pull down to refresh
I fear that this is going to be woven into every narrative of anyone looking for a billion dollar runway now, lol.
This is simpler and more reliable than trusting that your microphone isn’t being accessed remotely by malware or compromised applications.
Although this sounds smart, this is easily circumvented by decoupling recording from transmission. Low bit rate mp3 or aac is very small and you can fit weeks worth on a low end smartphone. App and OS hygiene is ultimately needed.
Interesting research problem haha. I personally never ask an LLM to solve a problem end-to-end because it never satisfies me, so I ask much smaller things. Is it possible that the problem statement is too broad and that's why it didn't come up with anything?
Anyway, I mostly use it to search stuff for me, like I need to get background on something I know but don't remember the source for, so I don't really do things like these. The last one I did was to have it figure out for me why there were differing stories about Starlink capabilities for monitoring usage in Africa.
to find truth through logic and reason i am not sure how helpful it is to look at a paper written in 2008.
Why not? That's Bitcoin.
- do you consider routing in ln purely p2p?
Routing is what makes it peer-through-peer, so correct, it is not pure p2p. I consider it a necessary evil for onion routing. I personally don't need onion routing per-se because I mix, but it's a welcome addition to the toolbox.
- is a ln node that routes payments a middlemen?
Technically, yes. It also extracts a fee for providing anonymization, so there is some value to be had. But yes, it's a middleman.
so we could assmilk and let the kid buy his sandwich
Yes, though capital efficiency is very bad right now. There was a nice video about it re-shared today (it's from October) #1407722
are you saying because bitcoin scaled in the past it will scale in the future?
No, I am saying that it has always scaled non-custodially and that any custodial solution is a lazy, and more often, deceitful solution. Like Udi saying his FTX reflink is the only way to scale Bitcoin.
you are describing the ideal scenario where you have a direct channel with sn, but i guess you agree, that this is not viable/practical for all sn users right?
I'm describing what I do, not an ideal scenario. Ideally I could buy credits from L1, and do it in a mix-out straight from a coinjoin. Everyone can find their own path to success though, I don't really care. Judgment is for dictators, not peers. So you let me buy CCs, I let you use a bank. I just hope you don't get rugged, and I hope you hope that I don't fuck up my keys.
Just wanted to say that this is very nice. What I really like is that you didn't use arbitrary lines on maps enforced with guns produced by stealing money from the people as an example, but you explained it peer to peer. That's great.
Coinos is a bank and a very bad one because it got rugged. I do not use banks.
You can argue all you want but it's not going to work. You always whine about principles. My principles are: fuck banks, fuck governments, and fuck anyone that tries to tell someone else what they should do.
I just do what I want. If you have a problem with that, do a PR on https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news and remove CCs. Good luck.
Yes, so the LN banking system will grow and develop because you're using them. And Zeus will develop because I have a phone full of crash reports that I have to work through.
You support banks, I support FOSS. FUCK BANKS.
are you completely against banks as a principle?
Yes. That's what Bitcoin is for. I quote:
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash SystemBitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution.
Note the following words:
- purely
- sent directly from one party to another
- without going through a financial institution.
So if I wanted to send you sats, as opposed to upzapping your content, I would not use SN. The territory owner takes 21% of each zap and 9% goes to rewards minus LN fees, so it is very costly to use SN to send someone sats. I know that there is the idea that it should support marketplaces (k00b confirmed that the other day), but because of the core value add of SN (community building) needing sybil resistance, it will unlikely ever be a good financial middleman.
Also, financial middlemen are against Bitcoin. I have a direct LN channel with SN for my topups (I have a dedicated embedded lnd for it, so it's fine really) I do not burden other people's liquidity with my transactions on SN. This is the most awesome thing, because that liquidity can now be used for meaningful things like a kid buying a sandwich. They need that sandwich more than you or I need assmilked sats from comments.
how do you think bitcoin will scale without custodians?
As it always has? Note that "people like me", who hate banks, governments and basically anyone trying to tell someone else what to do, generally don't believe in the Bitcoin Standard bullshit coming from Mr. Ammous. So it scaled fine, and it will scale fine in the future. LN has much more capacity than is used. All the panic over scaling is people trying to sell you something [fee]
like their custodial wallet, so that you pay them fees, whereas between SN and me, I pay 0 fees, and SN pays 0 fees too. Isn't the life of a self-custody maxi beautiful? ↩
I'm sorry but we also had this discussion before. My SN spends (despite not having been outside of top10 spenders any week for almost a year now) are insignificant compared to my LN and on-chain spends. It's simply not enough value to justify the additional security needed as long as there are no good wallets that are non-custodial and support NWC.
I had hopes for Zeus 0.12 but it needs more love. I still want to test Justin's setup though, but I need to do a lot of security work for it. It will come, but I cannot guarantee that it will be a permanent solution; that depends on how well it works for me, and me alone.
No, it's not custodial for me because it is not a wallet for me. This is what you misunderstand. It's like a prepaid phone to me. I just put in some sats which I can only use (as CCs) and when its running low I put in more, which is 3-4x per week.
what did i say that you feel attacked or hurt?
Example:
you definitely said CC = sats on sn
Instead of taking what I said at face value (that I'm not trying to deceive you, you even quoted that back at me) you, as a counterargument, literally change my argument and then ascribe it to me. To be clear, no, I definitely did not say "CC = sats on sn". So either you were lost, or you are trolling. If you then continue to make "people like me" responsible for the fact that there are CCs, you are probably trolling.
I agree with you that USDT != USD. I agree with you that CCs != sats. I agree with you that zapping with CCs is not the same as zapping with sats. The value is interchangeable though, proven by the fact that if you would zap me for 10 sats, and you have 7 CCs, you'd spend the 7 and then 3 sats over LN... it's 1:1 pegged - for now. It could change; I said that too.
But I didn't say that it was the same and I even said that it's an undesirable situation. I'd not use CCs if there were a good solution that is usable for me with a connected LN wallet. Unfortunately, the closest wallet currently is Zeus and it doesn't work well for production for me yet (they also launched this feature only last month, so it needs time to mature.)
Seriously?
let me link it to you. Let me also repeat it once more:
1 CC = 1 sat, on SN (for now.)
See the 1 in front of each symbol at both sides of the equation? That means we're comparing relative value between 2 units of account.
If I trade 1 apple for 1 pear, then 1 apple = 1 pear. But that does not mean that apple = pear, because in the first statement we were comparing apple and pear as units of account and in the second we're talking about definitions of apple and pear itself. I know that linguistically it is super confusing.
Note that if what you say is true then the thing I said immediately after it, must have struck you as a complete misconstruction because differences would negate intrinsic value, yet you didn't complain. So are you truly this desperately twisting my words because my explanation is so bad, or because you're just trolling?
so the reason we have cc on sn seems to be people like you...
Okay? Lol. I'm sorry your life sucks because of people like me?!? Jeez.
fiat in your bank account is not fiat?
No it is not. When in the future you get debanked (despite your trolling, I still do not wish that for you) tell us how you learned that the hard way.
you are using sn as the custodial and don't even have the possiblity to withdraw the "sats" (read cc), why not use a custodial and be able to withdraw to into self custody?
I'm a net spender, so there is nothing to withdraw, only top up.
I didn't claim CCs = sats. I made a statement about the valuation of it. Check my statement once more. I also said it reduces portability. I'm not trying to deceive you here.
when i see the amount deducted in my lightning wallet
What do you mean deducted? In a Lightning Wallet (and Bitcoin in general), you sign a transaction.
did a developer claim that or how do you know?
That's how I summarize it, yes. The reason for CCs as I understand it is that after custodial sats were removed on SN, there was still a need for supporting stackers that don't have a working connectable wallet. Which was at the time a large number of them.
you create the additional requirement
Yeah I did that in 2013. It just hasn't changed and it would be a huge sacrifice on my part to do so. A custodial wallet is a step away from sovereignty for me. To me, it makes no sense to use custodial stuff that falsely claims it is Bitcoin, especially not because SN has a built-in solution that doesn't claim to be Bitcoin and works.
Not your keys, not your coin and - before you start saying Fedi or Cashu or some L2 - also not your gateway/bridge/sequencer, not your coin.
I'm not okay with normalizing custodial wallets in Bitcoin, because these aren't wallets; they're bank accounts.
where is my thinking wrong?
It's not. But note that SN != bitcoin. It just uses sats as a unit of account and allows someone (optionally) to connect a wallet. I don't think that it is reasonable to complain to users of a provided feature about their usage of it. The reason why the feature is there is because the tradeoffs for connecting LN in this way are still rather heavy: either you run a server with a very hot wallet which means you need to actually secure it, or you run Zeus on your phone which is currently still buggy and it sucks battery, or you go custodial. If you don't want to do custodial, you need a rather sturdy setup which I don't think many stackers have right now.
are you saying, when on nostr i see the confirmation of my zap, that the other person maybe did not receive my zap?
I'm saying that no message can prove that the invoice actually was paid, and it can easily be faked. NIP-57 says this too:
The zap receipt is not a proof of payment, all it proves is that some nostr user fetched an invoice. The existence of the zap receipt implies the invoice as paid, but it could be a lie given a rogue implementation.
no, you can of course decide to not use bitcoin...
I think you mean "SN with a connected wallet". And I can choose that, this choice is a feature. If you want me to not use SN when not connecting a wallet, just make a pull request to delete the feature of buying CCs; it's easy.
The same if you can code anything and someone else can code anything. There is no competitive advantage in coding. The advantage is in excellence. Try that when you are vibe coding; it's really, really hard.
I think we can always learn, most people aren't evil, we just have to try and take a step back sometimes. It's better that we do it often, that's why I went to punch a bag for 2 days in a row now, so that I can have calmer conversations haha. Too bad I have to travel soon.
that is a strawm[a]n
Yes, I just hyperbole'd your own though.
if i zap someone without a wallet attached, the person doesn't receive what i've sent.
1 CC = 1 sat, on SN (for now.) The thing they lose is portability. That's their choice. Is it a good situation? No. Are there usable, user-friendly, non-custodial mobile apps that support NWC for sending? No (but Zeus is working on it.)
i am coming from nostr, where that is the case.
Not entirely. In nostr zaps, you publicly broadcast some json that could but also could not have happened. It's not a recording of facts, but a recording of virtue signaling.
because you can't.
Exactly! Just like right now, I do not have a server with LND running, so I can't zap you sats and you cannot zap me sats. Are you objecting to that?
Bottom line, let's not judge others. If people dislike Darth because he's a toxic maxi and judgmental, the solution is probably not to reciprocate the toxicity and judgment.
That's because the vibe maxis tell you to not read it. haha