Nuh

There is a new trend of "start centralized/trustful and decentralise/trustless when the need arise" that you can't unsee everywhere; - Bluesky - Hyperliquid - all Rollups - Ark - Cashu mints I am not sure how to feel about that, because... It is efficient you can't argue against that, and until regulations crack down it is hard to justify the complexity. Arguably, even Bitcoin didn't start with as much decentralisation as it has now, Satoshi could have reorged the chain anytime he wanted in the beginning, no? There is a formula between decentralisation and the value secured by that decentralisation... Too much decentralisation is wasteful for no value, and too little is dangerous for too much value.

Bluesky DAU is coming down back to match Mastodon soon... That's a GG. Message passing won, large indexers didn't earn their keep.

I don't care what people say, saying that SPV nodes are less secure than full nodes (in a network with significant minority of honest miners and honest relays) is absurd.

The original sin was calling them ledgers instead of message queues

Nostr was always a weird beast, it is neither a shameless message passing protocol like Activity Pub, nor is it highly consistent through centralisation like At protocol, nor is it highly consistent through proof of publication (DA) like Farcaster. Instead, it is more like the Bitcoin mempool than anything else, a broadcast network that is too unreliable for good UX, but its main goal is to just let things eventually slip through a supposed censorship. Admirable really, but it doesn't work any better than sharing links in group chats and emails until they reach their target audience. I am afraid that the only viable way for censorship resistant yet reliable broadcasting is a scalable proof of publication ephemeral decentralized ledger... Luckily that is also the endgame solution for scaling payments so it will eventually happen, but I am not sure anyone cares to broadcast their tweets so much as to pay for it, especially that it only guarantees that the data is available, but it doesn't guarantee that anyone will read it or see it at all, anymore than Bitcoin guarantees that a transaction is going to appear on people's wallets if they don't ask for it. Which brings me to the question... Is this just a note taking app?

There is no such thing as opposition in zionism, all zionists are genocidal scum that are also supremacists and shameless enough to demand you don't believe your own eyes because they said so... nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqntcggz30qhq60ltqdx32zku9d46unhrkjtcv7fml7jx3dh4h94nqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmny9uqzqscwc0wshme9nmemq8eqk93l6nwutf9ytass94u8xqh99xt7ans9c52f7r

Watched an old debate between Shinobi and someone called Connor, and there must be like 50 IQ points difference between them... Depressing to see someone just too stupid to understand basic concepts.

This is a horrible ad given that most people still don't know that BTC is divisible nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqntcggz30qhq60ltqdx32zku9d46unhrkjtcv7fml7jx3dh4h94nqythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskuep0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqzp4fs2r6tg9wlsk7r8et3wc7tx30evvy6n86gs6a3eenrked8fqmx88hfn5

There is a revisionist idea that Web 2.0 created walled gardens because (insert your least favourite thing) is evil, in reality walled gardens are just well scoped well aligned group of people with incentives to cooperate for the purpose of good experience. The only other sustainable form of interoperability are; 1. Open source Dictatorship (Linux, Git, etc..) 2. Standards committees plutocracy (even worse than #1) 3. Adversarial interoperability; where you reverse engineer your competitors formats to steal their edge (.PSD, etc..) #1 and #3 are the source of all the good things in the web. If you want to change thing about Nostr, just build the best app you want, capture as much of the user base as you can, and everyone will just follow you, and you will save yourself the drama. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp22rfmsktmgpk2rtan7zwu00zuzax5maq5dnsu5g3xxvqr2u3pd7qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskuep0qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcqyp5t6k4a7wfsvalehv044lntcdhvfdwazq8y9a2jyrevmv2gv7av6l0emsx

A great day and a glorious memory, may we live long enough to see the happy ending of this struggle for justice.

Happy to see zcash rallying, maybe Bitcoiners can stop dismissing all competition as scam and realize a real upgrade is required.

It is safe to express your hatred for genocidal scum, be proud of it. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqntcggz30qhq60ltqdx32zku9d46unhrkjtcv7fml7jx3dh4h94nqythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskuep0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uqzqje4eyzqll5f4vgjykczjhz82p62v6gq6lh2cdv977hdn030w24h3xt8j8

For a Blockchain to remain decentralised, you have to limit the number of Utxos, because everything else can be compressed, but you need this full set to be able to produce new blocks, and for users to create transactions... But that already sounds like Pools, and indeed, a trustless pool is a Blockchain (or call it a distributed event log if you want) with a hard limit on the size of UTXO set. There can only be so many pools on Bitcoin, because Bitcoin too needs to limit its utxo set, but the limit is very large, and there is still shallow recursion (pools inside pools) if necessary. Cross pools finality will always be slow though, but it will probably still be faster than banks finality (30 days).

Bitcoin is a temporary proof of publishing,, if you think data on Bitcoin will live forever in any special way unlike any other torrent file, you are wrong. Even UTXOs can be deleted and nodes demand that you send your Utreexo proof to spend. Nothing is forever, everything has maintaince costs and if not paid, they get entropied. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpycvemcjxuka9utq2l8u2ncdhk2rxhvt2x6wyumjx6cqe2m33lxeqythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qqsywsgmf43wlp7fvhjter4023ay67s9m89h4r7qldnw7je3mktzqlshng3c4

You can verify arbitrary computations over private inputs, on Bitcoin, right now. Time to build useful stuff with that.

Simulate soft forks or bust

Liquid federation would have been better off as a trusted cosigner of transactions on Bitcoin to enable opt-in opcodes.

I bring you good news; centralisation will forever remain crippled by compliance... Want decentralisation? Build tools for the anarchists who understand the sovereignity of the Internet and practice it.

Bitcoin has PoW, and open permissionless set of block producers, but if we had 50000 banks backed by Bitcoin, each with permissionless Lateral exit from one bank to another, and proof of reserves enforced on Bitcoin, this is a future that is of course scalable, but also more private and not at all obvious if it is any less sovereign than L1 ... Yes there are caveats, but sovereignity on Bitcoin has plenty of caveats too.

Filter people want compliant Bitcoin nodes ... I wonder how long before KYC is part of Knots consensus. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpfuk6ev6zxd7822qpx0tvxhmu8majypwx5r0uph5zckx7whyn95jqyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcqyrcx45q7r6ayclg4l7enm4k46h5gr32uxqmxnczt32gleqfj4y8y6lkc2ey