Being able to boost and comment on Fountain as a post on Nostr is just cool.
https://fountain.fm/episode/Y8tfjIkOcPCU8BiysVrS
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzq6r24rcxxllyt8pvdk90tv8tu53k075cl9ue3lu64gs6g8036fua9k353n
Between this and what we are doing with the pear stack, we are going to solve all of the connection, latency, encryption, and authentication problems for all of our tools and I'm fucking HERE FOR IT!! 🔥🔥
This is SO awesome to see. I dont think people realize how huge this will be for UX and app design.
nostr:note1skq6njq098cmune3mz35s9snxuftdz3yx35cqyrlux3nv7vpdzlsfygf0l
It means you can make direct connections to devices, to peers, to any other computer *using* the nostr social database.
In other words, what if you could connect to your own node, encrypted and without any setup and from anywhere, just by going through nostr relays? What if you could share a file with a friend by simply punching in their npub and they accept it? No middle men, no accounts, no subscriptions, no setup.
You don't need the relays to share files, just to establish a connection with any one of them without needing networking setup or port forwarding etc.
It's about establishing a connection without needing a DNS authority, a middleman confirming identities, or a database of static IP addresses and the like.
It's like LNC but over nostr. You obviously dont need 1000s of lightning nodes to connect to your wallet, but using lightning to connect to your wallet is *way* better than having to use Tor
We are implementing holesail into Start9 right now, the new version that runs in the background dropped hours ago, and I have a team working on an application to solve some seriously annoying file related tasks in a seamless way. Stay tuned, lots of work is happening in the background right now
Also, this bridge is easier than you might think, you actually dont need to make a new client, all you need is for normal clients to "talk" pear links and you've completely changed the game. Its getting a "relay" running on a pear swarm that needs to be built, the rest is just integration with all your favorite clients already.
It wouldn't need "kind 1" support or anything like that. It would be in the relay list. You would simply need the pear stack running in the background and have it connecting to other pear nodes and pulling nostr notes from those as well. Then you could easily run and organize your own pear node however you wanted. Would make nostr load much faster too and customizations would become much simpler to implement, imo.
Not yet, we're totally in the dark right now, but it's seriously very close. We are meeting Monday about potential alpha version. All of the code probably won't be public until the beta version though because i already know we have some breaking changes in the roadmap. Right now we just want to have it working with the core functionality so we can see how people interact with it and then we will have something to work off of when it comes to the design and UI. Ideas are great and all, but users are 100x more valuable than theories.
I don’t see why that wouldn’t be possible, but I think that takes a lot more work. It’s easier to just have a node that can be reached with one of those URI links that simply watches relays for any of your follows or notes, and then saves them, then you connect to it with the link from whatever client you like and you just load from your personal node.
FDR **caused** the Great Deression. The guy is competing for the most blatantly socialist & economically disastrous president we’ve ever had with Woodrow Wilson.
for sure, but the great depression was simply something that would have been cleared by the market in about 6-12 months like every major down turn is when there isn't aggressive intervention. So FDR is the only reason it lasted for 10 years and actually *became* the Great Depression to begin with.
But you are entirely right that Hoover was very much the same. In fact there was a writing i read a long time ago by one of FDR's economic advisors who said that they literally took one of Hoover's plans, while publicly attacking hoover, essentially rebranded it as The New Deal, and did almost all of the same things Hoover had intended to do.
I’m confused, what is the argument? Just the analogy as an illness? is there more to this I’m not aware of or am I missing something? (Would love to have a really solid argument to bring up when discussing socialism)
Holy shit, I just realized something else that is actually a significant benefit with stablecoins replacing banking infra that I hadn't considered... stablecoins are a *push* system like bitcoin is. Meaning when you pay for something you aren't giving your personal information out every single time you do so! It really is a lot like the free banking era and i hadn't locked in on that rather important piece of it.
Damn, I wish that had come to mind while i was doing the show. That's another pretty big way that the embrace of stablecoins over traditional banking can be a meaningful step forward, rather than the implied "terrible outcome" that we didn't jump instantly to a bitcoin standard.
lol, I actually just kinda thought it was neat. I wasn’t really judging this as anything consequential from a political viewpoint. My thoughts were more from the “we think we know way more than we actually know” perspective. 😂
TPS isn’t what is needed. The bond market doesn’t control the price of debt because it has high TPS. It does so because it is the most liquid and largest market for referencing the long term price of using capital. #Bitcoin has every capacity it needs to be a vastly better tool for that market. If you think it’s about TPS you are failing to understand the structure of capital markets and prices.
“I just want everyone in the world to be able to buy milk at the grocery store without fiat — non-custodial”
Of course that’s the goal from a payment standpoint, but that’s a pipe dream if you don’t fix the pricing of capital and the deepest monetary market in the world.
Wishing for that without fixing the massive monetary base is like wishing for great poetry without caring whether the language works at all.
If you think you are the only one who cares about that you’ve made a grave error. You misunderstand the path dependent means of getting there, and so you toss out the most important tool for achieving your goal before even getting started.
The simple truth: nobody has invented noncustodial P2P cash that scales for the whole world as a retail payment network yet. It simply doesn’t exist yet, but it can ONLY be (and will be) built on top of a permissionless, decentralized, global monetary base.
https://fountain.fm/episode/cLNMTcWrFO3hlQXk8e1K
You literally aren't listening to the most basic thing. TPS on chain has nothing to do with how large Bitcoin can scale. You will endlessly be confused with Bitcoin's success if you stick your head in the sand this deep.
Thanks anyway but if you can't grasp the simplest part of this argument because you are stubborn for no reason or so stuck in a silly view of how this works, then no progress is likely to come from this.
Thanks anyway and hope you have a good day.
“Death to fiat via global p2p economy. This requires high TPS on a chain that can't be gamed by industrial miners or social consensus via PoS.”
There is no way, zero, nadda, absolutely in no way shape or form is it possible to have global retail payments on chain AND have a secure decentralized independent network. ZERO. This is fundamental to how it works. You are demanding that we have a broadcast network for every transaction on earth. It’s flatly absurd from a technical point of view.
It is an impossibility, you might as well scream at the clouds, you’ll probably have more luck honestly.
If you cannot understand the most basic network and technical limitations and WHY it works, then you cannot possibly understand why decisions are made to retain decentralization and actually scale something in the realm of real life.
I would tell you to maybe read Layered Money just to get a big picture, but judging by your responses and that you can’t even **acknowlegde** the difference and just keep parroting the same crap as if it’s some revelation you’ve had that NOBODY else could’ve thought of, “OMG we could just add more tps!!, then this is definitely going nowhere.
Read the book if you even bothered to read that part of my response before constructing the same thing you’ve regurgitated 4 times already.
I’ll still say I hope you have a nice day, but I’m muting you this time sense this isn’t even a real discussion anyway.
I think the case could be made at that point, but I think the issue will be moot by then anyway. It’ll be like IPv6, everyone will say it’s needed, but we’ll never need it, and there will still be new and better ways to accomplish the same thing, and then we’ll probably have another paradigm shift in cryptography or who knows what with layers on top (like Nostr and pear are likely to remake the web), and then we will be so excited and busy with that, that a hard fork for higher tps just won’t be worth all the trouble.
Thats at least how I picture it in my mind. We usually suck at predicting the future and people come up with bonkers stuff that seemed impossible in a shockingly short amount of time.
Non fiction that ive recently really enjoyed
Crooked (Forrest Maready)
Atomic Habits (James Clear)
Cold Start Problem (Andrew Chen)
Bullshit Jobs (David Graeber)
The Moth in the Iron Ling (Forest Maready)
Who wants to help with a Core fork CTV client with a 2 year activation flag day? With a 90% support for early lock in.
There’s just no other proposal that has the length of testing, use, and extremely clear limits as CTV. It’s 100th the change that taproot and Segwit were and it just feels silly that we’re just sitting around waiting. At least starting something so people will discuss it seems like the way forward, imo. #Bitcoin
I completely get the sentiment, I’ve advocated for more conservatism for a long time, but CTV **is** the conservative approach and it **is** something explicit that we know the limits of.
I think the notion that we shouldn’t implement simple, very contained functions because we haven’t predicted everything that could be built with them yet is a misunderstanding of how and why we should be conservative.
Example: The justification to reject timelocks or multisig because no one had yet predicted the existence of lightning and how it would work would be silly.
It’s literally an impossibility to know what will be built with new tools, that’s the whole point, but how they are contained and HOW they work within the transaction is the concern. And CTV is essentially little more than a hash lock, something we understand in dozens of other contexts and with a very simple and very environment limited function.
“Timelocks and multisig have classes of uses beyond lightning so you’re right, it would have been silly to reject them because we didn’t know of the potential of lightning. We already knew other ways they could be used. For example, shared custody.”
You misunderstand my analogy here. It wasn’t that we didn’t understand it’s value because of its, it’s that one didn’t have to defend multisig as a tool by predicting everything that could be built with it to know it was safe. If that was a requirement, then we could never make any changes at all.
“Imagine you are a systems designer for a nuclear reactor…”
Dude I’ve done dozens of shows on this, you don’t need to argue that this is foundational, nuclear grade software, that this should be treated with utmost care, that upgrades should be extremely limited in scope and well understood. If you are making that argument then we aren’t actually on topic.
In order to make sure my “on topic” comment isn’t too vague, I’m saying that we both completely agree on this point and the argument is about *what* the conservative, save for nuclear grade options are.
So to equate CTV with an open API is to misunderstand that I’m saying CTV appears not only the safe, and most conservative option while still getting the functionality we want, but that explicitly comparing it to previous soft forks, it’s *easier* to justify than a bunch of things we’ve already soft forked for.
So what I’m saying is that I agree with basically your entire post. I *disagree* on where CTV falls in that risk profile.
A #Bitcoin node audits the entirety of the history from the beginning and at all times. It’s all open and I’m sure you know this.
But your argument is essentially the equivalent of saying that nobody has any idea if they ever did their accounting properly because they’re just trusting their calculator… I’m sorry, but that’s a very poor argument that has no value in the real world, only in some silly hypothetical. (I.e. in practice it actually just works very easily)
It would be extremely obvious if a node software didn’t do the simple job of auditing the open #Bitcoin timechain history. You can just look to see if something’s wrong.
Funny that you use that example actually, because something like Monero doesn’t get that benefit. If the BTC audit was messed up you *could* check it very easy on pen and paper. If there’s something wrong with bulletproof or ring signature implementation/value outputs, how long before somebody figures it out? Literally nothing would stand out as obviously incorrect or flawed. 🤔
In addition, all cryptography has a shelf life. If your amounts are separate from the signatures, you can update the cryptography to fix a vulnerable system. Bitcoin can continue to work indefinitely, even if/when quantum computers start to threaten its ownership assurances. Something that uses cryptography to obscure the amounts, however, doesn’t get that benefit. You’d have to disallow any and all use of the old system, essentially a reset, because broken cryptography means you now have no clue how many coins there are. Even allowing 1 old signature becomes a risk to the entire thing. The supply matters first and foremost above everything. Without it being immutable, the “money” doesn’t even exist. This is why, despite all the reasons we’ve wanted privacy in the foundation of Bitcoin, nothing has persisted and the trade off on the long term is too much. It just makes more sense to build it into higher layers, than at the base, unless we can find some way to obscure the ownership of many different amounts within a UTXO that doesn’t threaten the full audit in any way.
(Also I don’t see what note you are responding to, so I might have missed some context)
I read through most of what you linked to here and I haven’t found a single connection between MEV and CTV in any of it.
In what way do you think CTV will cause this issue? None of what it does can be done *to* someone, you have to sign and place all the signature requirements into it yourself. The first article does a decent job of explaining why it’s very useful, but also makes almost no change in the security assumptions, because it’s just another type of restriction you can place on your own coins.
Literally Lightning is trying to do exactly what CTV does, except in a complicated, multi step, numerous interaction way. So if the basic function of CTV is bad somehow, then so would a multisig that attempts to have rules not in the actual transaction to adhere to…
ie. You and I are in a multisig and we agree that .1 belongs to you and .2 belongs to me. CTV literally just makes that simple and easy to understand, instead of complicated and needing multiple interactions and signings.
You can’t control out of band payments in any way whatsoever, to suggest you can is silly, imo.
CTV doesn’t “enable smart contracts” in some elaborate way that isn’t already possible. Lightning is a “smart contract,” multisig is, atomic swaps are. What you describe is a completely generic idea and is 100% possible right now with all the op codes we have. CTV does not suddenly make a shitcoin trading empire possible where it wasn’t before, it literally formalizes, simplifies, and removes multiple interactions needed to do many of the same things we are doing *already.*
Multisig doesn’t scale to large groups because everyone has to be present. All CTV does is make it so parties can make changes independently and without constant cooperation and synchronized signatures from every single party.
So I disagree with the whole framing. It doesn’t make any sense in the context of what the tool is.
I already left this convo and don’t have time to read all that, I have been well aware of Sapir for years and I’m guessing you’ve never heard of BitVM if you think this is something new.
“You’re not going to respond? Once I brought receipts and then you suddenly “didn’t have the time”? Disappointed. I thought we cared about what’s best for bitcoin rather than our established positions.”
I was literally just trying to find the time because I am insanely busy and also out of town at the moment, but you beating your chest like you are the only one who cares about anything and this sort of attitude is what makes me not want to. If you want me to respond this isn’t how to do it.
And no, Sapio doesn’t change anything, as I said I knew about it and I’m pretty sure I did an episode on it a couple years back.
“Smart contract” is a buzzword. Lightning and multisig can do what you explain above. It’s just more annoying and requires more interactions. Are we getting rid of those things because of “smart contracts”?
CTV is not a “framework”, Sapio is. It’s a coding language to work with bitcoin script, CTV is not the problem here and I also think you misunderstand MEV on top of this. There are already options contracts in Bitcoin, it’s already financialized. Also something that you can’t stop. There have been futures contracts for years.
It’s completely impossible to stop practically everything you listed and maybe I’m wrong, but you don’t seem to understand what the *actual* problems with those things are, rather than thinking there’s some concrete line where it does/doesn’t exist and thinking that CTV leaps over it.
It lets you build something like lighting (where two people can own separate amounts in a single UTXO) except non-interactively and without needing some “punishment system.”
Thats literally it, and it can do this at scale too, so you can do it with 20, 50 or even more people, because you just add more “sub transactions” that can validity spend it into a tree. Same as you do with signatures now, it allows you to add amounts and specific destinations.
In other words, we could open millions of lightning channels in a single block if we had something like UTXO, and they could even be “private,” as they wouldn’t have any apparent location on chain if you didn’t share it specifically.
I’ll give an example to look into if you care:
Lightning pool can execute any arbitrary code to enforce ownership of bitcoin. Has been able to for a couple of years. It simply uses the Lightning punishment system to enforce ownership. CTV only makes it so you can pre-sign the exits and do it non-interactively… as I explained at the very beginning.
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by TheGuySwann | export