pull down to refresh
3 sats \ 1 reply \ @phaedrus 8 Jan 2022
So how do we convince Moxie to integrate Lightning rather than MobileCoin?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 9 Jan 2022
We would need a solution for not sending any identifiable information from the phone to Signal server. Amounts need to be encrypted, sender and receiver anonymized (e.g. ring signature like solution?) and specific account (i.e. phone number) can't be censorable.
reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @m3anm4chine 8 Jan 2022 freebie
Its a well written artcile that summarizes lots of problems in the industry and shines a light to problems that are present in bitcoin community as well. Our thinking is too purist, we imagine everyone on the planet should care about what money is as much as we do, spend significant time understanding underlying technology and how to use it properly. Instead we should be building products that have smarter UX that normies can understand as well - my grandma will never care about or understand coin control and address reuse. We must start thinking about design patterns that enable privacy and "proper" use by default, abstracting it away in ways people are familiar with and used to thinking in those terms already.
In regards to people not wanting to run their own servers - i absolutely agree and i've been doing it professionally for ages. On the other hand industry has been normalizing usage of hardware wallets (which we can all agree have horrible UX) for a while now and more and more people are using them so with enough incentive and lowering barriers to entry things could progress in the right direction. Before Umbrel running your own node or home server required some level of technical proficiency, now people who never in their lives imagined they would be running their own servers at home are doing it because the UX is roughly the same as copying photos from your sd card which everyone under 50 did at some point in their life by now. Having more options like this where people could easily buy a box of compute to plug in at home will democratize a tiny bit of self sovereignty and maybe push the needle a bit more towards decentralization.
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @CypherPoet OP 8 Jan 2022
IMO, anytime someone says "people won't want to do X because it's too hard," they're wrong.
Perhaps that's the current state of things. But humans are a species of creators and problem solvers. If something is "hard", but valuable, they'll figure out ways to do it, and they'll build tools and interfaces that make the process more accessible going forward.
Servers are no exception. (#RemindMeOfThis in 20 years š)
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @thrown 8 Jan 2022
when he says āpeopleā he means the majority of people. and he is observably right.
think of butchers. sure, there are some homesteaders that do it themselves. but even back in 1930 when the skills were more widespread, they still paid other people to do it.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @MerryOscar 8 Jan 2022
"Eventually, all the web3 parts are gone, and you have a website for buying and selling JPEGS with your debit card."
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @oshisat 8 Jan 2022 freebie
āIt seems like we should take notice that from the very beginning, these technologies immediately tended towards centralization through platforms in order for them to be realizedā
ā and that most participants donāt even know or care itās happening.ā
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @metamick14 9 Jan 2022
"people won't want to do X because it's too hard" is BS.
We already run our own internet modems, 15K bitcoiners are running their own bitcoin server instance.
Seems like with Bitcoin we can start running our own server, because we know how valuable it is to 'run your own node'
reply