follow @Cashu

bitchat georelay crawler by @a1denvalu3 — we select relays close to you depending on where you are (or where you chat) on the planet. distributed infrastructure for global chat. only on nostr.

GitHub

add automated relay count tracking with dual trend charts by a1denvalu3 · Pull Request #8 · permissionlesstech/georelays

This PR adds a new GitHub workflow that automatically tracks and visualizes changes in Nostr relay counts over time. Features New GitHub workflow ...

Love this bot View quoted note →

trace this chainalysis View quoted note →

source-based routing in bitchat. work in progress.

. 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 58k 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯 🕯

I've built an NFC chat app that can send messages by tapping two phones to each other but I think it's enough for today

Artisan Traders on Nostr https://following.space/d/7g0zvf7gv59j?p=de75eb1d7a6627807a8dff0fb337cfcf189e7e9af8ab6229f688f664710c3014

Holy shit it's working! Paid a 100k sats Lightning invoice from two different Cashu mints at the same time. Enter atomic multinut payments. All Cashu wallets let you use multiple mints. To reduce rug risk, we encourage users to leave only small amounts on each mint. This introduces a big UX challenge which forces users to distribute funds on different mints in a smart way. It's particularly problematic when you're trying to pay a bigger Lightning invoice from your small balances. Who has time for that? The Lightning protocol allows nodes to split a single payment HTLC into multiple parts to increase the chance of reaching the destination, called Multi-Path Payments (MPP). Typically, that's done from one sender to one receiver. What if... you can just break the rules? A multinut payment originates from multiple Lightning nodes to pay a single invoice, atomically. Even if none of your mint balances can cover an invoice, as long as your total balance is large enough, you can pay the invoice. I don't think anyone was crazy enough to do this before. Pretty sure what you see here is the first invoice being paid using a CLN and an LND node at the same time. Amazing work by the team, special thanks to @a1denvalu3.

gm

What many people don't get is that "custodial vs. non-custodial" is NOT about how secure the Bitcoin is that's held by the custodian. It doesn't matter. Think like an autist or a mathematician: Do you control your Bitcoin, yes or no? It's not about "how easy can someone collude to steal your Bitcoin that you don't control" or "does the code run in an HSM" or "theft would be detectable". All these things don't matter for this question. They're interesting but that's not the point. You're thinking about the wrong categories, namely *security*, not *custody*. Words have meaning. Unilateral exit is a necessary condition.

My favorite kind of ABC