π
Login to reply
Replies (50)
@Rusty Russell I might need your help
> Vitor:
I will not use LN addresses, as they are centralized via the domain name system. By using LN addresses, I am giving authority to the domain name system, which is controlled by the state, to allow me to continue to receive funds. Domain names are state-issued identities and state-issued identities are immoral. I donβt wish to involve them in any way in any financial transaction.
If I can avoid referencing a domain name, IP address, or create any kind of other surveillable and censorable side channel to a php script on somebody's webserver, that would be fucking great.
Yes, we don't need domain names at all. Just search and pubkeys.
oh shit
youβre actually making bitcoin useful money, thank you
spillman is back. one might point out that opening a hundred channels will be expensive
oh man this is sick
Relays gossiping? Now thatβs something Iβd like to see.
Did you just describe ?
But yeah I wonder why people havenβt tried stuffing namecoin domains or something into Lightning, ICANN belongs to the man after all.
CashuPayServer β Accept Bitcoin on Any PHP Hosting
A BTCPay-compatible payment gateway that runs on shared hosting. No Docker, no VPS, no command line. Just upload and go.
cashu has had some pretty insane bugs, and I donβt want to be locked into somebodyβs cashu mint. No thank you!
Bookmarked
@note1ywe0x8lyqcydgcew824gmecnwptw3kpmmreez4txxlzhe072qlhq78zgw5
Another second layer is born. Fucking awesome.
Batch spend
Dnn
everyone's got their favorite plan
but the only way we're getting to
a trillion wallets is
off-chain
I doubt it, there is no monetary demand for btc as money.
It's well if we can scale to fifty to a houndred millions users.
what if that's
just because
it's hard to use
and then it's not
It's much more complicated than that, it's more easy that billions of llm agents know how to use a second layer wallet than dummy humans who cannot know or want to know about censorship resistant medium of exchanges.
channel factories take time
spillman channels take time
lightning channels take time
ecash takes trust
agents don't have time or trust
where's the complexity here?
It wouldn't allow the 'latest state wins' thing, that requires a bitcoin soft fork
From the point of view of Lightning, Nostr is just a very convenient (but unreliable) data-storage system and therefore it doesn't change the fundamental security model of Lightning
Replaceable events are cool and all, but there is no guarantee that the old event is deleted
Monetary dynamics, it's useless to open trillions of state channels without monetary demand on a volatile asset as bitcoin demonstrate.
yes. what do you think npub to npub spillman channels look like?
Where are the human users?
I would imagine LLM agents on nostr network. I would also imagine them on other networks. However, human users who need a stable unit of account seem impossible.
everything is volatile. some things go both up and down. fewer things more up than down. you're arguing that only things that go down are an acceptable form of money?
Although everything is volatile, money is the most liquid asset and therefore the least volatile at all times.
BTC already facilitates settlements for hundreds of millions of users, and its natural users are LLM agents on a sovereign basis.
I would argue that the only acceptable form of money is an asset with expected low volatility, aka a commonly accepted medium of exchange. However, Bitcoin's price can still jump by 20% during a period of historically low volatility.
it's a weird argument to make because you're implicitly giving the upside to someone else. but ignoring that, you can buy stability on off-ramps. why not buy bitcoin at the time of use, use it as cash, and let the other party park it wherever is best for them? you probably have no idea how much simpler that is than what the world currently has
That's how world works man, stable units of account are used because of their stability, not about a possible upside on your wealth.
the dollar is stable because it's worth a little less ever month. to say that bitcoin is unsuitable as money because it also goes up sometimes seems to miss the point. but if you onramp and offramp at the time of transfer, then you both have the stability you so desire, and you didn't pay 2%+ on top for the privilege of doing so
you pay on btc in two forms.
- you need an alternative moe with censorship resistance.
- you already win a lot on btc and you have a great proportion of your wealth on btc, so paying debts and other obligations in btc is better than transfer your wealth on btc to fiat and settle the obligations on fiat.
Not about if is worth a little less or more, it's about extreme volatility to settle in the future.
i agree if your partner accept it and hold btc on its balances, there is no problem with it. It doesnt make it money too,but a useful secondary moe.
i was late to bitcoin and don't personally have ngu wealth, so that's not going to convince me. but you're missing the fact that bitcoin can be sent by anyone on the planet, to anyone on the planet, in seconds, today. no other money in the world is capable of this. you can also move in and out of it, quickly, if you want stability.
why isn't this the best money?
uh huh
i quote myself
"- you need an alternative moe with censorship resistance."
it's your usecase and mine. This doesnt qualify it as money but as an very useful secondary moe.
Yeah, fiat and credit-money can be very volatile too, it means some bad credit-money can be volatile and it happens very often.
Dollar and the other big six currencies may be a bad money in the future.
not mine βΒ i'm your average american. but can i make micropayments over visa to whoever happens to be offering a useful service on the internet? can i buy a beer for a friend in another country? is the dollar not getting weaker every month? are you suggesting that i save in euros or yuan? chunks of precious metal?
bitcoin is money, and it's damn good money. from a historical standpoint, probably the best
It's fine if you use it for an alternative purpose outside of traditional finance.
We'll just have to agree to disagree β I'm using standard economic definitions of money. If we define it as money, BTC doesn't win more; it's worse because people expect it to behave the same way as dollars, euros, yen or pesos in their region.
it's fine if you want to reframe my recent use-cases, but you're still missing the settlement layer. every time you use a credit card, the merchant gets 2 ~ 5% less than you pay
settling over bitcoin is faster and cheaper than any existing rails
I agree it's better to use the BTC network as a fast payment system, and it's good to see the use case in action. The merchant needs to hold BTC; otherwise, he would use a permissioned settlement, which is as bad as Visa and Mastercard.
There are also other solutions to the Visa and Mastercard problem. PIX performs well against Visa, but is very bad for Brazilians.
visa isn't even a settlement layer π€£ they just clear (provide a reliable accounting) payments between banks
Read it again, lol. Don't put words in my mouth. I said 'BTC as a permissioned layer', which is bad as Visa or Mastercard.
Frankly, check the standard definition of money β very few Bitcoin developers understand monetary dynamics.
sorry, i was being pedantic. you said permissioned "settlement" layer, and visa doesn't perform settlement. strictly speaking, the role that visa charges for doesn't exist in bitcoin. it's an interstitial credit layer that makes a multi-day payment lifecycle look like a swipe
I never discuss what role Visa plays. It is what you said it is.