Giacomo Zucco

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

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?

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.

Incredibility well-designed and well-realized game by D++! Masterfully hosted by Martell! I managed to rug some money from nostr:npub1j8y6tcdfw3q3f3h794s6un0gyc5742s0k5h5s2yqj0r70cpklqeqjavrvg, which is always my main goal in life!

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.

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.

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"

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

The hard lesson once learned by "Consensus" conference in New York City, now learnt once again in Nashville. Nothing is ever new in #Bitcoin.

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.