"We're working on a release soon that puts a password on the JSON-RPC interface, but until then, avoid using the -server switch, and don't web browse on the same machine where bitcoind is running."
Who's the "we" Satoshi was talking about?
I'm hearing about similar occurrences. I think it may be scammers trying to "establish" themselves on phone networks by making calls that aren't scams (for a while), then later performing scam calls.
Or maybe they're recording your voice for later impersonation.
Or maybe they are judging your reaction to what they say, to size you up for a future scam.
Probably something entirely different, but still a scam. Scams are just out of control right now, and getting way way worse.
Don't forget that aesthetics have gone off a cliff. Custom architecture had a golden age-- drive through an older neighborhood and you'll see. Modern gated communities with multi-million-dollar houses just don't compare.
I mean, I don't think it's what anyone expected, but you're posting this on a platform on which users execute sometimes hundreds of thousands of transactions a day... in precisely that "zero adoption" money.
Why TF Paul Sztorc spamming Twitter and Super Testnet taking his side without anyone making a compelling case?
Not only is it not the "only way", it doesn't even seem like it's the best way.
Are people just trying to slide in BIP300 with CAT and CTV like it's related and innocuous?
You could if anyone accepted lightning. But the fact is you couldn't do that with BCH, Monero, or anything else, either. There isn't "zero adoption" -- there's "zero merchant acceptance", because accepting ANY crypto is a pain in the ass (the tech, the security, the employee training, the taxes...)
Bootstrapping circular economies is HARD, especially when the current system is "good enough".
I can't argue with that, but Monero may be even harder for a business to adopt, because they have to atomic swap for Bitcoin, incur and track that capital gain, then swap their Bitcoin for fiat, and incur another capital gain (since Monero is difficult to exchange directly for fiat). All assuming they don't want to just accumulate Monero and don't have anywhere to spend it.
nostr:nevent1qqs0sahrmn9zszaewphajma0dr84lmamswun9qejdsu4y5lz8j2260gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqu7wuf4shg7qtln8dt2850c877guxk9njgt5vdge5eklwsrj7wakqvzqqqqqqyjyqdk8
Thoughts in the sub-notes
Drive chains could have some utility for privacy, but I think the anonymity set would be too low. Paul acts like people would replace their Monero with Monero-on-Bitcoin. There is ZERO chance of that. Ditto for any other existing coin. BCH on Bitcoin? I don't think so. Ethereum? LOL.
Drive chains would be additional revenue for miners, where they are given control over a new shitcoin circus. Maybe that's fine-- but it doesn't scale Bitcoin.
Maybe Paul is right that not everyone needs unilateral exit, but no one is going to use a chain that miners can just "take away". Miners won't have rugging powers, but they will have extortion powers.
I'm (very cautiously) optimistic about Ark, Spiderchain, and some covenants. I think an ideal solution would be built utilizing lightning. It's possible scaling won't be achieved for another 15 years, that doesn't mean in the meantime we should enable fuckery that would be difficult to undo.
In fairness to Paul, Adam Back doesn't seem totally against drivechains (last I heard), and I don't consider Adam to be rash or unintelligent.
So maybe they can play with Drivechains on Liquid?
Is Shinobi on Nostr?
I'm admittedly not the sharpest surgeon in the rocket factory, but I think it's up to the proponents of a proposal to advocate their position cohesively and honestly. Paul seems desperate and mean. I feel bad for him, but the BIPs are old at this point, and everyone is working on something else, having dismissed Drivechains some time ago.
I'm not inherently against merged mining, and I don't think Drivechains are a horrible idea, but I'm 100% sure if you create a new way to make money from Bitcoin, it will be exploited and turn into a shit show. All I want is Bitcoin to scale. Maybe I lack the imagination to see how drivechains scale Bitcoin, but I wouldn't personally approve or use a drive chain as I understand them. I'm open to having my mind changed.
Austerity, unemployment, recession, bankruptcies...
They let that happen and they will get voted out. The people want things to be "fixed" and they'll vote for people who will "do something".
Some things are just changes, not "fixes".
Bitcoin has changed many many times over the years, even by Satoshi. There was even a catastrophic bug that had to be patched. There was no divine gifting of perfect code.
It's easier to get away with taxation when you tax everything a little bit rather than a couple things a lot.
Also, most people don't invest or have capital gains, so they don't mind taxing those who do.
You pay taxes on regular income too. It's presumably because the government creates the rules, regulates the industries, and enforces the laws to allow you to profit.
" takes a loan against an asset, that is a form of selling."
Interesting position. Other people say exactly the opposite: take a loan against it *so that you don't sell it*.
These are not "high interest rates".
When inflation goes up again, Fed will raise rates.
Then it will be a balancing act between "buy Bitcoin because of all this inflation" and "sell Bitcoin because recession"...
Small amounts of capital are insured, so there isn't much to worry about in terms of bank runs. Plus we already know the government can prevent almost all bank failures.
But if there is that capital flight, it may just be to bonds, which are more attractive with high interest rates anyway (and still seen as safe, even if we just collectively ignored the downgrade).
We could actually see rates just kinda wobble within a range for a few years. Shake out some garbage without causing too much chaos.
Animated QR allow for more information (or better EC, or both).
They're weird to us but no problem for a camera that refreshes dozens of times per second.
But yes you can't take a screenshot and copypasta.
Oh for sure; this is bleeding-edge. Final product would obscure away most of this, and by then, everyone will have a decent phone. Wealth may not trickle down, but tech does.
Africa has #machankura , custodial lightning, fedimint, etc.
Also, animated QR is not the only way to use it; it's just information, so the string could be copied, sent over NFC, whatever.
Yes, generic answers. AI just isn't very "intelligent" yet. It mostly just summarizes.
It's probably useful for coding and finding bugs in code.
It also doesn't seem very useful for finding potential attack vectors.
But what do I know, I'm not a prompt engineer.
Yes but there is a middle ground. The consequences of CTV are quite predictable. Lots of other stuff could have unintended consequences or just be impossible to undo.
It does feel dangerous right now because devs have pet projects they've worked on for many years, many or most of which won't ever be implemented.
Custom left and right swiping, like in Gmail (but more functionality).
For example, right swipe to mute npub, left swipe to report.
Or right swipe to "save" note, left swipe to repost/boost.
I think this "one little trick" could help adoption more than anything.
New users could "hide" all posts with #Bitcoin (or ideally even non-hashtagged "Bitcoin").
The main complaint I hear (after actually onboarding) is that it's a Bitcoin club. They're not wrong. This is the bootstrapping normies conundrum.
Amen. But because it's so manipulated, the days after the halving could see the price rise or fall 30%.
It's probably Elon. I don't think @jack would do it.
Her claims are not mutually exclusive. There are indeed "fuck the banks" bitcoiners AND NGU bitcoiners.
To think all bitcoiners are the same is an error of the narrow-minded.
I don't really understand the criticism of Lightning. It's not harming Bitcoin; it's just a pain to run a node. The idea is that it will be the transport layer for other layer 2s. It also has privacy that would make it quite suitable for dark markets, especially if the market ran its own ecash mint.
I agree it seems devs are quick to build an EVM on Bitcoin, but since some of them require no new OPcodes, they will be deployed whether we like it or not. Maybe some of the market for wrapped BTC will come over from Ethereum.
Part of the value proposition of Bitcoin, and the reason it holds the highest market value, is precisely because it doesn't "move fast and break things" like all other crypto.
I do agree Lightning was over-hyped. It has also taken forever to implement the incremental changes to make it more scalable. And even then, most honest devs knew then what people are learning now: Lightning doesn't get the whole world into non-custodial Bitcoin.
I'm not opposed to large centralized nodes, depending on how much authority regulators are able to impose on them. It's another case where it doesn't matter that not *everyone* is running a node, as long as anyone *can* run a node.
Complaints about liquidity being complicated are certainly valid. However, offline payments are almost here. IIRC Phoenix is launching soon.
@LayerTwoLabs #paulsztorc #Drivechain #bip300 #bip301
Been thinking a bit about BIP300. It really seems to be a Pandora's Box.
If Paul is right, and miners can make 10x-1000x+ in fees, then it *cannot* be undone. Miners would never let it be *undone*.
They are incentivized with higher fees.
So what can a billionaire do to the Bitcoin network? Buy half the mining power. Can they censor a transaction? No. The power of the network is that only a single miner needs to create a valid block for a transaction to not be censored. Can they reverse a transaction? No. Can they "spam" the network with 1 sat dickbutts? Sure. So the other miners who instead build blocks with high-fee transactions will see their revenue skyrocket as competition for block space increases. This incentivizes new miners to enter the space and capture those high fees. Meanwhile the attacker is wasting money AND increasing revenue to "normal" miners.
With Drivechains, miners are not required to merge mine, and they aren't obligated to any particular chain. They can stop mining or a competitor could come in and immediately take over 90 percent of the hashing. It's possible that the incentives will be for each mining pool to stick to one drivechain, allowing each have a virtual monopoly. Basically, the point of failure has become smaller and cheaper. No single government regulates *all* Bitcoin mining, but it would be trivial to manipulate a single pool.
I think the broad idea is that because drivechains look so kind-of nebulous and ephemeral in how they "attach" and"detach" from various miners at whim, people wouldn't be afraid of being rugged so much as the whole drivechain just disappearing or potentially being dominated by a censorship-friendly pool. The end result is no one wants to use it FOR MONEY, so all drivechains and up getting used for is scams and spam.
I think miner centralization is a very serious issue, but rewarding them in this way doesn't stop centralization, and doesn't scale monetary use of Bitcoin.
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by Joda | export