Said the guy that still defends Bitcoin Core. Haven’t they done enough harm?
View quoted note →
Login to reply
Replies (32)
It would be funny if it were not sad, they somehow all seem to think that this onchain zaps thing is so much more dangerous than the whole OP_RETURN debate
Yeah tell me about it
Using bitcoin for financial transactions is dangerous?
Always was. Ask Ross.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but there seems to be a whole lot of worry about a few maybe subdust UTXOs. Is it ideal that one should receive 121 sats onchain? Of course not. Will it break Bitcoin? I don't think so. It's not like Nostr is being used by millions of people who all of a sudden are going to start zapping like there's no tomorrow, right?
I might be missing something here but I just don't get it, even if these were "attacks" meant to force unknowing people to transfer these tiny UTXOs and thus reveal the true nature of their Bitcoin wealth, who's actuality using their nsec as a private key?
onchain zaps don’t need to be tied to an npub. You can do onchain zaps via silent payments (this is the proper way to do it, not the retarded current spec)
We can discourage people using dust amounts by automatically choosing lightning zaps for small amounts and onchain zaps over a certain limit.
I see onchain zaps to be useful for commerce and other things. It’s all how we design these systems.
This is very reasonable, thanks for clarifying!
Don’t pretend you did not understand what he actually meant.
low iq
I got a good laugh when he said “Core is a meritocracy” — how the fuck is DEI and hiring your girlfriend to be a maintainer meritocracy????
You are now proving my point - you can’t even make an argument without ad hominem…
no, its just a more efficient way of saying you are too stupid to talk to.
but i would phrase it more like, “oh look, it makes retard sounds out of its facehole too. we should put it in a glass house and sell tickets.”
Yet here you are… again making yet another ad hominem lol
So we agree?
You must have missed View quoted note →
we are testing silent payments already.. coming up
yes but there are still many things to consider, like the private/public zap variants. Where public have blinded amounts to prevent linking the amount directly to a specific txn.
we can actually tie them for the owner of the nsec only.. the public can compute a silent payment address and send BTC to anyone without having that person setup an SP wallet. For the public, it will just be a new UTXO for each zap.
yep.. navigating those as well. The amount is a problem because given the time + amount, you can quickly find the transaction. So, I dont know if we will be able to ever publish the amount for others to see like we do with ln zaps.
How about I make an Ark payment to a key X, where X is some (SP-)tweaked version of your public key
So then I can zap you a small (SP) payment by sending you the relevant Ark data
If you don't claim the data, perhaps because the Nostr hint is lost, perhaps we can include a timelock that allows me to reclaim after a month
Yeah i always felt onchain would be better as private zaps by default
In such a way that nobody else sees the zap, only receiver and sender? It's fine but, then it's not a zap in my mind, it's just a "tip jar" like we used to do in the old days.
Zaps are cool exactly because you can see people liking a note. It's the social component that is key. I think it will be sad to see it disappear. But it is more private..
yeah i agree. I think blinded amount might be ok but it depends on how much variance there is on the amounts in a block so that the blindness adds enough deniability in the possible outputs
your preferred bitcoin client is using core code and everything core does to fix bugs so stop talking nonsense, until your preferred client starts maintaining the code you shitting on maintainers who's code your client is using
Are you by some chance mentally disabled?
this guy is borderline retarded I wouldn’t engage
I've noticed 😄
Which part of what I wrote is incorrect?
I’m obviously not taking issue with 99% of the Core codebase, especially since that same code is also part of Knots. I’m criticizing the 1% that’s been pushed over the last three years, along with all the surrounding bullshit that came with it. And incidentally, most of that 99% in Core wasn’t even written by the current maintainers, while the 1% in Knots that isn’t Core is maintained by Knots’ lead maintainer himself. So your statement wasn’t wrong, it was retarded, therefore I had to ask.
Cognitive Dissonance
/noun/
A psychological state experienced when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, values, or attitudes at the same time, or when their behavior conflicts with their beliefs.
Doxxing the scan key undermines the raison d'être of SP.