GM 🥩 🍳 ☀
https://m.primal.net/LUvC.jpg


Photo from our Bitcoin careers night at the Laurier Bitcoin Club featuring Laurier BBA alumni nostr:nprofile1qqs8yl8ra33qgg7xxnhgql026a9xc344438v47tsa3fvvyfaguaj2lcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtc77xjvf! https://image.nostr.build/d5fcad992e378fba633a4d03e0d7bbaf487b654c4df3a7e5b289dbf86d49169c.jpg


GM 🥩 🍳 ☀

#foodstr
https://m.primal.net/LFgf.jpg


> The term “AMM” appears 19 times in that article. 🤷♂

It doesn't talk about AMMs in relation to CTV creating on-chain AMM-style marketplaces

> You don’t need introspection if the addresses are preregistered. Scanning the address will list all the UTXOs. Once you know the UTXOs then you also know the amounts.

The need for introspection relates to needing to look at the previous price of the AMM, to determine what the new price should be. It doesn't matter who previously did a trade for calculating the price, just that someone did, and you can verify that someone did.

> No, you don’t need multiplication if you can determine the product in another way. You might be able to create a state machine through a chain of predefined UTXOs that represent the AMM’s balance ratio.

I'm not sure how exactly this would be done, but even if it were possible to validate or invalidate certain pathways, you would still need a ridiculous amount of compute for this. CTV commit to all inputs and outputs, so you need to compute for all the possible prices for all the possible participants ahead of time.

You run into the infinite compute problem again

The key thing with CTV, is all possible states must be known ahead of time. So AMM with price x and pool of a,b,c,d....z users

All that must be precomputed. It's virtually impossible to precompute all the possible states of an AMM ahead of time.

This is specifically because you're committing to ALL inputs and outputs. If it was only committing to a subset of inputs and outputs, then you wouldn't need to precompute all the possible states ahead of time.

> CTV would enforce that only valid state transitions can occur by committing to specific transaction templates. If input A and input B, then move to point on the curve #1. But if input A and input C, then move to point #2. You’re determining the product based on the inputs provided. It has the same effect as multiplication, just doesn’t require computation or introspection.

This is an oversimplification of all the possible states. Also there isn't a good way to add funds to the AMM. You'd need to calculate all the possible states ahead of time when folks first add funds. And you'd also have to precompute anyone on the registrar that could add funds, for any amount. You'd also need to precompute anyone being able to withdraw funds from the AMM for any amount ahead of time too.

Like the number of states you need to precompute, makes the entire thing impossible.

> Looks like nobody responded with any information showing the non-technical risks were considered. I still haven’t seen anything either. It’s on the proponents to show safety. It would be negligent to not fully consider all risks.

Yea ended up getting limited visibility on that post. The main resources I've seen have been on mailing lists. But many of them were also for old versions of CTV.

The BIP119 PR is probably the best resource for risks discussed:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702

For example:
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702#issuecomment-825557354
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702#issuecomment-1106795814
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702#issuecomment-1107666137
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702#issuecomment-1129462467
- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702#issuecomment-1335764227

Most of these concerns seem to be related to getting consensus on the change or confusion about the change, and I think one concern is related to complexity (raised by John).


> It appears that it might be possible for CTV to create on-chain AMM-style marketplaces. On chain marketplaces create arbitrage opportunities which motivate people to pay for faster transactions:

That article doesn't mention AMMs at all. It mentioned inscription marketplaces, like Magic Eden, which is running today, where you need to construct a PSBT to create an "ask" for a Rune (you can't even do bids). They were talking about that creating some MEV.

> Please show me where the non-technical risks were discussed. I haven’t been able to find anything other than Peter identifying the risk of cheaper OOB payments.

Great question. Let's see what folks say:

https://x.com/matthewjablack/status/1838340344607355010

utxos.org is obviously a great resource. And mailing list for previous iterations of CTV

OpTech had some things to say: https://utxos.org/analysis/optech/

> We were previously discussing AMM style marketplaces.

AMM style marketplaces can't be built with CTV.

> I suggested that perhaps specific UTXOs could represent points on the hyperbolic constant product curve (x * y = k) that’s used in AMM marketplaces.

You can't do transaction introspection with CTV, so this isn't possible

> You haven’t yet shown me why it’s impossible to create AMM style marketplaces using CTV.

You haven't shown me how you can!

First of all, you need to do multiplication to do x * y = k. You don't have OP_MUL in Bitcoin script since it was disabled back in 2010 by Satoshi. You can emulate OP_MUL using CAT in order 1400 bytes. But you cannot emulate it with just CTV.

Bitmatrix ran into this problem when they were building an AMM on Liquid. They were able to get MUL working using OP_SUBSTR and OP_CAT:

https://medium.com/bit-matrix/technical-how-does-bitmatrix-v1-multiply-two-integers-in-the-absence-of-op-mul-a58b7a3794a3

However CTV doesn't enable MUL in any capacity. You cannot create an AMM if you cannot calculate the price after a swap occurs.


Absolutely 🎯

This thread contains even more discussion on the topic: 👇

And generally covenants using CTV open the door to doing a whole range of things *trustlessly* and *efficiently*  in a very clear and understandable manner that doesn't leave room for unknown unknowns being introduced (especially compared to CAT). Commiting to ALL inputs and outputs reduces the attack vectors substantially IMO.

nostr:note1unr7mt6w06lax85e59dyyt9gc3mcth34sy4rue26f297rlkk64yss6sz7k


Christmas came early this year 🎄🔔

nostr:note1qqqxy0673xv0hz2u40ll2c6eaym6nq78qp775fn2q7h65mj5svzq86xuk7


> My point was that Peter had overlooked the other case, specifically the risk that CTV could motivate people to pay for faster transactions.

Why would CTV motivate people to pay for faster transactions more than any other normal transaction? I don't see how it would create more motivation for paying OOB for faster transactions than lightning or on-chain payments.

> and I don’t believe anyone can know for certain — because our assumptions are based on the past and not what people might invent in the future

CTV has been pretty well researched over the past 4 years since it's inception. It's gone through several iterations to make it safer. In fact there's been way more scrutiny and edge cases researched for CTV than was ever done with Taproot.

> I could imagine that this could be solved by the coordinator frequently reissuing the contracts with the current value.

The key thing here, is you can't exit the contract if your counterparty is offline. So once the DLC options contract is created, unless you've pre-signed for all the possibilities ahead of time, if your counterparty goes offline, then you can't exit, and you have to hold to expiry.

You could have dedicated market makers that take the other side of contracts, but that means the market maker can't exit if their counterparty goes offline, making this process very capital inefficient (not to mention you can't do portfolio margining obviously, since risk is defined within the DLC contract itself).

So unless you have all those pre-signed outcomes, you won't have secondary markets. But you won't have secondary markets without infinite compute.

So as much as I would like that use case to work, CTV just doesn't enable it.

CAT on the other hand would enable it, since you can commit to specific inputs and outputs, whereas with CTV you must commit to ALL inputs and outputs.

This is why CTV is actually incredibly conservative. At face value things that you think are possible, aren't actually possible. It's a very restrictive covenant scheme.


> They open the door to future mining centralization.

Can you elaborate on how they increase mining centralization?

From what I can see, CTV actually reduces mining centralization, by making trustless coordination-free mining pools possible. Since coinbase transaction can be constructed to send funds directly to a covenant that miners can later claim their funds from in a trustless manner, it'll dramatically reduce the reliance on pool operators for larger miners.

https://utxos.org/uses/miningpools/

> Maybe someday there will be an existential scaling crisis, but we don’t have one right now. The mempool is clearing at a few sats/vbyte.

You could make the argument that the mempool is clearing at a few sats/vB because not enough people are actually practicing self-custody. Most of the activity is on centralized exchanges or ETFs. Vaults make self-custody way more feasible and safe.

> There are also alternatives that devs haven’t yet explored. We should exhaust all reasonable alternatives before proposing a core protocol change.

Yes that is true for covenants. You can "technically" simulate a covenant on Bitcoin today by locking UTXOs with a key that must be provably destroyed. Before destroying the key, you presign the unvaultiong transaction with the spending paths you wish for the covenant.

But let's be honest, the concept of needing to literally provably destroy the private key is an incredibly terrible process prone to error. And relying entirely on pre-signed transactions to get your funds back is just terrible as well. Instead of having to backup seed phrase, you need to back up pre-signed txs.

> We should instead identify key use cases (vaults?) that are absolutely essential (that can only be solved with a core protocol change) and build specific solutions, scoped as narrowly as possible to prevent unintentional side effects.

Ironically the solution that enables effective vaults (OP_VAULT) relies on OP_CTV support

IMO risks for CTV are very well defined, and every action commited to in CTV is well defined as well


GM ☀ 🥩 🍳

#foodstr
https://m.primal.net/KzLz.jpg


> That’s true, but I think you’re conflating two services. Well, technically, there are three services (fast, regular, and slow). “Fast” would be an acceleration service for those who want faster transactions and willing to pay for speed. Regular would be the normal CPFP transaction. “Slow” would be a cheaper, slower service for those who don’t want to pay higher CPFP fees and are willing to wait.

Very fair point. However if folks are okay with “slow”, what’s the likelihood they’re also okay with just waiting for lower feerates for their tx to be confirmed in the first place?

> What if there was a registration step where traders sent the coordinator or AMM a small amount to register their address, and the contracts published the next day by the AMM would include these registered addresses?

AMMs are not possible with CTV only, because there is not sufficient transaction introspection to achieve this (aka you can’t look back at previous txs which is necessary to have the price update in an AMM).

Registration step with a coordinator is technically plausible, but in practice it’s computationally infeasible.

With CTV you need to pre-calculate all the possibility trees ahead of time.

For example, imagine you had 1 million addresses registered. You’re about to create an options contract that you want to be able to sell to any of the 1 million. So you need to precompute 1 million possibilities. Now imagine you want to allow that million to be able to also sell to any of the million registered as well. Well now you need to compute 1 million times 1 million combinations within your taproot tree script. Oh and if you want that 3rd sale to be able to sell to anyone, you need to do it again, creating infinite possibilities to compute.

On top of that, you’d need to also compute all the possible prices of the contract as well. For example dependent on the market price, it could sell for 0.01, 0.011, 0.012, 0.013 etc, etc. You’d typically have 100 possibilities for 0 to 0.1. To handle up to 1 BTC option price you’d need to compute an additional 1000 possibilities. So multiply all the previous million by another 1000 dependent on your price granularity.

So yea, you might be able to construct a transaction that is one time MEVable, but it can’t be continuously sold without infinite compute power. Additionally I highly doubt an on-chain market would ever form due to these restrictions

(Not to mention we haven’t even gotten into free option problem, since block confirmations take so long, that the potential for someone to RBF while they’re waiting for the block to confirm and they see the price move in the opposite direction makes these contracts infeasible in the first place)


Had a great time talking about #Bitcoin covenants at TheBitcoinBay meetup last night

Lots of folks are excited about CTV and CAT and the possibilities they bring for better self custody, better lightning, better scaling and more
https://m.primal.net/KtKj.jpg
https://m.primal.net/KtKk.jpg


> I don’t see how that thread debunks because it assumes a choice between one or the other. Why not both?

So imagine you broadcast OOB to antpool which has 25% of the hashrate. That gives you an estimated average confirmation time of 40 minutes

You have a 25% chance of it being mined in 10 minutes

82.2% chance of it being mined within the hour (1-(1-0.25)^6 = 82.2)

However it could take longer than this. 96.8% chance of it being mined in 2 hours

This vs paying a high enough fee to ensure it gets in the next block.

Imagine OOB was 25% cheaper than CPFP. Would you wait longer than usual for your transaction to be mined or pay 25% more to ensure it gets in the next block? Also, if it doesn't get in within the hour, would you pay 1.5x the original cost to send it to another miner?

It seems rational actors will choose just to broadcast.

Also, in practicality, it likely wouldn't be 25% cheaper because every single OOB tx acceleration option I've seen has been substantially more expensive than just doing CPFP. Pools want to charge a premium for this service.

> I’m not concerned with P2P trading, with primary origination on-chain, or with secondary trading off-chain that happens independently of miners. I think the issue is secondary trading of options directly on chain.

> You can use this to trade options, make atomic swaps, etc.

I suspect you're referring to "decentralized options" from the utxos.org/uses/options page

To clarify, an atomic swap is a purely peer-to-peer contract

And the option contract described on the page is also peer-to-peer.

So it would not be possible for secondary trading of options directly on-chain, unless you knew the counterparties you wanted to trade with ahead of time

You would need to pre-define potential change of ownership of the sell or buy side of the contract, and specify the participants that could take the contract off your hands ahead of time, which leaves no opportunity for MEV

> I think you would need to show that all AMMs must have a fundamental marketplace or contractual state that cannot be modeled by Sapio. It seems to me that if there is any possibility that there could be any secondary on-chain trading, then we can’t rule out the potential for time-based centralizing MEV through arbitrage, front-running, etc.

The key thing with CTV, is you commit to ALL inputs, and ALL outputs

Which means all participants in a CTV commitment or string of CTV commitments, need to be known ahead of time.

By definition, an AMM needs to allow anyone to participate to take trades in either direction

Not to mention, AMM doesn't work for Runes or BRC20 tokens

There's a proposal for AMMs to work with new OP_CAT tokens, but this doesn't apply at all to CTV: https://x.com/rot13maxi/status/1833667750469804315

So in this regard CTV is extremely safe. It only enables use cases that are peer-to-peer or known-parties-to-known-parties

> MEV already exists elsewhere.

Actually with the point above that you need to specify all the parties ahead of time, I don't think MEV is a concern at all actually

If you can give me a counter-example regarding MEV I'm happy to reconsider

MEV is a concern with runes, because someone can snipe a rune in the mempool when it's being bought

But if you lock into a CTV covenant, only parties specified ahead of time in the CTV commitment can "snipe" or front-run something


This thread debunks any remaining OOB concerns IMO

https://x.com/4moonsettler/status/1834337644496539779


> You can use this to trade options, make atomic swaps, etc.

You can trade options now using DLCs (we pioneered this at  nostr:npub1at0mlcdmkakz79zzylzn03k5ntltvhvdxhhupe53asnm5zktgwus4dwshk)

Cross-chain atomic swaps have always been infeasible due to the free option problem (folks tried building them using HTLCs back in the day):

https://medium.com/@mchammond/atomic-swaps-eebd0fa8110d

> CTV is actually an advanced NEW smart contract platform that RUNS ON CHAIN.

I think this is a bit misleading, because it is not an entirely generalizable "smart contract platform" that creates a huge surface area of attack like you might see in Ethereum smart contracts. The surface area of attack is well defined, because you specify exactly what the parameters for exiting the locking script. You can create loops for example, but you must define when the loop ends. All possible states of the contract are defined ahead of time.

> Are you familiar with Uniswap and all the MEV opportunities created by financial trading and arbitrage?

As is mentioned in the article, MEV already exists on-chain on Bitcoin in the form of runes. People were sniping them right around the halving and selling at a higher price. And yet, all this activity died down, because it wasn't profitable. People learned that MEV is incredibly difficult to actually extract on Bitcoin, due to the 10 minute block times (which end up being 2 minutes or 40 minutes).

CTV does not enable an AMM to be created (CAT does, but an AMM is also extremely infeasible on Bitcoin due to the 10 minute block times once again, where slippage can be a huge concern).

What specific new MEV opportunities are opened up by CTV? In CTV you must constrain all the inputs and all the outputs, that you're committing to, so you'd have to specify ahead of time, which parties were able to snipe your transaction. It's not like anyone can try to snipe the transaction you were trying to do. And once again, even if someone specified a list of parties ahead of time, them sniping whatever type of contract is still incredible dangerous due to 10 minute block times, making it economically infeasible.

> This trading wouldn’t be risk if it were conducted say on Liquid and later settled on bitcoin.

Once again you can already do trading today of futures, options, bets using DLCs. But the key thing, is these contracts are all P2P, so there's no MEV opportunity. CTV makes DLCs better, but doesn't cause any new MEV opportunities.

I'm trying to understand exactly how someone would construct financial contracts on Bitcoin, that would be MEVable with CTV?


> These public payments are perfectly fine and have no risk.

Absolutely, agreed

> Your example of a forced lightning closure is a good example of a public payment.

The example I gave with anchor outputs assumes it's a forced closure with zero fees (that's the idea behind anchor outputs). The idea with it is that you can just CPFP it rather than both parties having to estimate feerates (like they do now pre-package-relay)

I would argue that OOB payments may be cheaper here than CPFP

Why construct a whole new transaction when you can just make an OOB payment to force close your zero-fee transaction into the next block?

> These private OOB payments create centralizing incentives

I definitely agree. But also if CPFP is more expensive than OOB payments in general, then this is a concern with CPFP inevitably creating centralizing incentives in general

I guess what I'm trying to get at, is how does CTV actually make this worse? It seems that centralization forces for OOB payments would be equivalent for Lightning force-closure and CTV transactions wouldn't they?


 nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm specifically said in his post:

"The current CTV proposal in BIP-119 has only one hashing mode, known as the DefaultCheckTemplateVerifyHash, which essentially commits to every aspect of the spending transaction in the template hash. From a practical point of view this means that in many circumstances the only available mechanism for fee payment will be CPFP. As mentioned above, this is a potential problem due to it making out-of-band fee payment a non-trivial cost savings in cases where the CTV-using transactions are small."

So he's specifically saying that out-of-band fee payment could be cost savings for small CTV-using transactions.

IMO, you could make the exact same argument for lightning force closures. Even though lightning will move to anchor outputs, which means 0 fee force closures, that will be CPFP'd thanks to "package relay". Those small transactions could have cost savings with out-of-band fee payments.

But obviously, no one is pushing against package relay. For most small transactions, out-of-band fee payments would be a small cost savings.

In fact, this statement could technically be true for any pre-signed transaction scheme. Does that mean we should never have any pre-signed transaction schemes? Hardly.

So, since this issue already exists in Bitcoin and is only relevant to very small transactions, and since CTV can actually decentralize mining even more (https://utxos.org/uses/miningpools/), I'd argue these issues are known, and the concerns with not having CTV are actually a great risk to Bitcoin. Not having covenants, IMO, is a huge risk to Bitcoin custody centralization and people choosing not to self-custody.

CAT is an entirely different beast, and I agree that the risks are much more unknown.

https://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review


nostr:npub1nz3cd3mx4jf9paxwrdgqvchaprjdge9pj9t58mkusw74q5saajkqu0yxqu here are all the use cases of covenants (in particular CTV): https://utxos.org/uses/


I'm excited to be coming to  nostr:npub17yqgpat6e6ensd78jqhj4c3ef03uq04uqu3z05rhjnlk67lwm8wq9w5269 for the first time!

I'll be giving a workshop on how to create a simple DLC wallet and bet on the presidential election

So whether you're pro-Trump or pro-Kamala, be sure to come out to Atlanta for a fun time

https://github.com/TABConf/6.tabconf.com/issues/117


Gotta support your local Bitcoiners

#foodstr
https://m.primal.net/KhRO.jpg


Tbh this problem is an issue of location location location. You need a spot that already has significant lightning adoption.


Brilliant! Let's zap it into existence ⚡


Idea of the day: Nostr-powered alternative to Uber Eats

One day, when #Bitcoin is the standard for payments, someone will build #foodstr. It will be an alternative to Uber Eats (for pickup only, as delivery wouldn't work), where you can pay with Lightning and order your food ahead of time.

It will save restaurants from a 10% Uber Eats fee for pickup orders.


 nostr:npub12vkcxr0luzwp8e673v29eqjhrr7p9vqq8asav85swaepclllj09sylpugg is the best for this

Lightning wallet + Nostr all in one


1000 sats to whoever claims this cashu token below the fastest 🥜 👇

How to claim?

Go to cashu.me

Save to Home Screen

Tap the receive button

Paste the token

It’s now that simple to onboard people to #Bitcoin

nostr:note1qywtxr59szv4qv83p7fc9nch9x96arvlwu6wpnhkrlerkzy5dlkq4w6mum


wen btc pay e-cash integration?


Everything you need to know about GCC 👇

https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/great-consensus-cleanup-revival/710


GM ☀

https://m.primal.net/KamO.jpg


GM

We will activate CTV

Whatever it takes


Yep, every time 😂

nostr:note10a2zel8xvlvyameac08gy7gs2k9jfkwga7le8uf47jdytzan64zs2y8c3d


Package relay is finally coming to #Bitcoin core!

This has been years in the making

It’s a massive improvement for lightning, DLCs and statechains ! 🔥

You can goodbye to force closures caused by mempool feerate spikes!

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30726


One common complaint we hear from Nostr haters is that there is no economic incentive to run relays or that the network will be centralized in a few central big relays. These claims often come from confusion or misunderstandings.

I think this 40s video will clear all the matters and answer all the criticisms: https://cdn.satellite.earth/8e48f90f4889d6d8def300e9d843b9b353375426212f6b6253a8ee6aaaefcf07.mp4

If anyone doesn't understand or has a problem with this answer, please, I would like to hear it.


That's awesome!

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize it's way too early to be concerned about scaling issues. The Outbox model works well, and there's room to scale the current implementation.

If Nostr grows so much that we have scaling problems, that's a good problem to have 📈


Is that grass fed ground beef and pasteurized eggs I see? 👀🔥


IIUC it'll be up to clients to intelligently pull from the relevant relays in an outbox model?

Won't this make generating a feed very difficult? I'm assuming we'll need indexers or something for clients to be able to serve a feed to users in a reasonable time frame.

nostr:note10dkggtezgrzg6mtd7gmgrhcxg6qjax2vsjsfsp7hmw6r39a0vypq0egfjw


Income tax proposed in 1913 was insane

This is preposterous

https://m.primal.net/KRyt.jpg


So the idea is have Nostr relays for specific communities? Your point is that people are comparing Nostr to existing centralized system and assuming that Nostr needs to scale the same way.

I guess my counterpoint would be that lots of people have been excited about small siloed networks in the past, such as mesh network, but in practice they never scaled to the masses.

But maybe that’s fine? Idk what the end vision of folks are for Nostr. Nostr can be whatever people want it to be. A DLC oracle broadcaster, private messenger, X alternative. I’m just curious what people’s vision for it is.


How do we scale Nostr?

“Unpopular opinion: Nostr CAN'T scale to be what people want it to be. It's an all-to-all broadcast, which scales like O(n²). It will collapse in its own success.

Nostr relays are like sidechains and altcoins. It's attempting to solve an O(n²) scaling problem by having multiple copies of the same thing. It leads to Balkanization where you can't see content from or message some people.

Blockchains of blockchains were dumb and this is dumb in exactly the same way, and I can't believe all of you failed your algorithms classes.”
- Bob McElrath

So this begs the question, how does Nostr scale long term? Or do we simply expect 2 of 3 dominant relays in the long term?

cc nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 nostr:npub1xtscya34g58tk0z605fvr788k263gsu6cy9x0mhnm87echrgufzsevkk5s nostr:npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424 nostr:npub1pgh3nhq6rpte9sasxah36luewy54azfjjekrj7f45hwa69z35fdqfdrs38 nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z nostr:npub18c556t7n8xa3df2q82rwxejfglw5przds7sqvefylzjh8tjne28qld0we7

https://x.com/bobmcelrath/status/1828763959001804956


Funny how when X was called Twitter, we called it "tweeting" and "retweeting" and now it's "posting" and "reposting"

Almost like Twitter lost its unique factor against Nostr. Might as well just post on Nostr if you're going to post at all


Has anyone set up a DLC oracle that publishes to Nostr yet?


matthewjablack

CoFounder @AtomicFinance. Boomer Millenial. #Bitcoin not crypto. Nostr not blockchain


Glad we have Nostr

https://m.primal.net/KOwF.jpg

nostr:note169urahxw2l4t7rxrtljrs5acwk9jpj792tqsevy303ymxrhzumasq20w8x


Awesome! Welcome


What bull run 😂 ? This is sideways chop

I feel like the resurgence is more of a gut response to Telegram CEO being arrested


I just learned about Lightning.Pub. It allows you to bootstrap your Lightning node using Nostr!

One-line deployment, with management dashboard, Nostr offers, LSP coordination and much more coming soon 🔥

https://github.com/shocknet/Lightning.Pub


The best telegram alternative chat options are  nostr:npub1tm99pgz2lth724jeld6gzz6zv48zy6xp4n9xu5uqrwvx9km54qaqkkxn72,  nostr:npub1h0uj825jgcr9lzxyp37ehasuenq070707pj63je07n8mkcsg3u0qnsrwx8 or  nostr:npub1exv22uulqnmlluszc4yk92jhs2e5ajcs6mu3t00a6avzjcalj9csm7d828 that  nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 recommended (although not built on Nostr, they publish updates to Nostr)

nostr:note1l34v90l424jz7yl5zedmawhgx50sxs84hmhgm2vn58j90rxksgss0pmzrk


According to France you need a license to use cryptography

Guess they better round up all the boomers using Facebook over https


Can't wait!

What you guys are building is probably the most important thing right now for the mass migration of folks from Telegram


Amazing, any plans to add iOS / desktop any time soon?


Insane feerates on Thursday were the cause of lightning force closures once again ⚡

But luckily, there's a simple solution to solve lightning force closures once and for all 👇

And it's a solution that's coming to core very soon(ish) 🤞

https://mblack.io/posts/fixing-lightning-force-closures/


They can go after public relays. We need more anonymous relays


Is there an easy way to do group chats with Nostr? What's the best client?


Nostr > Telegram

nostr:note1fwnwqm4e8n5jlnt97tu4rn330vrnej832jq057u3x365ks3ul53sc495js


I suspect we’ll see services pop up similar to Nostr addresses to make it easier for folks to create one without knowing DNS


BIP 353 is huge for Bitcoin and Nostr!

One username, get paid on-chain or over lightning with no address reuse or loss of privacy

nostr:npub1tr4dstaptd2sp98h7hlysp8qle6mw7wmauhfkgz3rmxdd8ndprusnw2y5g  wrote a great guide to setting this up 👇

https://sethforprivacy.com/guides/setting-up-a-bitcoin-username/


It's honestly sad

Only boomers will be left in Toronto soon


Switch to core-lightning


It's zappening ;)


We have a nostr-talk channel in our discord and it’s pretty quiet tbh

What would it take to spin up a private Nostr relay, and get folks to sign up?

What about sending notifications out to the entire community?

Having a guide for “use x relay and y clients” would make it a lot easier to make the switch

https://github.com/aljazceru/awesome-nostr is good, but takes too much time to dig into for your average person


It’s zappening nostr:note1yecfq5t5nff2kfp2dd9hpxn6shhx6qzrxz4vsv2mrq6gcv2uaqtqns2xh5


Epic thread by Brad

https://x.com/bradmillscan/status/1726349177418912193


GF asked if I tried doing a paternity test 🤣
https://image.nostr.build/fc4f008dba6baae171581e6aeed5af56e84bba4ac58d8dc17c41fce7a274e86c.png


Sound Money creates a Sound Mind


How much bounty would it take to get a mobile wallet based on JoinMarket (buy-side only)?


If you play your cards right, the Bitcoin citadel awaits you https://image.nostr.build/a5833eec3a673e9d96fd2328027c9e0ca5ac51e73b725cdcb2931773ef492c76.jpg


👀 https://image.nostr.build/53b4c85c8013a36e0b914766cd8ca0754c15c41230c689ae6bccfd39b38d2d5d.jpg https://image.nostr.build/23348ef28f07eaad279b362f28b805ceca8920dc7bf21a5fa06540c763cb2320.jpg


As I understand it this PR will allow `rust-miniscript` to determine the best way to spend a complex miniscript based output given what the user has (private keys, hash pre-images) and when they want their tx to be valid (time locks). I’m sure nostr:npub1yrvghtsv8rnyquneu65rx59fx8n3fuqntcqnaf9pk98ex6mlat2sjk8nmj and @afilini can explain it better but I know it’s going to make descriptor/miniscript based wallets much cooler. 😎

https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-miniscript/pull/592


VPN or bust nostr:note1g456gryzry2tayamp90j88349f8n098nzrccz8j00q5xve6y9g3sku4988


#Bitcoin Twitter polls will be virtually useless after this change since most Bitcoiners won’t KYC

#[0] what protocol changes or UI/UX changes would be necessary to enable polls on #Nostr ?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1640502698549075972


How our music is tuned to a particular frequency to control us by the government 😂 https://globalnews.ca/news/4194106/440-hz-conspiracy-music/


They make lots of sats on that too

Not from the spread on buying the #bitcoin, but because folks pay extra to withdraw within the next block

Folks gotta reduce their time preference