pull down to refresh
Okay then I will spend an incremental amount of time every week until we have a group of real mfs. So maybe then the advice is: don't invest in Anthropic, short these whiney lying little bitches because we're going to take them down.
Do you think that preventing skynet will bring value to humanity? (Can't believe I am asking this haha)
I was mostly pointing to the potentially viable (due to tx size, maybe) sidechain / sequencers that are taking a bridge in (rather than an L1 deposit.) All these are trustmebro on the intake over LN first, and in the case of ecash/fedi, they're also trustmebro on the non-existing (or did this change recently?) unilateral exit.
The way I see BitVM(-ish) solutions today is that these are not products yet. Maybe I missed something new that is important tho - so please do correct me if I am wrong.
Do you use Lichen for production? This morning I bought 3 zucchini, 5kg of potato and half a dozen of Kakifruit using LN. I only ate some of the potato thus far, they were yum tho. Should I use Lichen instead?
Perhaps we can agree on that? We rely on L1 btc just like we rely on TCP.
Yes!!! We 100% rely on L1. Which is why that is the thing you spend 99% of your time on. Because if you fuck that up your protocol is a disaster!
And because we rely on it, we test it, we verify it. It is the single point of failure and it must never ever break - if we're not scammers. And that's why L1 script integrity and the correctness of our integration with it is the most important thing for anyone that relies on it. (i.e. is actually using Bitcoin)
I'm sorry to appear and be unhappy with your choice of words - like I said elsewhere too, I am 100% with the conclusion that people should stop proposing addenda to the protocol. The only 2 proposals I was comfortable with was (a) PQC proposals in general (not picking a finalist yet) because it is preventive, and (b) GSR before it went GSR&E (😭), because that was a workable restorative proposal that could provide a better baseline than we have today. I guess I am down to 1 now - which sucks fwiw.
In the end, I don't need any new protocol or even cryptography tho. What I need is 6 months of runway so that I can bring the things Bitcoiners need, to Bitcoiners. There's a lot of bridging to be had - I know because I have to buy stupid fiat every time I want something specific.
Okay. What if we find or found a faction where between us we legalize the abortion of Skynet? Would you be willing to fund that instead? FOMO is bad breh
You made me look at the bitcoin FX rates right now because I wanted to say "just park it in bitcoin" but the USD is worth more sats (1350... what in the actual fuck) than it was last time I looked (iirc 1180 or so?)
What were you thinking about in terms of total # of shares? Because $5 thats like the equivalent of a single a candy corn these days (while dollars per sats is going up, the atrocity!) and will not make the stacker stonk pool wealthy. So I'd suggest if we're talking a single share, just buy it and pray, worst you can lose is 18 candy corn. If more, DCA harder.
We could agree to disagree but I am not going to concede to "separation of concerns" either, under the assumption that we're not talking about banking protocols: if you're a bank operating under a banking protocol, you can "enforce" your rules upon the L1. This is because you could cough up the discrepancy between the actual truth (which for Bitcoin is always L1) and your upper-layer IOU truth, and make your user base whole.
If however you are not a bank, but a real protocol, you cannot do that, and therefore the truth MUST be the L1 truth. And with that your concerns aren't separable. They are always linked, no exceptions. You cannot, under any circumstance, retain self-sovereignty for a user of your protocol without having an L1 consequence for every action, and therefore you must, under all circumstances, be integrated with L1. This is why LN is an L2, but nothing else is - everything else is, what on SN is often referred to as a "fake L2", which unfortunately has been correct to date no matter how many followers someone has on X.
Thus, you cannot say that it is irrelevant. Ultimately, any Bitcoin must be backed by L1 sats, or it is either a scam pretending to be an L2, or a shitcoin. When I send sats from my private channel with LNBig through Zeus, the risk is all theirs. When I receive, I have an HTLC risk for a set period (or until I spend more), which is 100% based on L1 script and not LN. The reason why I say Zeus is because that gives you a nice alert that transparently shows you this.
I challenge thee, ser, to define to me in which situation sats accumulation on any real L2 (=LN, all the others will fail at their bridge for rug risk) does not carry an explicit L1-based risk and thus, can (or in my opinion cannot) separate.
I think the tension here came from me choosing the term "irrelevant"
Agreed.
It's so much better if we can make new things in outer/upper layers, so there's no need to argue about it.
Optionality is the most powerful feature to any protocol. It often ends in disbelief on SN but I know many bitcoiners, some more OG than yours truly, that are of the opinion than LN isn't "it" and stick p2(w)pkh. And that is fine, because even LN is optional. It's what makes it great.
from a systems design level, "irrelevant" isn't a negative, thought, it's a positive one
I disagree with this, as someone that spend a large part of their career in systems design, simply because at some point your system has to work bottom up too. That's maybe not where all these guys that want to change src/script/interpreter.cpp are coming from, but perhaps that's exactly the issue.
So TCP is irrelevant? Despite also your Bitcoin Core AND your {CLN/LND/Eclair/LDK} requiring it? Odd! To me, netbios is irrelevant, because I don't have anything that uses it. So is Windows, because I don't use it and I don't support it. But TCP is very relevant and so is Bitcoin script. Without either of these I can actually not pay my bills, buy food, have a roof over my head, and so on. This makes it very relevant, in fact, it is so relevant that any change to either of these is a threat to me and I will go to some lengths that probably y'alls will shake your head at when it comes to that.
Yet I fully agree with you that ossification of the current state is probably the best assumption, and that a good protocol ought to not need consensus changes.
"upgrade to <major version> of our SDK, it is much cleaner"
...
checks out because they no longer register globals and you can just put it in a closure now, cool
...
4 months later: hard dependency of sub module xyz.
Inside this module:
globalThis.mySingleton = {};My best friend had a traffic accident when visiting me and had to fly back injured. She told me it is the best way to fly. I guess that's not a secret anymore.
@BlokchainB see what I meant on the other thread?
I wouldn't be hung up about an experiment/demo requiring op_cat. It was showcasing a direction.
Its exactly that same direction, from where I am sitting. Maybe the next question on things like that ought to be: what can we do without op_cat. Not even a tradeoff, but rather a solution to something new.
I think I agree with all of that but not the "irrelevance". The thing that is hopefully becoming irrelevant are all these dreams of enhancing the protocol with features.
Isn't that what Andrew Poelstra was aiming towards with cat+schorr tricks?
Between this and your comment yesterday, one would almost get the feeling that incumbent creatures of this particular swamp will soon be endangered species, but I think that the drip of fresh blood (as opposed to a flood) strongly favors indoctrination rather than revolution, and youngsters be disappointed.
However, I think that this is for the better. If the incumbents are gone, you're the prime game for all the predators you'll face on the interfaces of your institutional swamp. I've been in that position when I was waaaay too young to recognize that - I didn't even have the skills to recognize a sociopath. I got my butt pwnd within a year.
Better have some allies to suck up to in the beginning. Play their game for a while. Go for the kill when you're wiser and more powerful. Then at least you'll have a chance to succeed.