There is a single reason why I cannot be completely positive about the future of Bitcoin. It's the scalability issue, and many people would say the Lightning Network is the answer. Of course, I've realized its usefulness by actually running a node, but I'm not fully convinced that it will work perfectly even when Bitcoin is used as the true money itself in the future. This is because an on-chain transaction is still required to open a channel, and Bitcoin's block size is fixed at 1 megabyte at the consensus level. I agree that the proper way to solve the scaling problem is through the Lightning Network, after solving the transaction malleability issue with SegWit, rather than increasing the block size. Increasing the block size requires a hard fork, is not a fundamental solution, and makes it increasingly difficult for individuals to run a node. However, can the Lightning Network be a fundamental solution? If the population continues to grow while Bitcoin's supply and block size are fixed, won't there inevitably come a day when people cannot afford the fee for even a single transaction, even if they work their whole lives? Even if everything is processed through Lightning, at least as many channel opening transactions as the number of people being born are needed, and that number will only continue to increase, right? This is a mathematically foreseen problem if we accept the assumption that the population will grow, not just a curse from pessimistic critics driven by jealousy. Consequently, won't the common people be unable to achieve true ownership in the genuine sense of the word? I'm curious about the stance of nostr user on this. The positions I've encountered so far are as follows, and I can't agree with any of them: * Solve it with a hard fork. -> This is the stupidest solution. How is this different from Bitcoin Cash? * The population won't grow that much. -> Is the future of humanity that pessimistic? * Ownership can be managed in a form like ecash. -> Does this mean complete ownership is solely the privilege of the rich and earlier generations? Doesn't this negate Bitcoin's greatest advantage? * A solution will eventually emerge that guarantees complete ownership and is affordable for common people, no matter how large the population. -> Isn't this overly optimistic? This is the reason why, even after understanding the Lightning Network, I bought Bitcoin with all the money I had left, and continue to buy Bitcoin with my salary (excluding living expenses), but I haven't been able to go all-in by selling my gold. Is there a solution I don't know about? If someone knows, please let me know.

Just in case anyone doesn't know, your follow list is completely public data on Nostr, and due to how decentralized SNS works, it is the type of data that is rarely but is recommended to be broadcast to almost all relays. ​And this information is utilized for various purposes. The most common use is to act as a filter to screen out unpleasant spam. Since Nostr has no administrators (censors), a separate mechanism is needed to filter spam, and it's typically used to make an assumption like: posts by people who are followed by the people I follow are probably not spam, and so on. ​If you still see an unpleasant image despite such filtering, it means someone in your follow list is following the spammer who posted that unpleasant image, which naturally leads to users trying to find out who that person is. ​Of course, I know that following someone doesn't necessarily mean agreement, support, or affection for that person, but your taste can be questioned, so I hope you manage your follow list with a bit more caution. ​If you feel those around you don't know this, please boost this so they can become aware without feeling awkward. Lol. ​I should also check my own follow list to see if I've accidentally followed anyone

#foodstr

Today, I finished migrating the translation service for #jumble to a self-hosted setup. I initially looked into LibreTranslate, as it was an available option, and discovered it's an open-source translation model. However, after testing it, the quality was significantly lower than Jumble's official translation service—to the point of being unusable. Then, I remembered that the translation performance from Ollama, which I use regularly, is quite impressive. So, I built a simple adapter that mimics the LibreTranslate API but delegates the actual translation work to Gemma3:27B running via Ollama. It's working perfectly.

I've been using amethyst and amber together, and even though I haven't received any DMs, I keep getting requests to decrypt something. Does anyone know what this is? #asknostr

I learned about the ketogenic diet and discovered bulletproof coffee. I made it, and it's really delicious! Most importantly, it keeps me full until lunch when I have it in the morning.

I'm using a MacBook Pro with M4 Pro Apple chip and 48GB of RAM to run a local LLM via Ollama. I'm wondering which model would be most suitable. When I ran Qwen3:30B, memory usage went up to about 31GB, so I think I could probably handle a slightly stronger model, but I'm not sure exactly which one to pick because there are so many options. #devstr #asknostr

I'm watching several videos about health and diet, and I'm more shocked than when I encountered Bitcoin and studied money and economics. If this is true, the corruption of modern medicine is beyond the malice of the Federal Reserve in economics. The problem is, unlike economics, I don't have the ability to verify the claims made about medicine and diet.

View quoted note → Here’s why you shouldn’t ask AI about finance or cryptography, and most notably, the technical aspects of Bitcoin. I asked because it didn't make sense to me, and the AI responded with a lengthy and complex explanation. If you just go along with it, it sounds plausible, but no matter how much I thought about it, the answer didn't seem right. Eventually, I asked someone knowledgeable, and they said there probably wasn't a special reason for it. It was just one of Bitcoin's many oddities that was originally designed that way and now can't be changed. If these AI systems don’t know, they should just say so. Instead, even when they don't know, they throw out all these sophisticated words, making it sound convincing.

When signing a Bitcoin transaction, there's a space within the transaction data reserved for the signature itself. Obviously, since the signature hasn't been created yet, we can't fill in the actual signature at this point—we create it later and insert it. The issue is that instead of just leaving this space empty, it's filled in with the locking script (scriptPubKey) of the UTXO being spent. Does anyone know why it's done this way? Is there some vulnerability that would arise if we left it blank when signing, or did Satoshi just design it this way arbitrarily, and now it's too late to change? I asked an AI, but either I asked poorly or it just gave me nonsense answers. #asknostr #devstr #bitcoin

I've been wondering why many Nostr web apps that support NIP-46 "Bunker Login" only seem to support the case where the bunker initiates the connection. When a user isn't logged in, there's no easy way to transfer the token created by the bunker (unless you use an external messenger or email, which is a clunky solution). It seems much more convenient for the client to create the token, display it as a QR code, and have the signer(@Amber) scan it. I recently learned while working on Jumble's code that the reason for this was a lack of support in nostr-tools for the client-initiated token creation method. Now that nostr-tools supports this feature, supporting the login flow to allow the client to create and send the token to the bunker would make the entire process much smoother.

This is true. If you believe that some kind of taxation is "necessary," or at least a necessary evil, then it can be said that Bitcoin will never be used completely freely as money. Of course, outright banning Bitcoin is not an easy task even for governments. But there's a much easier way. Rather than tampering with the internet, governments could simply make it illegal not to issue (government-reportable) receipts when someone pays via Bitcoin (or cash, gold, silver—anything enabling payments that don't leave a trace on the state's surveillance network). Then offer rewards for reporting or informing on others, and you'll have self-righteous Gestapo-like citizens scurrying around, eager to snitch, believing they're contributing to a just society. The result would be a society where citizens monitor other citizens. If you truly understand what fiat money is, then you can understand what kind of entity a government is that forces us to use it—and understanding that allows you to grasp what taxes really are. Anyone who believes taxes and the state are in some way necessary thereby contributes to building a surveillance and control society. There are even self-proclaimed "Bitcoiners" who loudly cry out for freedom when the government obstructs them, but cheer when it tramples on those they dislike; people who shout that inflation is theft when criticizing Democrats, yet stay silent when Republicans engage in money printing. Isn't that amusing? View quoted note →

I've muted my phone, but alarms and other sounds still go off. This whole system of separate volume controls for different categories is completely pointless. Who actually manages their sound settings that way? 'Mute' should mean MUTE for everything. It's a completely idiotic feature.

Is there a way to run something on a Windows computer that would make it operate as a Tor exit node with just one double-click, and that could automatically restart even after the computer reboots? Setting this up on neglected public computers in public institutions—where management is lacking—might actually work well.