Yeah, I run both but my main one is CLN. It’s sad the tool feature parity just isn’t with that implementation. All the new stuff seems to be for LND.

What about CLN? Clboss doesn’t seem maintained. I’ve never used negative routing fees — makes sense tho. Would be great to automate on CLN.

No way, most EU countries are too small to go in alone. The EU isn’t going to break up. The EU has been on the whole a good thing for the world, allowing many people to live and work in Europe, and collectively build wealth using a common currency. Where bitcoin hits Europe is that it cannot control it. EU really likes its rules and regulations, and free and open source software, especially peer to peer software is fundamentally uncontrollable once released on the Internet. (However, further transport protocol encryption and obfuscation is worth exploring here).

Are they? I’d be interested to know how many people pay for relays in 2025, especially that would allow large note sizes.

wasting the resources of shared relays to store blobs? I don’t believe this will work. Nostr isn’t a general purpose blob storage system. GitHub gives you storage if you pay them or keep under their free tier usage. Git is already decentralized, you just have to store it yourself.

If you are using a private relay that stores the blobs, what does this offer over gitlab except a worse experience? You can run your own decentralized “GitHub like experience” on your own without need for nostr at all using Gitlab or other open source software.

A lot of these “on nostr” ideas don’t really make sense or are in any way scalable or economical. Maybe I am missing something?

What would that even look like? Contrast with something like gitlab.

Yes, because GitHub is a centralized platform and must have moderation to prevent spam. There are plenty of ways out of band to protest a muting on GitHub, so there really isn’t a censorship argument. It’s operations on a high visibility public repo. GitHub doesn’t own Bitcoin. It’s just one window into its source code.

Biggest obstacle is not existing. I plan to die with my coins. You are welcome.

I am highly sympathetic to this viewpoint. Bringing children into this horrible world we have built is unethical. It’s not getting any better.

Agreed! Spam my node all day, thanks for the sats! If there is a problem, it’s a UX issue. LN wallet visualizers should have a filter setting to hide tx under some specified threshold.

I am glad the UK is banning itself from the public internet. I suggest we disconnect that island to prevent the madness spreading.

A Very bad man. I was told people died from being unable to afford daraprim, despite he claiming no patient was affected.

I believe he has fallen into crypto grifting these days too. He is not a Bitcoiner. He is a bad person, and the world will not forget his actions.

I thought about this and I understand where the misunderstanding is. I hope if a future reader finds this they understand this concept better.

I think the exactly scenario on this is poorly documented about the dust attack in general. As written and described most places, its a redundant attack for the reasons I have specified -- the attacker learns nothing additional. Most write ups seem to treat the dust as a "marker", but we don't need to mark things on transparent blockchains, however, we might want to force a certain broken wallet behavior that links addresses.

How much in practice this wallet behavior manifests is dubious too IMHO due to the uneconomical nature of spending dust. In most cases a wallet with sufficient spendable UTXOs is not going to start digging up old dust from other addresses to stuff into inputs.

The nuance is in combining dust, -- but only from an address with no other associated UTXOs (eg balance is just dust). Consider: Address A and B, and C. A and B are controlled by the target, and C is a 3rd party seller. There is UTXO uA and uB. uA is 1m sat. uB is 1m sat. Attacker dusts A and B and generates new UTXOs uA' and uB' of 546 sat each.

If someone wanted to pay ~2m sat (-fees) to C, the attacker learns nothing additional from inputs (uA+uB+uA'+uB')->C, Likewise for (uA+uB+uA')->C or (uA+uB+uB')->C or (uA+uB)->C. This is what I am referring to, and the most likely combination of UTXOs in wallets in practice.

However, lets say in this scenario uB=0s, eg: balance(B)=546s, and we want to send 1m sat to C.

The wallet would have to calculate the optimal tx as: (uA+uB')->C [which would very likely be uneconomical vs including another larger UTXO] Yes, the attacker is learning that A and B are related, assuming uB was spent early on another unrelated transaction. That would not be apparent from the transaction ledger.

Be careful with dust. You can spend dust from an address safely as long as it only contains the same address as the inputs. eg: (uA+uA')->C. Or is a one of more dusts to the same address. eg: (uA' + uA'')->C. The attacker learns nothing.

As long as the dust address is also the 'main funds' address, its just reducing the UTXO set. Spending unrelated dust is leaking a wallet/key relationship that would not be observable otherwise. eg: (uA+uB')->C, attacker learns A and B are in the same key set.

Yes, which would be visible on the blockchain. The linking occurs from spending, its nothing to do with the dust. Its a marker that doesn't really add much.

You see the source, and the destination of all sats. If you watch an address (the same as dusting), you learn exactly the same thing you would learn without the dusting.

Yes you can tell! You watch the address and see where the funds go. You learn nothing by dusting that you couldn’t already see.

I really have my doubts about the value of dusting for tx graph discovery.

An adversary already knows the full tx graph, it’s a transparent ledger! I don’t think one can learn anything you couldn’t already see onchain. You can see where every sat is locked anyway!

I’ve def had had dust on the old addrs. I always do coin control and leave the old utxos. It might have value to see that an old addr was used in the past — but again, transparent ledger and full tx graph. It’s there for all eternity.

The information is going to be consumed from somewhere. People are going to ask AIs about Bitcoin for the next 140 years.

Might as well get your thoughts encoded in popular foundational models. By blocking scraping you are simply removing discoverability of your content. And then there are things like deep research agents that will go out and find and surface things for humans to read. You could be blocking humans from reading in future too.

This is a sensible ruling. The sanctions were to prevent DPRK from using this protocol. In a traditional financial world this would be easy-ish with good KYC.

The fact U.S. people were blocked by sanctions was a side effect (eg; cannot distinguish between them). But the whole thing was pointless, as DPRK could still use it, of course, and U.S. people were the only ones negatively affected. To acknowledge this reality is quite pragmatic and reflects the reality of decentralized financial code on the Internet today.

I have nuanced views across the spectrum. The right vs left dichotomy is tearing things apart (Lisa)! I generally don’t agree with BBs beliefs, but I try not to let that influence my judgement of comedy.

Good comedy isn’t left or right. It pokes fun at anything. Good comedy teaches you something.

downvote me if you must, but BabylonBee is such unfunny cringe trash. Where is the joke here?

Oh thats, right, BB never has any actual jokes or deeper meaning. its like the onion if you removed all the satire, humor, timing and actual issues, and had a simple mind.

also one of my favorite movies. I find myself bringing it up in conversation more lately, however.