As to Fedimint, I only have two technical questions. Say, a majority of minters have colluded to steal user funds, is it then possible to cryptographically prove that: 1. A stealing money transfer was not authorized by any federation users (so it is in fact a steal, not just business as usual)? 2. It is known which exact federation members have signed it off and it is known that all of them understood it's a stealing transfer when signing it? If the answer to any of these questions is NO then I'm afraid Fedimint is often worse than a single custodian in a way that they may steal money and avoid legal responsibility. Since it's a custodial solution an enforcement ultimately lies in realm of law, and the problem with group crimes like this is you need to determine who exactly committed a crime here, otherwise a whole group can't be punished (because they all will be pointing at each other, and some of them may be innocent, and then you have presumption of innocence at play).

If I could, I'd bet that no LSP will eventually survive under scale due to liquidity requirements alone. Unfortunately, it's hard to set a timeline for each one because some are backed by generous VC, others don't have that many users.

Do you really think LN demand is so inelastic that enough rug-pulled custodial users are going to start eating a cactus of LN self-custody? I think they'd just switch back to credit cards.

Please help me out here, here's a scheme: 1. Strike user authorizes a $100 worth LN payment to website, internally strike converts them into BTC which at the moment costs, say, $100000. 2. Website holds incoming 0.001 BTC payment for, say, 6 hours. 2.1. If BTC price rises during that time to, say, $110000 then user has sent $110 at that point. Website accepts a payment, converts it to USD, sends $105 USD back to user. 2.2. If BTC price declines during that time to, say, $90000 then user has sent $90 at that point. Website cancels a payment. 2.2.2. If $90 gets back to user account at Strike, then Strike users are susceptible to an attack where payee is incentivized to hold each incoming payment they send. 2.2.1. If $100 gets back to user account at Strike, then Strike itself is susceptible to this kind of attack. Has this been discussed?

I see someone calling Elmo a cuck I renostr, it's that simple.

Btw, if you think Mutiny/Zeus is some kind of weird bad actor issue, it's not. It's yet another manifestation of deep issues with LN itself and it will be coming up in various forms again and again and will be bombarding all these shiny startups until they have no energy or users left and until WoS is the only thing left for obvious reasons.

A "bitcoin community" coming out as a group of tyrannical, elitist assholes who care about nothing but wealth and power will be hilarious if and once Bitcoin wins, won't it?

"custodial nostr" "layer 2 for nostr" "not your server not your events" what if you guys should just touch some fucking grass?