giacomozucco
Giacomo Zucco

President at npub1awnu9vg352863e7tqlc6urlw7jgdf8vf00tmr76uuhflp4nnn68sjmnnl3
Sat Maxi. Cypherpunk LARPer. Pre-modern Qbist. Metaphysical Paleo-libertarian. Balanced-ternary Lesbian. Black-market Supremacist.

Public Key

npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j

NIP-05 Address

giacomozucco@primal.net

NIP-57 Address

steamyloafer90@minibits.cash

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw79gu0guq7s98t473fyavx3akwaafmx6l5z4rehd50lrcl2mf4zcpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqzxnhwden5te0v9j82mr59ccnsurvw4ejuum0vd5kzmp04su7jx

Publishing to

eden.nostr.land

adult.18plus.social

relay.damus.io

Author Public Key

npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-11-18 01:41:43

- reply

>No, LN is still always cheaper (modulo on-chain HTLC resolution). In Ark even if everyone is exiting and splitting the cost (which isn’t quite how it works but let’s assume), the cost to exit is one-two transactions per wallet (average of one tree transaction plus one transaction to resolve their vTXO. You could do the resolution later so maybe it’s one but depends a lot on the specific construction). In LN it’s always only one.
I don't understand this. First, AFAIK unilateral exit in DryjaPoon always has 2 txs (otherwise you wouldn't have punishment), not one. Secondly, I'm assuming an economic push towards cooperating users just evicting non cooperative ones, so it's not even always 2 tx per "wallet", but potentially even as low as 2*logN/N txs, in optimistic cases where users just migrate to another ark where the current one is unresponsive. I know this is not how it works now, but I'm speaking about the potential evolution where high fees may push the system.

2025-11-15 21:34:40

- reply

There should be a recording! Try website of Bitcoin Historico conference.

2025-11-15 15:19:11

Best compliment but also eldritch horror in the same sentence. <3 #note1dw0…sflu

2025-11-15 14:55:41

- reply

Sorry for the delay. Nostr still sucks. :)
> Worth pointing out that Ark doesn’t materially “scale” without adding payment channels on top (ie Timeout Trees). Until that point, you’re really stuck with the statechain model, which has a highly-trusted third party, as you note.
I'd say you have the statechain model *until* you get the confirmation, then the model is closer to a DryjaPoon LSP than a statechain, until the expiration time. But yes, I agree the Ark model will be really interesting with channels on top, they are working on it since a while and it makes sense: https://blog.arklabs.xyz/bitcoin-virtual-channels/
> Huh? Ark is strictly more expensive to unilaterally exit than classic lightning.
I guess I'm playing with the word "unilateral" a bit here. I think that, realistically, the relevant thing is the exit against the coordinator, not against all the other users. The total cost of an unilateral exit in Ark is higher, but you can conceptually split it among more people in most failure modes. In a classic DryjaPoon, you share an UTxO among 2 users. That means that in best case scenarios (cooperative) the cost for opening/closing/resplicing would be X/2. In uncooperative scenarios, the cost for the exiting user is X. In an Ark with N users (ASP included), opening/closing/closing has a cost of about 10X, but that would be shared among N in cooperative cases, N-n in case n (most importantly including the ASP) are uncooperative.
> f course as mentioned above if you want scalable, trustless Ark you need payment channels anyway, so it’s strictly more complicated!
Good point.

2025-11-13 15:43:58

- reply

You do hodl your own keys with Ark, and those keys can exit unilaterally after one block (comparable to onchain levels of sovereignty, pluse state-chain security before that moment, which is less than a DryjaPoon channel but more than you can say onchain). In very high fee scenarios, unilateral exit is economically feasible for most amounts in Ark, but only for very high amounts in DryjaPoon channels.
Running your node is a bit orthogonal. It's just that an Ark client node on top of a L1 node is a trivial thing, unlike a node to manage DryjaPoon channels.
Protecting your own privacy is something you can do well with SOME current DryjaPoon channel setups (with unannounced channels, blinded paths and Tor, for example), and that is still slightly worse for Arkade afaik right now. But it can get very good (see the original Ark paper with also tumbling and chaumian stuff included).
I agree with you that "90%, is very possible with LN". Today the LN is a universal, global, invoicing/hopping/swapping standard across many local security models with different security/usability tradeoffs: L1 (moon), ecash (minibits, fedi, mutiny, etc.), liquid (aqua, bull, breez, etc.), spark (WoS, Blitz, etc.), dryjapoon (phoenix, etc.). I think this complex variety will eventually collapse into a simpler number of primitives (namely: ecash for super small amounts, a mix of arks and spilman channels for average amounts, onchain for super big amounts).
Using your own brain is very likely orthogonal. 😉

2025-11-13 15:26:19

Hodl your own Keys. Run your own Node. Protect your own Privacy. Use your own Brain.
In all these cases, trusted third parties are a security hole.
(and btw Sats Are The Standard)

2025-11-05 21:19:03

- reply

I hope to have clarified why.
After our agreement about ordinals being retarded (and not a fundamental threat to Bitcoin), I couldn't really ignore the escalation, initially just because I got myself involved into OCEAN. Even if the entire deal of the pool is about miner-side template creation (which means they will be able to include everything they want), for a few day it worked using Luke's own default node, which is Knots, which was filtering out inscriptions (and incidentally also the >40b opreturn that the Samourai devs needlessly used to label pre-coinjoin txs in their terribly broken scheme). The option to switch to Core was added, as planned, a few days after that, but in that brief time the whole operation was targeted with nonsense "censorship" accusations (and even worse, for a coinjoin advocate, power-user and patron like me: accusations of sabotaging privacy practices). To this day, I still read stuff like Gmax publicly defaming the company, and I can't ignore it, since he's attacking me as well, in a way I consider absolutely unfair and unfounded.
Then I've seen the github abuses after the first PR by Peter (the one eventually closed down), which I couldn't ignore because it brought me back to some serious red flag about Core development organizations and processes (namely the infamous "blocklist" episode, but also other less public discussion I was involved in, regarding developers rejected from residency program due to their perceived politics, or a couple of "DEI hire" operations ended up with maintainers explicitly praising Buterin in public). I just couldn't ignore the gaslighting attempts of people trying to re-frame some history which I was directly involved in, or suddenly labeling as "crazy", "dangerous" and "against Bitcoin's ethos" the very same sentences about onchain spam that they would have written themselves just a few years before.
These two situations, combined, made it very hard for me to ignore the story as you did, and radicalized me enough to make a "Knozi" out of me, even if I fundamentally agree with Todd (who's a personal friend of mine just as much as Luke is) about mempool policies, and if I disagreed with most of them about the "existential" magnitude of the spam issue.
When the CSAM FUD started, I voiced my disagreement privately and publicly, without any ambiguity. When the contentious "UASF" proposal surfaced, I did so even more. But I still remain very concerned of all the rest. I don't think Bitcoin is going to die. I think the role of Core as the reference implementation we know may. Which is not optimal for several reasons.

2025-11-05 15:33:58

- reply

I totally disagree it was unnecessary: I am convinced that it is exactly that behavior to explain a lot of the current situation of "anti-Core sentiment", way more than the technical point itself, which I consider, like the video author, a nothingburger. The video itself is ending with a (imo correct) analysis on possible social consequences, beyond technical ones. Thus I consider it unfair to blame me of "turning a technical debate social" if I comment this point.
My answer to your question, before the fork proposal, would have been definitely A: when the CSAM FUD emerged, a few months ago, the conflict was already since months at maximum possible escalation levels, with reciprocal bad faith assumption, very strong public accusations, github moderation abuses, lobbying to investors to defund Luke's mining project, bans from physical meetups, etc.
After the fork proposal, maybe B could be true, but not sure. One one hand, the fork is intended to avoid "sanctioned/contiguous CSAM encoding onchain" (which I don't think makes any sense, without a hard fork to also remove the not sanctioned/contiguous one already present, which I would consider overkill anyway with respect to the legal risk): Luke's implicit accusation of moral complicity by developers doesn't play a central role in it. On the other hand, it seems like many fork proponents think that this aura of moral complicity may be in itself a key reason for the fork success, so maybe it's B.

2025-11-05 13:02:58

- reply

I'd not restart numbering when listing different points: harder to respond.
1) It's true I am Luke's friend, and I'm biased towards him. But I'm also equally friend of, say, Peter Todd, and I'm also defending him personally. Overall, I think I have way more personal Bitcoin friends on the "Core" side. I'm not convinced it was a Core dev to rob Luke: I find it more likely it was the US Government, and that the FBI pointed towards Core devs to seed drama.
2) My involvement with OCEAN preceded the recent spam drama, and it was about DATUM and about the LN payout market (and about helping Luke, of course). I think the spam drama damaged the company (and my economic interests in it) a lot, but I fully understand it came from a place of principles, and I appreciate principles over profit, to a degree. I think OCEAN would be better off if this all debate didn't exist.
1-bis) He doesn't lie, and he doesn't claim that. He claims that data encoded before were "not sanctioned". I think this distinction is legally and morally meaningless. I think he's totally wrong.
2-bis) Because he agreed policy is the best place to spam mitigation. Consensus change is something he now wants due to the (imo absolutely misguided) CSAM scare.
[unnumbered]) Luke is very technical, and Mechanic was always pretty civil on the mailing list. But I find the two claims unrelated: Greg Maxwell is also pretty technical, and he has been not civil at all.

2025-11-05 12:53:18

- reply

Thanks for your answer.
About 1 and 3: fair!
About 2: I don't think Citrea was the sole reason to raise the limit, and I don't even think it was a relevant reason at all. See my response to @nprofile…kql2 here: nevent1qqst8sey22gvdacef3hj8naamfvdymy8kck0mz0407skgtx97myz80cw9u8aj. I think there are many, legit reasons to move from the old "policy as nudging" design to the new "policy as predicting" idea. I'm sympatetic towards LibreRelay, technically.

2025-11-05 12:49:04

- reply

3) Not supposed to be a technical argument? The video I'm commenting goes way beyond purely technical issues, of course. I think the sentence “Bitcoin Core is trying to force everyone who uses Bitcoin to distribute child porn”, beside being imo false in many ways, is indeed pretty triggering, and I did frequently condemn this rhetoric trend (not only by Luke, who will mean the above quite literlly and autistically, but also by others that arrive to imply terrible things about Core developers). It's just that I don't think it can explain very well the radicalization, which by the time the whole CSAM nonsense appeared on the scene was pretty much already peaking. Not sure what "the shit I'm throwing at the wall here myself" is supposed to be. If anybody felt triggered by my comment to this video, it would be fascinating for me to imagine why. But I think I was pretty non-inflammatory.

2025-11-05 12:41:27

- reply

1) I agree with you, and disagree with Luke, about those CSAM claims: I find the entire thing nonsense. And I'm not sure about your argument with SuperTestnet, I'll read it better. My claim here is not that Luke or Supertestnet are always right, it's just that the "experts vs demagogues" framing is misleading, if repeated as blanket statement without careful specifics. I just gave 2 examples of very technically experienced "Knozis" and of 2 communication-skilled "Coretards", I could give many others, including most of the current "Coretards" that wrote down the very same "Knozi" talking points just a few years ago (of course they could successfully make the case of why they changed their mind, but their past positions were not motivated by technical illiteracy or by demagogic influence).
2) I'm not claiming it was about Citrea specifically, and I don't think it was. I think it is about a clash between two legit design philosophies: the original "mempool policies as network nudging" one, and the more recent and uptrending "mempool policies as network predicting" one (I'm more convinced by the latter, so I'm "team Core" in this). I thin it is also about a trust crisis in Core's main people and processes to levels not seen since the block size wars, and a fracture between them and some relevant users. I think it is also about old personal beefs, radicalized by a specific nasty event, and about the broader "culture wars" splilling into Bitcoin a bit. I just wanted to clarify those points about Citrea.

2025-11-04 11:40:14

This is overall not bad, imo.
My main criticisms to @nprofile…3s2u would be:
1) it propagates without nuances the "experts vs demagogues" false framing, which is mostly made up (the "Knots side" includes experienced developers like Luke or SuperTestnet, who are way more technical than some influencers on the "Core side" like Shinobi or Lopp, who are more skilled at popularization and mass communication, letting alone that Dunning-Kruger doesn't just apply to computer science illiteracy, but also to economic, social and legal illiteracy, which also abunds on both sides),
2) it completely misrepresents Citrea's involvement, depicting a bunch of literal shitcoin scammers as "legit", and claiming they "need" that specific encoding method (which they actually adapted just out of laziness and lack of care), and they are "hoping to move to less harmful methods", which they publicly stated they aren't even considering at the moment,
3) it omits a lot of nasty triggers by some influential people on the "Core side", which are imo at the root of the current division and drama: the "it isn't spam if it's valid or pays fees" nonsense, the "mempool policy are censorship" nonsense, the "spam filtering in Core never existed" nonsense, the vitriolic and obsessive witch hunt against important and good projects for Bitcoin like OCEAN and Start9, the gross mismanagement of the github repo, the fixation on mempool changes as a way to show dominance and regulate personal beefs, etc.
For the rest, pretty good. I agree with the overall takeaways:
- search for the truth instead of parroting the slogans of your tribe
- mine on OCEAN and DATUM (and maybe tomorrow SV2)
- run your node with your own mempool policies (I'm filtering "inscriptions" since 2022)
- keep looking for possible long-term mitigations to spam (witness discount removal soft forks, fast-to-update user-side spam-filtering policies outside of Core, etc.)
#nevent1q…x87l

2025-11-04 11:31:35

Very good!
#nevent1q…4rn8

2025-10-25 22:04:36

Panel? We need an entire conference on this! :D
#nevent1q…pxkr

2025-10-01 00:26:41

- reply

The Forum date is kinda dictated by the end of Lugano's high season. But you could come to visit in any other moment and we could build events around it. Lugano will start its very first Bitdev right after the Forum, perfect venue for Consensus discussion!

2025-09-30 18:35:56

- reply

Residency doesn't mean the whole team moving to live to another place forever. Could be something as trivial as a few months of cooperation with local institutions with a few in-person meeting. But that can only be negotiated based on the amount and the kind of project, unfortunately I can't give clear boundaries in advance. You can still win and refuse, Perelman-style. :)

2025-09-30 13:31:42

$850k for for-profit and non-profit Bitcoin-related projects!
Apply before October 10th!
https://forms.gle/BKmgCBnX7XXjgNnm8

2025-08-29 09:49:02

Bellissima intervista su "20 miuti" di Tio (dovremmo rinominarlo "21 minuti"!!!):
https://www.tio.ch/newsblog/lugano-s-plan-/1863255/spazio-21-torna-con-50-workshop-gratuiti-in-italiano-anche-per-principianti

2025-08-29 09:46:53

- reply

🧡 🧡 🧡

2025-08-29 09:45:17

- reply

Like, Big Mining and Shitcoin-industrial complex corrupting Core directly.

2025-08-23 10:01:55

- reply

@nprofile…xwsl we may know who it is now: https://x.com/snapolino/status/1959192943442702372

2025-08-23 10:00:36

- reply

Uhm...sure...how?

2025-08-23 10:00:02

- reply

@nprofile…5efc @nprofile…hks5

2025-08-22 11:27:17

- reply

Ecc'hai ragione c'hai. É' che il post era una reazione a un tweet. Qui leggo meno roba che mi triggera pipponi! :)

2025-08-09 07:36:17

- reply

I'm running Knots, Core28, Btcd, LibreRelay (for the lulz), but I'd suggest big merchants to also run Knots for the ethics plus also some old Core versions for safety.

2025-08-05 19:37:47

- reply

Seems evident. Doesn't mean much. Some moron could do the same with Knots. There may even be false flags.

2025-08-04 07:09:09

- reply

Subtle reference to this
https://x.com/MichaelDunwort1/status/1950077998419567048?s=19

2025-08-03 20:42:39

Plz Bitcoiners do your thing and help us getting Lugano's Major's back in putting the Satoshi statue in an even more outrageously visible place of the city (yes, yes, I know, trivially sybil-prone method, our Lugano community could easily create 5000 burner mails, but don't make us do like Core shills spinning up 500 fake nodes every day, just use your own to sign, c'mon)!
https://www.change.org/Restore_Satoshi_Statue_Artwork_Lugano

2025-07-12 10:32:04

- reply

🔥

2025-07-12 10:30:37

- reply

Yeah, don't know much, possibly faulty randomness.

2025-07-10 06:14:46

I'm on @nprofile…xqkm white noise with my npub. Based. Write me there. I'll probably not read messages everyday until somebody integrates it into a Beeper fork (I may issue a bounty about that someday), since I'm too brain-damaged to use several messaging apps on GrapheneOS (also one of the reasons I don't check NorstrDMs and Keet messages everyday). But I'll read!

2025-06-26 09:06:54

- reply

Toxicity, of course

2025-06-21 20:29:55

- reply

Yeah, not our sport! I'll train for next time.

2025-06-21 20:29:00

- reply

Good point! @nprofile…wv89 will get to decide the supply schedule!

2025-06-21 20:27:51

- reply

Sats are the standard.

2025-06-21 16:46:27

Since I won, @nprofile…st82 will be forbidden from proposing tail emssion madness again. :)
But since I didn't win by much, he will keep proposing demurrage. :(
#nevent1q…tju3

2025-06-20 16:16:55

- reply

You should see the underground structures below Lugano!!!

2025-06-11 08:56:17

My opening speech at the last Tuscany Lightning Summit!
https://youtu.be/GDYrGPb__cA

2025-06-11 08:45:20

- reply

Nice slogan! I'll steal it! :D

2025-03-31 06:54:13

- reply

I just have to remind myself to open primal once in a few days. :)

2025-03-31 06:48:48

- reply

Sure.

2025-03-01 19:15:31

- reply

I actually identify as a boy but yes: I am.

2025-03-01 19:00:34

- reply

Doesn't seem correct. I lurked hundreds of times in February, liked/zapped/reposted a lot, occasionally posted.

2025-03-01 18:57:43

- reply

I'm friend of many normies who think Hiroshima bombing was justified: most people have weird double standards about monstrous things they would never do themselves when done by governments.

2025-03-01 18:51:56

- reply

Grazie! :D

2025-03-01 18:51:14

- reply

Thank you!!

2025-01-18 19:51:50

Ok can you guys stop trading
I can't breath anymore
(joking, go on)
#note1kxx…9w6u

2025-01-11 14:27:50

- reply

Yep

2025-01-11 14:27:28

- reply

@fbi

2025-01-11 14:26:33

- reply

I'm always connected. I just don't respond because I'm the taciturn type.

2024-12-11 19:44:18

- reply

Nobody can take her. We merely try to deserve her for a while.

2024-11-29 09:20:39

- reply

@FBI

2024-10-15 06:22:46

- reply

#nevent1q…gnec

2024-10-15 06:21:57

- reply

Thanks!

2024-10-15 06:21:30

- reply

Thanks!

2024-10-15 06:21:07

- reply

I didn't explain well. I meant sharing management.

2024-10-15 06:20:32

- reply

Yep.

2024-10-02 14:22:43

Pleas help, good NOSTR neighbors!
Can you point me at some best practice for sharing a NOSTR profile? Is the gold standard for that still just sharing the same private key, or is there any NIP for some more elegant form of delegation?

2024-09-07 13:54:19

- reply

Afraid so. But as long as sats are scarcer than blockspace, shouldn't be an ongoing problem in the first place.

2024-09-02 11:40:36

#Bitcoin scaling, Trustless L2s, covenants, future soft forks.
Some clarity about many controversial topics by @npub1ej4…ndrm, courtesy of Fulgur Ventures!
#note1num…uxr9

2024-08-29 15:42:54

- reply

I don't hear much about them anymore. They definitely used to be top 3.

2024-08-29 13:57:00

Dishonest shitcoin shills, ranked from the most to the least annoying, as of now, top 10:
1) XMR
2) KAS
3) LTC
4) BCH
5) ETH
6) BSV
7) XRP
8) SOL
9) BNB
10) DOGE
ETH and BSV shills used to be on top of the shortlist 2 years ago. XMR & LTC used to be on the bottom 8 years ago.

2024-08-28 18:25:52

- reply

Tecnicamente no. Socialmente però il momentum é forte! La vera differenza peró é solo che ho installato Primal.

2024-08-27 08:34:10

- reply

Nothing against Amethyst, still great. But slow enough that I wouldn't open it just to check notifications on a random free second between doing stuff.

2024-08-26 11:38:06

- reply

I think I did. I kinda hope I did, since I gave it back and maybe I inadvertently flirted with some guy.

2024-08-25 08:24:49

- reply

How does this work @bumi?! :D
I'm gluten intolerant I can't drink beer! :D

2024-08-24 12:38:14

- reply

*Incredibly

2024-08-24 12:00:50

Incredibility well-designed and well-realized game by D++! Masterfully hosted by Martell!
I managed to rug some money from @npub1j8y…vrvg, which is always my main goal in life!
https://m.primal.net/KKii.jpg

2024-08-23 08:45:34

- reply

I joined nostr before most bitcoiners tbh. Before Jack made it cool. :)
But I just don't have the habit yet to check amethyst as often as I do X. I guess it has to do with drama/controversy.

2024-08-23 08:43:14

- reply

2024-08-23 08:42:35

- reply

Still active, even if a bit downsized! Go there and check. You can still pay LN in many places!

2024-07-04 21:49:09

- reply

Thanks man!

2024-04-19 14:30:48

- reply

Reinstalled Amethyst on GrapheneOS.

2024-04-19 13:24:42

There's a disgusting gaslighting operation going on, coordinated by retardinal shitcoin scammers, seeding around several factual lies:
1) "Valid or expensive things can't be spam: spam is always free and protocol-level-invalid"
2) "Most Bitcoin developers have always been against using mempool filters to fight spam, Core never did it"
3) "Core's mempool filters are working as always intended, there never was an unintentional and unforeseen behavior of the datacarriersize parameter in tapscripts"
4) "The block-increase via witness-discount shipped with Segwit to appease big-blockers didn't end up incentivizing spam over real transactions"
5) "Mempool filters are anti-free-speech and anti-free market censorship, a precursor to OFAC compliant blocks"
6) "Mempool filters can be, contemporarily, totally ineffective in creating friction to spam AND ALSO extremely hurtful for fee prediction
7) "Ordinals and Wizards are not a typical and overt shitcoim grift (with negative effects on privacy and UX for Bitcoiners) but legit technical innovation for Bitcoin"
All lies. Absolute, clear, literal, evident, verifiable lies.
I'm skeptical of filters as a long-term sustainable solution for spam attacks, where the attacker is well-funded enough to bribe miners into behaving maliciously. I think the only structural and long-term solution can only be increasing economic density of L2s, to fight L1 censorship and spam with fee pressure. I believe covenant SFs in general and LNHance in particular would greatly help towards such goal. But I don't tolerate the above lies. And sadly the LNHance campaign is now deeply entangled with promoting them.

2024-04-19 13:00:31

I have long thought that the depiction of the "HODL" sub-subculture (within the Bitcoin subculture) as viciously statist, patheically cuck and dangerously anti-privacy, was vastly esagerated, at the hands of the specular "noKYC" sub-sbuculture (that also has its very serious issues: shitcoining, keynesianism, woke bullshit, etc.). Well, I have to admit the some red flags in this sense are real, and spreading. Some "HODL" folks would go to the extent to actually agree with privacy-focus shitcoiners in promoting "privacy coins" as better than Bitcoin (clear nonsense for technical and economical reasons). Horseshoe Theory of Bitcoin.
https://image.nostr.build/0cbc8874dcb90430592f20372e8f4d8eff2d78a7b7288dce9447c26755fb1260.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/da1e8028307e38caf11407b144e6162abd068bb8572ecbd0e081878982b28872.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/2d8327d262f84e3a7846e174f8ff19808fdb119e0870e5ca38254be778762b14.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/3052b892b45fb3784bf1c7548cf14141a5938e10d8be07504f7180361dc26275.jpg

2024-04-18 16:06:45

- reply

Concise and accurate!

2024-04-18 12:13:33

THE GASLIGHTING NETWORK:
- "Don't believe your own memories of using LN non-custodially on a daily basis for countless times in the last few years, but believe fraudulent marketing claims by shitcoin scammers about you never actually doing what you actually did and do"
- "Don't compare LN to existent, realistic and sustainable alternatives, including its own future iterations and evolutions, but to imaginary born-perfect, silver-bullet, turn-key solutions like gigameg-blocks, miraculously brought to you by the Second Coming of Bitcoin Jesus, resurrected to bring you with him in the Hard Fork Heavens"
- "Don't think about real-world economic/monetary dynamics, pushing most actual users for much of the foreseeable future to prioritize their concern over inflation and confiscation of their long-term savings, over coffee-paying costs or risks, but make up imaginary millions of people with no fiat but somehow lots of sats to spend in billions of fast/cheap transactions starting tomorrow"
- "Don't engage in nuanced and honest discussions about the actual security-model spectrum for different use-cases, but pretend that those millions of imaginary sat-spenders somehow always need, for their imaginary fast/cheap transactions, the very same trustlessness models than slow/huge ones."
- "Don't acknowledge the fact that Bitcoin's usability for normies has been brought from nonexistent to mediocre over 15 years of hard work, but pretend its layer1 was born perfect, without inherent issues like chain-anal/coin-selection/fee-estimation issues"

2024-04-18 12:13:03

I notice a nice trilemma while teaching (Bitcoin, physics or literally anything else):
- accurate
- understandable
- concise
You can only pick 2.

2024-04-18 10:07:21

- reply

Yep. But people on Nostr are less wrong so I don't get to get triggered by them being wrong so often. :(

2024-03-20 14:43:28

- reply

Thanks man. But I prefer to cut ties with Shitcoin Magazin completely at this point. But I absolutely respect that the threshold is personal and not clear-cut.

2024-03-20 14:41:53

- reply

Check relays!

2024-03-20 09:31:19

The hard lesson once learned by "Consensus" conference in New York City, now learnt once again in Nashville. Nothing is ever new in #Bitcoin.
https://image.nostr.build/000e94f185a007936e5b456ea9abaa01f667cf6f511795f9d1aa342d8c1ec1ae.jpg

2024-03-15 09:02:26

- reply

Not so inactive either. :)

2024-03-08 09:34:47

- reply

My only professional legal opinion is that I don't have professional legal opinions!
(semi-cit from "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", 1990)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fturtlepedia.fandom.com%2Fwiki%2FSterns_%25281990_film_series%2529&psig=AOvVaw1hZE5sUqBTryDf0tQGBXcT&ust=1709976832929000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBMQjRxqFwoTCIjqs5-u5IQDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

2024-03-08 09:24:06

- reply

And what about sub-meter intervals? What are you, a socialist?

2024-03-08 09:11:12

Did you know? When you pay sats to an orange-pilled taxi-driver, but you only do that at the end of the ride, without having written on global-consensus blockspace at every unit of Plank-time, you are being a CUSTODIAN, and custody-Bitcoin is NOT real Bitcoin!!!
STATIST LARPER!!!
Or maybe, just maybe, you should chill out a bit, and accept the existence of a security-model spectrum, while always aiming at the best extreme (that of total trustlessness) whenever possible, within reason, improving the improvable, without selling impossible dreams. Maybe.

2024-03-06 16:02:55

- reply

@FBI

2024-01-12 08:44:18

- reply

"Your number" diverges to infinity when the supply thins out. You can't make a divisible asset disappear by buying it all.

2024-01-06 16:04:21

- reply

I think that both "filter teams" I mentioned (OCEAN-led datacarriersize proposal and Chaincodelabs-led bare-multisig proposal) are skeptical of important higher order effects of updating current Core's filter due to the fact that current Core's filter seamingly didn't produce such effects, and the new proposals don't change their fundamental logic. The stronger arguments I've seen about why these new updates would be worse are actually by the team proposing to remove non-fee-based filters from Core completely. But I'm quite sure that would have important higher order effects as well.
I'm not sure Luke or Murch want to wish away any economic game theory, but it's clear it's not a game theory "that makes Bitcoin work", since Core currently filters away high-fee-paying txs from mempool.
I think is entirely reasonabe on their part to suggest only mempool-level upgrades and not soft fork: mempool policy is a matter of local preference, relatively safe & dynamic, block validity is a matter of global consensus, very risky, hard to change and very hard to change back once changed. So far the only one I've seen suggesting a consensus change was a malicious troll by an "ordinals" developer, trying to lure anti-spam users into running a disastrous fork without even an activation date (I don't remember his name, but he's friend with some Bitcoiners so he gets a pass for such irresponsible behavior, sadly). In general, managing something as dynamic as spam with consensus rules seems frankly crazy to me. Spam attacks and DDoS are preferable to consensus failures and splits.
Bitcoin deva always advocated for whitelisted script templates, nothing new: currently Core stansardness rule explicitly whitelist 5 types of txs, while all the other possible types are nonstandard, regardless of the fees. Not having whitelists in mempool policies is *most definitely not* "what makes Bitcoin bitcoin".
I can't prevent malicious or apatic miners get their massive stack of fees coming from "NFT" frauds and spam attacks: I can just refuse to cooperate actively and shame them publicly.
I absolutely agree with you that one can think all of the inscriptions are spam, and accept nothing can be done about it. It may be the case. One could also think that something may be done to some degree (as I suspect) but that it's still better to focus efforts on other things: totally honest and respectable take.

2024-01-04 19:58:29

- reply

I mostly see people yelling because he's claiming that even in the case of the inflation bug, it would be legit bug fixing to change the documentation to align with the (buggy) code. But maybe we have a different follow-list so we see different yelling.

2024-01-04 19:56:33

- reply

Thank you for answering one-off even if blocked elsewhere (I block very liberally on Twitter, here it's neither possible nor needed).
The proposal you list is the second "type" I mention in my brief list. The higher order effect you mention (increasing already present offband auctions of blockspace) would be common between that and the third "type" (Much's proposal to filter out bare multisig, apparently popular among Core devs). But since Core already filters high-fee-paying valid txs, it seems to me that, at least in principle, the first "type" is the only proposal that would avoid that higher order effect completely...not the status quo. Even if I find it likely that the umprecedented move to a total lack of mempool filtering could produce way more/bigger higher order effects.

2023-12-30 20:05:47

- reply

Great thanks! I hope the same! Merry Christmas!

2023-12-30 16:53:24

- reply

Matt, which of the people listed below do you think are misunderstandings higher order effects? Or there are others?
#nevent1q…g45k

2023-12-30 16:51:04

- reply

Uh? The only radical mempool policy change proposal I see (removing incentive-incompatible filters entirely) are from Peter Todd and Ben Carman, but don't seem to have much following. Milder, more conservative proposals come from Luke Dashjr in Knots & disrespector-patch promoters in Core (extending to tapscript the very same datacarriersize policy that Core uses for pre-taproot txs) and Mark Erhardt (filtering out bare multisig in Core as well, as Knots already does since year). All minority views. Do you hear about anything else?

2023-12-29 14:56:15

- reply

True. It would also be less useful to do so, as of now:
- I post less frequently, so there wouldn't be much of my content I can ban you from anyway
- I don't get tagged frequently, either by friends or foes, so I don't have to prevent that very aggressively

2023-12-02 16:10:08

- reply

Thanks! I do indeed!

2023-12-02 16:09:42

- reply

Stock Knots. Initially v23 (that's why some spam creeped in), now should be updated to v25. Knots is 100% FLOSS. No proprietary patches.

2023-12-02 16:08:00

- reply

No, I think most of them actually invalid.

2023-12-02 16:07:29

- reply

Actively proposing block templates that hurt Bitcoin users is not something that we can ask Luke to do. But that's irrelevant to the actual Ocean's plan, which is to move such decision to adult miners, instead of leaving it to daddy pool. The possible negative revenue diff for miners (still to be demonstrated, since for example Luxor's "wizard" blocks were paid offband by shitcoin spammers and paid nothing to workers) just needs to be small not to overshadow positive revenue diffs.