Google Voice/Google Fi, sadly, is actually kinda decent at spam blocking. 

 Yea, basically 

 I mean it could work over that too but then you have to handle truncation and tcp fallback and that’s annoying 

 You could totally use the same spec for ecash/nuts/whatever. That’s not lightning, of course, but the point of the  design here is it’s totally extensible any way that you can build a bitcoin: URI. 

 It applies equally to on-chain as it does lightning/fedimint/cashu/whatever! 

 I mean realistically people just won’t support non-ASCII hosts. 

 There are proposals to add proprietary APIs for, eg exchanges to expose the ability to pay their users but not users of other wallets, at least in specific contexts. 

 Oof. Which repo? 

 Interesting, that just seems like a gitweb bug? If you click tree on the master branch it works, wonder if my default branch is misconfigured. 

 The DNSSEC proof validation can also be played with at http://http-dns-prover.as397444.net/ 

 No, it’s generic (for on chain), but for lightning you need a static invoice, so BOLT11 won’t cut it and you need BOLT12. 

 It could, but luckily we don’t actually need any transport encryption to send money to people over bitcoin :)

That prover does support TLSS though, if it want to use DANE for something. 

 I mean this is basically the same thing, just a bit less polluting of a domain’s normal contents. 

 Yep! Just gotta define a bitcoin: URI query parameter. Best thing is you can even do both - one URI/name that resolves to lightning + on chain + BIP47….. sender will just pick what they support and pay it! 

 I mean, to put anything on the internet you generally do…or someone has to on your behalf. 

 Because there’s like 50 totally trusted and totally sketchy CAs that you have to rely on? Also DNS is quite simple, HTTPS+CAs+TLS on top is a *lot* more complexity that you can just…. Not have. 

 Piles and piles of practical constraints that need to be worked through to see if any realistic systems using it are practical, but really cool tech. 

 Some security restrictions or something 🤷‍♂️ 

 lol namecheap is “securing” it using SHA-1. I guess I could implement it, but…. Come on. 

 I meannnnnn it’s actually probably mostly fine. There’s some analysis basically concluding the known attacks against SHA-1 don’t really apply to DNSSEC, but, yea, not great. 

 Doesn’t work how? Does it block WASM (or are you querying a non-DNSSEC-signed record)? 

 Uh, yea, old client version that didn’t parse the text, reload and try again :) 

 A hardware wallet or device wanting to query privately may want to get a proof that doesn’t require trusting a third party server or a long list of CAs. 

 I admit web dev is not my strong suit, but it should work….i wiped the front end caches again and added error handling so try again? 

 Wat? I admit web dev is not my strong suit, but it should work….i wiped the front end caches again and added error handling so try again? 

 Sure, but you get to pick the state you trust. More generally, explicit public key trust is definitely better, but if you want a human readable name that doesn’t help. 

 TLS you cannot provide a proof for (it’s asymmetric in the cert but used to derive symmetric keys, so you can forge a transcript). DNS is not, so like you say you can avoid all the complexity, and a totally untrusted device can provide a proof to a totally offline device (eg a hardware wallet). 

 Those tracking links, tho. 

 Something like that :) 

 Maybe? But arithmetic opcodes and introspection would be simpler. 

 Cahincode’s is better. 

 They have a pretty reasonable beer selection. 

 Everyone *above a certain age* thinks crypto is max cringe. That age isn’t super high, but give it a decade :) 

 My age bracket is definitely in that category too :) 

 Forgot about that one. Fuck them. 

 To be fair, the best way to make yourself unplayable is to let anyone open a channel to you and be a big node. You end up with a few thousand channels, all of which are saturated, and only senders with a ton of volume who can try each channel open open a direct channel can pay you. 

 “Stop checking your email while jogging” -Gmail, presumably. 

 Never know when you might be able to sell an ad to “unfit people who don’t move all day”. Okay, actually they probably do know, it’s probably in fact a big target demographic. Ozempic ads inbound… 

 There’s relatively little tech in this episode? It’s mostly a retelling of Jeremy’s experience with CTV from his PoV (which I think is borderline conspiratorial in its interpretations of the actions of others). 

 Right, my point is that the claims made here around “the politics” are actually a strong misreading of others’ behaviors. 

 And suggesting “this is how bitcoin works” is kinda strange given that :/ 

 “Listen to this Pod and you'll learn a hundred times more about Bitcoin than by listening to the 500th podcast episode about [nonsense]” sounds like a ringing endorsement to me :)

I definitely empathize with Jeremy, he definitely did get a lot of conflicting signals and that’s hard. I also value his contribution in normalizing covanents and the idea of adding them to Bitcoin. But he assumes certain malintent on the part of others that just contributes to a culture of “fuck the devs” which just isn’t healthy. 

 Dunno, I’m absolutely sure there are some developers who were very rude to Jeremy, there’s a million developers who work on bitcoin in one way or another (though in context at Scaling Bitcoin it may not have been a relevant topic?). The discussion seems to heavily imply that all, most, or core developers are all rude or somehow stonewalling, which I find to be absurd. 

 Where do such shops exist?! 

 Sheesh wtf 

 Authorization to exchange a message. 

 https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=eth+futures+etf 

 Curious to see if the ETFs will be allowed to stake, I assume they will. 

 Yea, dunno, gensler may use staking as an excuse to reject an ETF so maybe they won’t. If the custodian gets to decide I’m sure they’ll stake. Free profit (and own the network lol). 

 Depends on where fees go in the next few months… 

 When the post was made, on-chain fees were zero and lightning was starting to take off. Today, people have an understanding of lightning and the liquid trust model much better. The popular discourse on its use makes more sense than it used to, though the federation set is…not commonly discussed so it’d be nice if that were more front-and-center in the discussion. 

 Not entirely, AFAIU. Canada tried to force Google/facebook/etc to pay media companies every time someone viewed news content via social media or search sites. In response, various social media sites simply stopped displaying any news to avoid having to pay. It was ultimately settled with a substantially watered down bill very recently, but I’m not sure if everything has been updated. 

 An old android phone (preferably one still getting security updates, but either way keep it offline), maybe the cheapest laptop you can buy in person at Walmart. 

 No. 

 Ross operated a custodial-funds business and (allegedly) ordered a hit on the life of someone. These are not similar situations. 

 Yea, basically this. It makes it incredibly difficult, and possibly impossible in practice. Let alone with the available resources for this kind of thing (which is not much). 

 There’s ongoing work to do that! Look into the libbitcoinkernel project. 

 No I’m saying your comment implied bitcoin core (developers) made some decision about prioritizing transactions which transfer value. No such decision was made. 

 You should read the linked post on why standard transactions exist, it’s not around normal transactions at all, really. Also, any script (in segwit) is standard! You can use any opcode freely. 

 What is the modern policy from exchanges instead?