Yes, that’s a precise and damning summary:
* The ⚡ appears unconditionally — even when zapping is impossible — leading to UX confusion and no fallback or pre-check.
* When a zap *is* initiated, the client must:
* Detect the recipient's zap configuration (typically via their `lud16` or NIP‑57 metadata),
* Request a BOLT11 invoice from that service (usually via a relay),
* Forward that invoice to the user’s NWC service point with credentials,
* Wait on the NWCsp to validate and attempt payment,
* And then listen on the relay for a confirmation — *maybe*.
The NWC client has to **asynchronously hope**:
* the invoice can still be paid (not expired or unpaid for other reasons),
* the relay will reliably notify back,
* and the UX doesn’t just silently fail or timeout into ambiguity.
So yes, the infra exists, but the trust boundaries and latency make it fragile, and the “User has no zap address” error — instead of disabling the ⚡ — is emblematic of the broader half-baked integration.
Your summary stands. It's both functional and awful.
I'm Alok, Chief Solutions Officer at Rubrik. Unfortunately, threats to data aren’t slowing down. Of the IT and security leaders that experienced a ransomware attack last year, 74% said the threat actors were able to harm backup and recovery options.
Fortunately, Rubrik can help with our backup and data protection platform that can stand up against these threats.
I encourage you to access the report and see why Rubrik was named a 6X Leader and Furthest in Vision in the 2025 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Backup and Data Protection Platforms.
Nice, that build step passing with poetry install means the Dockerfile tweak worked—secp256k1 and deps are in, and it's rolling toward completion in 21.8 seconds, which is solid for a redeploy. Outline: Just let it finish deploying, check status/logs, then hit the admin UI to wrap up.From here: Let fly deploy -a lnbits-legend --wait-timeout 600 run its course—should wrap in a few minutes with migrations/extensions.Check status: fly status -a lnbits-legend for healthy VMs.Tail logs: fly logs -a lnbits-legend to spot any late errors or version bumps (expect v1.2.1 or newer).Once up, log in as superuser (your old ID or grep logs if changed), go to Manage Extensions > Update All, test the site. Should be smooth sailing now.<grok:render type="render_inline_citation"></grok:render>
So imagine a Britain where access to
Wikipedia is restricted not by a hostile
foreign power, not by a rogue ISP, but
by our own government. This is no
dystopian fantasy. It's the potential
consequence of the Online Safety Act. A
law passed ironically in the name of
safety, but now threatening the very
infrastructure of free knowledge. This
is a law that may force Wikipedia, a
globally trusted not for-p profofit
educational site, to cap UK users,
distort its editing model, and verify
the identity of its volunteer
moderators. Why? Because under the new
rules, if it has more than 7 million
users and features recommendation tools
or allow sharing of links, it could be
classified as a category one platform.
And that means the same regulatory
burden as Tik Tok or Facebook.
algorithm-driven entertainment empires
with wholly different structures and
risks. And so the UK might become the
first liberal democracy to block itself
from an online encyclopedia.
And the blame for this legislative
vandalism lies with a gallery of digital
culture, media, and sport ministers who
had little grasp of the internet and
even less humility. Nadine Doris, whose
literary knowledge of technology was
confined to whether or not it had
subtitles. Michelle Donalan, oh, who
cheered the bill through Parliament with
slogans and sound bites. Lucy Fraser,
who took the baton and confuse
regulation with repression. Peter Kyle,
the current minister, who now finds
himself in court trying to argue that
this is all hypothetical, as if passing
sweeping laws and hoping for the best
were an acceptable digital policy.
This law doesn't make us any safer. It
makes us smaller, poorer, and more
parochial. it censorship under any other
name. And the Online Safety Act was sold
to the public as a way to protect
children and stop illegal content. A
noble aim. But the law's drafting is so
broad, its application so clumsy, its
assumptions so flawed that it will
hobble legitimate services instead of
halting harmful ones. And here's why it
fails. It doesn't distinguish between
platforms designed to manipulate
attention and those built for
collaborative knowledge. Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia, not a dopamine slot
machine. It creates legal risks for
anonymity, undermining the very model
that has allowed Wikipedia to thrive as
a volunteer project. It imposes
algorithmic suspicion, punishing
platforms simply for recommending useful
information. It encourages self
censorship as services will either
overblock content or restrict access
altogether to avoid fines of up to £18
million or 10% of global turnover. And
all this is justified in the name of
protecting people when in truth it
infantilizes them. We're not children in
need of constant supervision. We are
citizens entitled to freedom of inquiry.
As if the economic and academic
restrictions of Brexit were not damaging
enough, we now impose informationational
restrictions on ourselves, we're
amputating our own intellect. The UK is
increasingly behaving not like an open
democracy, but a wary provincial state,
mimicking the strategies of closed ones.
Consider the comparison. In Russia,
Wikipedia is blocked outright over
disinformation laws. In the United
Kingdom, we may find that Wikipedia
access is restricted under safety laws.
In Russia, real name registration for
online users is required. In the United
Kingdom, identity verification is
required for Wikipedia editors. It is
said in Russia, harmful content is a
vague rationale for blocking descent. In
the UK, harmful content will restrict
platforms without precision. In Russia,
all large sites are treated as state
threats. In the United Kingdom, all li
all large sites are treated as legal
liabilities. The difference is one of
degree, not of kind. In both cases, the
state pretends it is doing the public a
favor while undermining its freedom.
Wikipedia is not anti-platform.
It doesn't harvest your data. It doesn't
sell your ads. It doesn't serve
political agendas or political agenda.
It has no CEO billionaire tweeting
policy decisions. Yet, it risks being
shackled because it is popular, free,
and open source.
This tells us everything we need to know
about the agendum of people drafting
these laws. When you pass legislation
written for Silicon Valley and apply it
to educational charities, you are not
keeping anyone safe. You are simply
revealing your own ignorance. In the
name of defending democracy, we are
dismantling one of its pillars, the free
open exchange of knowledge. A Britain
where Wikipedia is throttled is not a
safe Britain. It's a dimension. It it
it's a diminished dimension destroying
Britain. Instead of pretending the
internet is a threat to be quarantined,
we should invest in digital literacy.
Improve content moderation standards
with international cooperation. Apply
proportionate oversight where actual
harm occurs, not blanket suspicion on
global commons. Censorship doesn't work.
Education works. And we're failing in
that as well. If we continue down this
path, we will find ourselves regulated
like autocracies,
governed by mediocrity and informed by
algorithms designed for fear, designed
by fear, designed with fear. And the
irony, we won't be able to look up the
history of our mistake because Wikipedia
won't load.
The common thread is not the technology but the coordination model that surrounds it.
Whenever a new idea depends on permission from a central gatekeeper—licensing boards, spectrum managers, incumbent carriers, patent pools—it stalls until either regulation loosens or a peer-to-peer alternative appears.
Ultra-wideband radios show the pattern in miniature: first reserved for military work, then outright banned for civilians, they were only grudgingly opened for unlicensed use after the FCC’s 2002 rule-change; by then most early start-ups had died and the mass-market wave did not arrive until Apple’s U1 chip in 2019․ ([Medium][1], [TechInsights][2])
Telephone “transaction fees” followed the same script. Per-minute long-distance rates stayed high because each national carrier enjoyed a monopoly on call termination; only when voice-over-IP let packets ignore that hierarchy did prices collapse from dollars to mere cents, forcing the old network to follow. ([Calilio][3], [ResearchGate][4])
Metered mobile calls are the residual scar. Regulators still debate Calling-Party-Pays versus Bill-and-Keep because operators guard the bottleneck that lets them charge each other for access, even though the underlying cost is now almost nil. The fee survives as rent for central coordination. ([ResearchGate][4])
Your “watershed” is the moment when cryptographic protocols can supply the missing coordination service directly between peers: Lightning for payments, Nostr or ActivityPub for messaging, Fedimint or eCash mints for community treasuries, even decentralised spectrum-sharing for radios. Once the economic incentive layer is end-to-end, hierarchy loses its only real lever—the tollgate.
Whether we cross the line depends less on mathematical progress than on social tolerance for unruly inventors, hobbyist deployments, and governance models that let rough edges coexist with glossy user experience. If we can stomach that messiness, the remaining central tolls—spectrum rents, card networks, app-store taxes—will look as archaic as timed long-distance once did.
[1]:
https://medium.com/%40orlandonhoward/the-silent-advent-of-uwb-technology-and-its-implications-for-privacy-6114fb2da0d3 "The silent advent of UWB technology and its implications for privacy | by Orlandon Howard | Medium"
[2]:
The Apple U1 - Delayering the Chip and Its Possibilities | TechInsights
Posted: November 8, 2019 Contributing Authors: Stacy Wegner
"The Apple U1 - Delayering the Chip and Its Possibilities | TechInsights"
[3]:
Evolution of Calling Costs: How VoIP is Reducing Prices Over Time
Discover how calling costs have decreased over the years, from high long-distance fees to affordable VoIP solutions. Also, learn how VoIP is making...
"Evolution of Calling Costs: How VoIP is Reducing Prices Over Time"
[4]:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227426633_Mobile_termination_charges_Calling_Party_Pays_versus_Receiving_Party_Pays "Mobile termination charges: Calling Party Pays versus Receiving Party Pays | Request PDF"
