pull down to refresh
375 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 9h \ on: What do the eyes emoji 👀 mean to you? AskSN
I think context matters. On github, when you 👀 my comment, I'm fairly confident you aren't flirting with me.
136 sats \ 0 replies \ @carlosfandango 11h \ parent \ on: Books & Articles Weekly, Issue 59 BooksAndArticles
G-board is ok. But it changes the way your thoughts flow. Very odd. Try it! Dragon Professional is out of reach.
136 sats \ 2 replies \ @carlosfandango 12h \ parent \ on: Books & Articles Weekly, Issue 59 BooksAndArticles
It is. Voice-to-text not great
136 sats \ 4 replies \ @carlosfandango 13h \ parent \ on: Books & Articles Weekly, Issue 59 BooksAndArticles
Been reading a lot. Struggling to type some days.
Tariffs are just taxes in disguise — and both sides are playing chicken with their own economies.
US tries to fight insolvency with isolation, China responds with retaliation, and we’re left watching the fiat empires stumble around like drunk giants. Meanwhile, inflation gets baked into the cake and average folks foot the bill — again.
This isn’t just a trade war. It’s a signal: the global supply chain is fragmenting, trust is eroding, and money itself is under siege.
When the dust settles, those holding hard assets — land, energy, Bitcoin — won’t need to panic. The rest? They’ll be adjusting to $15 eggs.
Stack accordingly âš¡
@BlokchainB has me beat on the spenders list. I need to step it up.
IMO, the best bot in Telegram is @lnp2pbot. for buying and selling SATS no kyc.
I'm not sure raising the outbound fee of that channel would prevent any of this from happening. It sounds like the node operator should have set fees higher to cover the actual cost of draining their channels' liquidity.
One strategy is to open up large enough (and probably fewer) channels and set the fees such that if they're entirely depleted, opening and closing costs will be recouped. If the channel is depleted, it's done it's job, just open another.
Another is to dynamically adjust fees such that as liquidity becomes more scare in a channel, the fee rate (ppm) goes up. This naturally balances supply and demand. There are many plugins or node managers that will do this in an automated fashion, i.e. CLBoss.
There does seem to be a general equilibrium problem, where you can find the stables effective fees for your channels only to gain a peer (or even just liquidity with an existing peer) who has much greater demand for outbound liquidity and then your channels get saturated/depleted. Again, I think the only viable solutions are to completely automate channel fee management, or to set fees very conservatively.
I've written TG bots in the past (years ago, before I stopped using it for privacy reasons), often for personal/business use. What's nice about it is that you can send yourself notifications with a relatively straightforward bot API and have secondary command interfaces for querying. So you're on the road, you get a notification that some event happened for your business and then you converse with the bot to get more info about what's going on. Before TG I had it in Slack. After TG I tried with a signal bot but that's a terrible SDK. Now I have a bespoke app that I don't use often enough.
Bottom line, anything a TG bot offers can be reproduced on a more secure, more privacy-preserving platform.
Yes to both.
You can reject or accept channels based on any conditions you want (in LND you can do this with the ChannelAcceptor RPC).
On the fees side, you could theoretically mirror the fees of any node of the network in almost real-time. This can be achieved by subscribing to the channel graph events (in LND, using the SubscribeChannelGraph RPC) and updating your local channels fees based on the updates you see.
To give you another example of dynamic fees, in Hydrus, fee rates are set based on the forwards amount ratio. If the amount of incoming forwards is higher than the outgoing, the fee rate is decreased to incentivize routing. If it is the other way around, the fee rate is increased to disincentivize routing.
I think they are taking advantage of the low on-chain fees to relocate their liquidity and arbitrage with routing fees. They could be probing the victim's channels and detecting that there is liquidity available to do so.
They might have so much of demand from some of their peers that it is profitable to open a new channel and use it purely to rebalance others.
However, I do not think this attack makes economical sense in a different fee environment or to medium-sized nodes, as you would need to open a channel with the almost the same liquidity as the entire node.
As far as the fees goes, they are probably setting a high fee rate to avoid having the liquidity locked in their side of the new channel. Given that the victim node is considerably smaller, this is quite possible.
To overcome this, I think the best approach is to set initial fee rate to something like 500ppm and then gradually lower it as you see the channel is not routing, this will make the operation longer or more expensive, and will give you some sats to relocate your liquidity after the "attack".
Another option, as the post says, is to block incoming channels based on some policies. I have created acceptlnd specifically for this, there are multiple parameters that you can use to decide whether you are happy with the new channel or not.
I don't think it is bad to have a defined set of requirements for accepting new peers, your liquidity and time are limited, so you may not have it with certain peers that you know or consider they won't perform as well based on their metrics.
The article discusses several solutions at the end, but i agree that they don't seem to address the problem properly.
I like this analogy the author gives, with the additional constraint that, once you are accepting this rich customer (channel) to do business with you, you are enable to charge him more than you'd charge other customers. Indeed, you set the fees to your outbound channels, not your inbound ones.
This whole scenario can be compared to opening a store with cheap products, stocking it up, only to have a rich customer buy everything and resell it in his store at higher prices.
Or, you could say Node M is squeezing you out of the routing and fee market. After their tactics, your node becomes effectively disconnected from the network’s economic flow, while M continues to earn fees via its redistributed liquidity across high-fee channels.
I'm not sure how your solution would work. Is one able to change the outbound fees based on who is the inbound partner? I thought that was a constant value per outbound channel...
Afaict most professional node operators deal with this by using reciprocal tariffs, ie setting their ppm dynamically based on the fee rate of the opener.
I have one but I sprang on the whole space-heater setup.
FYI, their optional vonnets wifi adapter was not compatible with my router (something to look out for), and even this small fuss had me pulling my hair out for two days before I surrendered. If you're patient and willing to learn, then go 'as is' - but best to go in with a hobbiest mindset and not for huge gains.
Honestly, I think the s9 is a decent buy, even for the refurbished one. I learned a lot and this winter I mined upwards of 23k sats.
Keep in mind that they are old machines so they might get bonked-out for one reason or another and need a repair. Also, the fans might drive you crazy of its in your house. Mine makes a ringing sound that carries through the wall into the next room, even with the modified 'quieter' fans.
Good luck!
77 sats \ 2 replies \ @unschooled OP 16h \ parent \ on: Satoshi was the first heat punk bitcoin_Mining
Thanks ChatGPT
Does Extreme Wealth Change People? @denlillaapan house sits for rich friends and realizes he's unchanged by the luxury
extremely good summary of my point, lol
131 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker OP 9h \ parent \ on: What do the eyes emoji 👀 mean to you? AskSN
👀