I’ve decided I can confidently recommend Nostr to people around me once DMs are reliably delivered in about the top 5 apps by usage.

The most frustrating thing about Lightning is that, no matter how well I set things up, a payment fails if the counterparty’s side is misconfigured. The second annoyance is that when a payment fails, it’s hard to tell right away whether the problem is on my side or the other party’s. A better solution is needed.

In the past, while building a Nostr-related app, I realized that Nostr's pub-sub model lets you act as a server without needing a domain or a fixed IP — and I thought that was incredibly useful. Around the same time, looking at Lightning Address, I thought it was kind of lackluster, but figured it was unavoidable if you wanted a fixed receiving handle. Then not long ago I finally saw CLINK. Why didn't I think of that?!

I think I’ll get fired at work this year. Being a developer doesn’t seem to suit me, so I’m considering doing manual labor.

I’m wondering whether there is a “pay‑to‑read” service on Nostr. On many platforms, if I click a link to read an article, I’m immediately prompted to log in, so I just close the page. A micro‑payment system could be a better solution for that. Legacy social networks don’t have built‑in payment features, so it seems impossible there, but with Zap and Lightning becoming common on Nostr, it should be feasible, right? Would it be difficult to implement the part that receives the payment and distributes it? I haven’t thought about it deeply yet. In my usage pattern, when I click a link to a long‑form article that interests me on Nostr, I’d probably be fine with a small payment request. Nostr makes it possible with a single click.

3 hop 0 fee first time seeing something like this

I've noticed a lot of controversy in Western societies about introducing ID numbers. Since I live in a country that adopted this system decades ago, let me give you a heads up on a few things: Every single time you sign up for something, you'll experience hell. Site operators will also experience hell trying to manage all that personal data. You'll see news about personal data breaches pouring in almost every day. Using issue #3 as an excuse, they'll demand even more personal information under the pretext of better distinguishing identity theft from legitimate use. Idiots won't realize this whole mess stems from government policies that force companies to collect personal data in the first place—instead, they'll blame companies for "failing to manage it properly," causing social division. Enormous amounts of time and manpower will be wasted handling personal data that never would have been leaked if it hadn't been collected in the first place. Under the pretext of protecting personal information, government intervention in corporate operations will expand dramatically

I just eliminated 23 Nostr zombies using #PlebsVsZombies! 🔪🧟‍♂️🧟‍♂️ My Zombie Score™ was 10%! What's yours? 🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟩🟩 Follow @Plebs vs. Zombies 🧟‍♂️🪓 and join the hunt at: 🏹

Plebs vs. Zombies

Plebs vs. Zombies | Nostr Follow Manager

Clean up your Nostr follow list by identifying and removing dormant zombie accounts. Hunt zombies, manage follows, and keep your network alive!

People say on-chain zaps are dangerous because they make you a target. But here's the thing: if that's actually true, then promoting "accumulate Bitcoin as money" is way more dangerous. A couple months of salary gets you way more Bitcoin than someone could ever get from zaps in a lifetime. So either the security risk is real—in which case these people shouldn't be publicly known Bitcoin advocates in the first place—or it's not that serious. You can't have it both ways: tell people to accumulate Bitcoin while also warning them not to be seen with Bitcoin. Ironically, Krugman or Schiff staying quiet might actually be the most consistent move here. If holding Bitcoin visibly is dangerous, then not broadcasting it is the smarter play. These vocal Bitcoin advocates are basically contradicting their own security argument.

I've been thinking about inheritance, and I discovered something called the Liana wallet. It seems almost like a perfect solution. I created a script address that allows me to spend without any restrictions, while adding a time-lock condition for heirs—giving them the ability to spend after a relative time-lock of one year. No third parties or additional requirements needed. As long as I don't die suddenly and my heir doesn't simultaneously lose access to their device, it's quite secure. And since the script allows great flexibility, I can enhance safety further by using multiple keys in a multisig setup, while maintaining the same overall structure. As long as I remember to make one on-chain transaction every year, it should be nearly perfect.

There used to be a few things about real estate that I just couldn't wrap my head around. Take the 'squatting' controversy in the West, for example. The idea that someone could illegally occupy a vacant house, stay there long enough, and suddenly gain rights that make it impossible for the owner to evict them seemed absurd. I honestly thought America was turning into a socialist country when I first heard about it. Then there’s the fact that anyone can legally snoop on a property's registry just by knowing the address. I couldn't understand why complete strangers were allowed to check if a house was rented, owned, or heavily mortgaged just to guess someone's net worth. Or the lack of absolute 'legal conclusiveness' in the real estate registry. You hear these incredibly unfair stories of people buying a house trusting the official state ledger, only to lose their home later because the ledger had been forged sometime in the past. And finally, the concept of a tenant's 'opposing power'—the rule that a tenant must officially register their move-in to protect their deposit. I always thought, "If I signed a lease and handed over my money, shouldn't my deposit just be naturally guaranteed?" Life is full of laws that don't seem to make sense, so I mostly just brushed them off at the time. But as I dove into Bitcoin and started questioning what it truly means to 'own' something, all these disjointed mysteries suddenly clicked into place. The complex rules around a tenant's rights exist for a very specific reason. A lease is basically a private contract (a claim) between the tenant and the 'previous owner.' When the house is sold, from the perspective of the new owner who legitimately paid for the property rights, it is logically correct to argue, "Your deal was with the last guy, not me. Get out of my house." But what happens if the law just unconditionally protects the seemingly vulnerable tenant? A scammer could take out a massive mortgage, default on it, and then pull out a fake, backdated lease agreement made with a relative to screw over the bank when they come to seize the asset. That is why 'public disclosure' is required. By making the existence of a legitimate contract public at a specific time (like registering a move-in date), the government promises to review and recognize that right later. It’s a compromise. And the reason anyone is allowed to look up another person's property registry is precisely to maintain this public disclosure system. But herein lies the critical dilemma: the ledger managed by the government—which effectively acts as a 'monopolistic sequencer'—doesn't perfectly guarantee the truth. This is exactly why courts don't grant absolute legal conclusiveness to the real estate registry. Historically, there have been too many cases where the name written on the state ledger didn't match the true owner of the land. Fraudsters have long exploited wars or administrative chaos to manipulate the ledger and hijack property rights while the true owner was unaware. So, to make up for this flawed ledger, what happens if the law starts prioritizing 'actual physical possession' over paper documents? You end up with the exact squatting crisis we see in the West today. Whichever path is chosen, scams exploiting the legal loopholes will inevitably follow. The fundamental reason real estate is so legally tangled and fraught with endless lawsuits is that, technically speaking, perfectly proving ownership of a physical asset is impossible. It can only ever be 'presumed.' High-level verification requires massive costs. People wanted to protect their assets but didn't want to bear those verification costs, so they handed this complex arbitration over to a central authority: the government. This has become the root of many modern social problems. When the government unfairly takes a side, or when it becomes a player itself and intervenes in the market, we are left completely defenseless. This is the core reason why I don't see real estate as the ultimate store of wealth. I look beyond simple inflation hedging to the true essence of an asset: "Can I truly own it? Can I prove my ownership without needing anyone's permission?" For me, the only assets that pass that test are physical precious metals and Bitcoin.