AI is in any way a higher being (because it isn't a being.) In the context of AI,
poly kind of disqualifies theos, not only because there are multiple models, but also because each model can be ran multiple, independent times.I think that if we change this into
polylithic (many models running in many, decentralized instances) versus monolithic (a single grand Skynet-like "AI" that runs as a single instance, even if it's distributed), it makes more sense - but I'm not really sold on that terminology either.Footnotes
Yes I would, but I don't think I'd like it in the way you're describing. Instead I'd want to augment specific processes: not give the model access to everything, but instead, allow everything to access the model. This may feel counter-intuitive, but I see this as "multi-modal LLM" being a (permissioned) API with a service worker behind it, just like
camera or microphone.For example:
Amberdoesn't need LLM, so that doesn't need the permission.Obsidiancould use LLM, so that does need the permission, optionally, and when I enable it, it will use it.
This can then be extended to have also a
knowledge cache in the same way, so that an app (not a centralized process) can submit new knowledge (for processing and then caching) and query it, much like your "second-brain" idea:You made a picture of a menu and allowed the "knowledge" it contained to be added that cache last year, and then when you make a picture of the menu for the same place this year it will tell you that your fish taco is now only 3k sats instead of 10k, but you also get only 1 instead of 2 for that money.
This type of transcription existed in the community
It did, but why would I waste another human's time with something that can be automated?
And why do you need to summarize a video like this, when faced with situations like this the most common question I ask myself is whether it's worth it?
For example: nowadays in discussions, people will sometimes link you a 5 hour video or a podcast from some influencer that "proves their point". I am often in situations where I have to defend against all this nonsense for the "dayjob", so I just run it through transcription and grep through the text to find what was exactly said about a subject, and then can precisely seek a point in the video if I need more context.
It's a protective measure to somewhat balance the scales within Brandolini's Law, it works for now, but I fear it won't work for long, because we will just be confronted with ever-larger floods of slop.
I'm not insensitive to your proposed solution of just not using it and thus finding other ways of dealing with it - eventually we'll likely have to - but as a stopgap measure, it's a good experiment to find out how long this will work for.
I misunderstood that you could use summarize to make it more presentable in an email or other type of communication.
Oh! No, I don't need slop in my emails and I generally don't publish any AI output, unless it's test results or a joke.
No clear warning: There was zero indication that enabling this option would make your content publicly searchable on Google.
Wrong
But, if you don't have proofs that match the amount, you would need to go online and swap for the needed proofs at the mint.
This also applies to offline receives.
The sender needs to not only know the recipient in advance, but also what denominations they will use. The recipient can’t give you change back.
Still useful, but that’s another important limitation.
Gave it a couple of hours to think it through, slept on it, gave it a few more hours.
Although you may be right that the designation is harsh - I decided to call it out because lately we see a definite increase in poorly managed LN integrated apps that get massively word-of-mouth pumped, attract tons of users, and then shtf.
But, in this case, calling it out was a wrong decision. I should have just kept my mouth shut and kept the status quo where I just shake my head at my screen and y'all don't know I do.
I think there's a reason why Predyx is still in Beta and when out of it, such things won't happen.
If it truly is in beta, not beta-designation-washed as an excuse for poor process, then I don't understand why it should be mentioned under a news article. Bad things often happen when unfinished products make their way into the hands of the many.
Did you configure
--auto-liquidity?The default requested liquidity amount is 2m sat, configurable with--auto-liquidity. The higher the amount, the higher the upfront cost, but the lower the mining fees in relative terms.
If you did not, this means it will open a channel with 2m sats inbound liquidity once you have enough fee credits to pay 1% + mining fees (around 21k sats).
I think
estimateliquidityfees is giving you the fee if you would configure --auto-liquidity with that amount. But not sure why it's giving you a service fee of ~1k sats for 5k sats, it should be 1%. Maybe I'm wrong.If it was actually private and genuinely useful like that, I’d 100% use it. The idea of having a second brain that actually remembers things I forget sounds amazing. But I’d definitely need to feel confident it wasn’t leaking my life to some server somewhere.
Keep bringing your kid to the mountains. It's great to experience the difficulties of the hike together and also share the reward of the view up top together. Keep them interested by stimulating their imagination with surrounding sceneries or play word games with them. They have more endurance and are more resilient than you probably think.
why are there so many posts about AI here? I figured there would be a lot about bitcoin, not that I'm totally interested. Have I entered at a bad time?
I agree. Better buy a pair of Baofeng walkie-talkies for emergencies. Longer range, better versatility, digital channels can be scrambled. A lot more people will be talking over radio than text.
Looks like last comment was a little over a month ago #1016287