0 sats \ 1 reply \ @xmrk2 1 May \ on: WBD Peter McCormack • First They Came for Samourai with Seth for Privacy bitdevs
Advertisment for Ledger? In 2024? Doesn't Peter McCormack care about his reputation?
reminded me of this German newsreel from June 1944, after Normandy landings, 17 minutes long, with English subtitles:
The only questionable statement is how German army was ready, but even this can be explained away, they did shoot back. Everything else sounds true or at least plausible. Shot down an aircraft, destroyed a few tanks, captured a few soldiers? Guess they did. True but totally irrelevant, no information value. Yet it manages to create a feeling of "we are winning", without telling it directly. Especially if you want to believe it.
About replication - does DB replication provide any advantage, compared to RAID1 with the same number of replicas? I think that with RAID1, if sector 100 of disk1 is unreadable, and sector 200 of disk2 is unreadable, then you still have all the data and it is easy to recover. By contrast, with DB replication I don't see a way to recover, at least haven't found anything in Postgres documentation. So RAID1 seems safer. Am I missing something? Maybe DB replication is more about availability if HW (not just disk) breaks down?
yes, zfs cache doesn't seem sufficient to explain my problem. I was running with
sync=standard, so ZFS should have honored fsyncs.But there are write caches of the disks themselves. Just today I tried diskchecker.pl. Created a new 5 GB zpool using the same two SSD disks, turned off compression and atime, did
sync; reboot -f to simulate my case. And diskchecker showed no errors, even though both disks report write cache enabled (hdparm -I).well, I wasn't asking for a donation , although zapping is a bit a point of stacker.news... Don't want to keep those sats (>9000) , will donate for useful tips, like how to sign message without lnd running, or how to improve my crappy instructions.
The saddest thing is that this "advance fee scam" was described 1000 times before. For example: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/103891/is-it-normal-to-be-asked-for-an-advance-fee-on-a-withdrawal . Although on second reading of your post, they tried to obfuscate a bit with top-tier thing. Still, why would you pay the tax to someone else than IRS (and Darthcoin wouldn't pay even them :))?
The scam possibly hasn't ended yet: someone may contact you promising to recover your money. For a small fee, paid in advance, of course. Please don't fall for it.
Well, presenting some of those arguments in 2023 is rather embarassing.
If you want to use it non-custodial, you need a 100% uptime connection or risk losing all your funds.
There are watchtowers. And the timeout for big channels (>10M sats I think) is about a week by default, so even if not using watchtower, it should be enough to bring your wallet online once a week, far from 100% uptime. And this is only needed if you receive by lightning. If you are only paying, your past balance is always greater or equal than your current balance, so your channel peer has nothing to gain by broadcasting the old channel state.
Opening/closing/changing balance needs an onchain transaction, so doesn’t really help with scaling.
But Lightning allows you to "compress" - you only need 2 onchain txs (opening and closing the channel) instead of N, where N can in principle be any number.
There are some true statements - if you receive on-chain, you have to spend on-chain. But how is this a problem of lightning? And if you are spending on-chain, you may instead open a channel for comparable cost.
no, just tried to buy a gift card (carrefour), and Bitrefill gave me a lightning invoice, and my account is not KYCed.
There are limits: $5000 / day and $10000 / month, probably those would increase if I did KYC.
And KYC is required for their bill payment service, perhaps this confused you? Or does it depend on region/country?
Maybe check out lightning loop - https://github.com/lightninglabs/loop . Seems much cheaper and is not custodial. They claim 0.05-0.5 %, I just tried quotes for 1M sats and 10M sats, got 0.3% and 0.12% fee respectively. This is service fee, the on-chain fee is not included. Probably a big limitation is that you need to install it and have lnd already running.
Robosats also allows this kind of swap, not just fiat <-> BTC. But their interface is a bit confusing for ligthning-onchain swap, I am never sure whether my offer has premium or discount. And Robosats itself takes 0.2% fee, plus you probably pay premium to the trade partner if you are doing swap out (paying with lightning, receiving on-chain).
Wonder what would Wikipedia do if it happened to them. They cannot use the bad bad bitcoin. Maybe they feel they are mainstream or close to it so it cannot happen to them, but GrapheneOS does not sound too controversial, so who knows in this crazy world...
TBH, Faketoshi only won the right to serve foreign defendants over the issue of copyright, and thus (I guess) to include those defendants in the trial. I think those defendants were already included regarding another issue (the "theft" of Faketoshi's btc and his request to roll it back in the blockchain). So not sure if this ruling is a big deal, the defendants already need a lawyer and need to pay, not sure if this raises their costs.
On the bright side, Faketoshi made a witness statement how he is Satoshi, this could make a nice perjury, I hope this will be prosecuted.
Speaking of the pollution, this is what I get when installing electrum on gentoo (well, it is calculate linux really, but same source basically):
* Messages for package net-misc/electrum-4.4.3: * If you are new to BitCoin, please be aware that: * 1. Cryptocurrencies are volatile. BTC has been subject to rapid * changes of value in the past. * 2. Cryptocurrency ownership is determined solely by the access to * the private key. If the key is lost or stolen, BTC are unrevocably * lost. * 3. Proof-of-work based cryptocurrencies have negative environmental * impact. BTC mining is consuming huge amounts of electricity.
power companies? Not necessarily an issue: https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/pay-bills-with-bitcoin - Naturgy in Spain for example. OK, you probably meant in the US, but this shows there is some hope at least.
well, and what if I can receive a part of my salary on a special "restaurant" debit card, and I do not pay income tax for this part of salary?
So my choices are:
- pay less tax, deprive the state of some money, but forced to pay by card
- pay in cash (even in restaurants) but only after this money is taxed by income tax
Perhaps such "restaurant" debit card can be seen as proto-CBDC - it is already limited, I can only spend it in restaurants.
Wonder if real CBDCs will be similarly incentivised. Overlords can then say they are not banning cash, they would never think about doing it. Yet everybody will prefer CBDCs because of those incentives, so in a year or two, the overlords will say how nobody except criminals uses cash, let's ban it.
I found it originally on https://www.criptonoticias.com/regulacion/el-euro-digital-aceptacion-obligatoria-comercios-europa/ , in Spanish unfortunately. That article says that full implementation would take 2-3 years, which seems like century to me.