Thanks again for chiming in @justin_shocknet! And thanks for posting the replay here (and the zaps forward ⚡️)

I guess because they'll need to also charge the cost of Claude.

The timeline is off: says disclosure on June 16th, and yet we're only the 12th.

Thanks for you kind words @DarthCoin :blush:

In that case I don't think they're anchor outputs. The 330 sats for anchors comes from the fact that it's the dust limit for this kind of output (i.e. the smallest standard amount). Here, they use the same amount to ensure standardness of their transaction, but from the look of it I'd wager they're encoding arbitrary data into the addresses (thus making the output unspendable).

Glad I could help!

Generally speaking adding a hop between a KYC exchange and your main wallet isn't going to do much privacy-wise. If you do exchange ---> temporary wallet ---> main wallet, then any surveillance company with knowledge that the funds sent to the temporary wallet belong to you will be able to infer that those sent to the main wallet also do, especially if the transaction from the temporary wallet to the main wallet is trivial to interpret¹.

Additionally coin control, however sophisticated, will never alleviate the fact that the KYC exchange holds a record of how much corn you bought. For instance, if your worry re. KYC is expropriation a la 6102, then the State would still know that you own at least the amount reported by KYC exchanges, and could come take it.

I think a common practice is to keep KYC and non-KYC stacks hermetically separated. It has the added benefit that KYC coins might be useful in the future, e.g. for any transaction that requires proof of origin (such as buying a house).

I think in most cases the best way to go around this is to use separate accounts (e.g. different derivation paths). Sparrow lets you do that pretty easily.

If open your current wallet and head to the "Settings" tab, you'll probably see under the Keystores section that your derivation path is something like m/84'/0'/0' (could also be something else depending on your setup). Using the same seed (eg the same hardware wallet, if you're using one) you should be able to create a new wallet, and specify a different derivation path (eg m/84'/0'/1'). You can give it a clear name (like "KYC wallet") for future reference.

You now have 2 different accounts, backed by the same seed, but from which you cannot accidentally spend in the same transaction.

Those are stunning!

Haha I was not ready for AMSR Alan Bits 😂

Hey @DarthCoin, thanks for sharing this!

Today will be an introduction to Lnbits core concepts, and we'll play a bit with the public v1 instance.

Haha I thought it was yet another vulnerability disclosure, but not this time!

I love the pairs of nodes in the fringes having their own bromance.

Interesting, thanks for pointing it out! It's a clever way to take the fee, although it has the drawback of not being atomic. But then if a merchant blocks the payment of the fee to Flash, they can terminate this merchant's account, and they can no longer use the service.

IIRC LNBits circumvented this by intercepting invoices before handing them to LND, and processing "to-self" invoices separately as database-only transfers. But it would indeed be nice if LND had it baked in, instead of everybody that has a use case for it reimplementing the feature.

Okay, 3 things:

Cowboy hats off!

I guess it depends on how much actual mint-to-mint transactions there are. If there are a lot, then audits are hidden in the crowd. Else, what you describe is indeed possible.

And yes, Bolt12's receiver privacy probably fixes this 🫡

By "blind", I mean that a mint doesn't know which user an ecash token "belongs" to. If they weren't blind, mints could always honor withdrawal requests from identified auditors, thus appearing trustworthy while rugging other users.

In other words, it works because a mint can either rug everyone, or rug no one. They can not rug one user in particular.

An interesting point is that it works only because mints are blind.

Also, some of the documentary's points on scalability were quite weird. Like when it stated something along the lines of "now, you can make everyday payments on Bitcoin, but only through companies that take a cut on each payment" ; and then hinting that it may have been Blockstream's secret master plan all along.

That's not how Lightning works ; and I didn't expect such Bilderberg-ish conspiracy theories to be dropped like that in an HBO documentary.

Physics nerds rejoice

TL;DR:

No go read the full thing, it's pretty well-written.