pull down to refresh

If you want to support LNhance 🔥 for #bitcoin, or contribute to the activation effort:
bc1pt3c80q32m5fz27sh7yztc6l9wcysxahyg5yu40jmwvhc0x3326rquqjk99
or
sp1qq0ma9z3xxzgdgsjuf4rxlsvyq2snyxv7zk2242mw0aps9djjktlysqav8mrnhkqm222vakfqmqhhhuxlj7dthny4mu0tukddj4vlpzej5qf0nt9t
or alternatively you can boost this post!
Funding would help, but we will proceed anyhow.
Things we wish to spend on: github CI/CD, independent hosting for website and a git repo in case a legal takedown is attempted to disrupt activation, hosting signet nodes, bounties for playgrounds, demo apps, contributors, so on...
This sentence looks false; segwit already enabled Ark. You can't enable something we already have.
reply
43 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 12h
Could they mean Ark with unilateral exits?
reply
Ark with unilateral exits is already a thing
The various covenant opcodes make it so more people fit in an Ark without a long signature generation session
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 9h
Ah I didn’t realize. I just assumed they meant the op codes made Ark more practical or better in some significant way - like it’s the difference between Ark being popular or not.
reply
175 sats \ 1 reply \ @ca 8h
reply
The chart is wrong, it says Ark-without-covenants requires running a server 24/7. It doesn't. Ark-without-covenants only requires being online in two circumstances: (1) when you want to send money (2) about every two weeks (similar to lightning).
The chart is similarly wrong about lightning. Anyone with Phoenix or Zeus wallet on their phone knows you don't need to run a 24/7 server to use lightning.
reply
I'm ignorant and I don't know.
But i'm not a fan of making more 'changes' to Bitcoin without far, far more user education.
Far more people could use Bitcoin now if we had the education and we don't... so I'm not sure how much benefit there would be to adding 'features'/forks when people don't fully use the features we already have.
Just my 2 sats.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ca 8h
How can you buy anything when it's either too costly/tx (on-chain) or too hard to onboard (lightning)?
reply
Bitcoin isn't 'too expensive' and lightning isn't 'too hard' to use. Neither of those things are true in my opinion.
Instead, people are stupid and lazy and/or don't know lightning even exists. Bitcoin is such a bubble... i have heard shop merchants, employees tell me "bitcoin is scary". Their exact words and that's why they don't take it.
If Bitcoin is "scary" to them, how the hell can we expect them to understand Lightning or want to adopt it?
I ask the uber driver over and over... hey do you have lightning? They just look confused they have no idea what I'm talking about. It's not that they have decided 'not to use it'... they just don't even know it exists.
And as far as lightning's current state:
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ca 6h
bro having end users manage liquidity channels is the dumbest design solution possible. No normie is gonna do that. Let's look inward and try to do better, rather than blame users for suboptimal choices.
No end user should spend weeks learning the technicals of LN.
Society advances when things are abstracted away, not complicating them more than the status quo.
reply
I've used phoenix wallet. It wasn't hard and served its purpose.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ca 3h
For you... You also use stacker news. Not representative.
reply
Try Randy McMillan's gNostr option to host the code as well.
gNostr is a decentralized version control on nostr, and you can pull the repo directly from your github.
reply
Cool website
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.