Wait, which one is your favourite? He wrote "The Bed of Procrustes" at 50 but I've never heard someone claiming that's their favourite. Peaking at 50 tho...I only have 7 yrs left. 😩
@fribbledom Why the head rest? I've only touched the head rest of my car seat once when I was reared by a truck. Not many trucks in my office these days.
@ZmnSCPxj Fair point. I think it is more a difference of being in an onboarding phase or not. During onboarding a consumer wants outgoing liquidity, and a merchant wants incoming. With experience those needs balance out.
LN needs to mature as well. Your merchant does not (yet) pay out his employees through LN, because his employees aren't on LN. So currently needs are probably skewed to one end or the other.
Sorry, my thoughts on this are still too rough to be implementable.
@ZmnSCPxj Does CLBOSS support different use cases? A consumer node has different needs than a merchant node. And a relaying node might have different needs altogether. LND's autopilot seems to be geared towards consumers exclusively. (I am not comparing CLBOSS to autopilot. CLBOSS does way more)
This is a really good (and entirely non-technical, for those who glaze over at equations) summary of a very thorny issue: repudiability in digital communications (it's technically only about DKIM, but the points made apply to other protocols than email).
I think I do agree with the conclusions, but it's something that isn't always so clear (how useful *in reality* are protocols like OTR, for example?)
Is it just me or are golang interfaces really confusing? I get it that it's low ceremony not having to declare the interface a type is using, but when reading code that is not your own (or that's old enough to be forgotten about entirely) it's just a pain in the butt. I'm constantly off on little puzzle tours finding interfaces that may or may not satisfy a signature.
I wrote a post on my debugging setup for LND.
Interested in how other people did this. I couldn't find much about this, so I had to figure most of this stuff out by myself.
"We didn't call it fuzzing back in the 1950s, but it was our standard practice to test programs by inputting decks of punch cards taken from the trash.
We also used decks of random number punch cards. We weren't networked in those days, so we weren't much worried about security, but our random/trash decks often turned up undesirable behavior.
Every programmer I knew used the trash-deck technique."
-- Gerald M. Weinberg
It is proven! I am gijsvandam on Keybase: https://keybase.io/gijsvandam/sigchain#57a11e7d449abdae54b1773cc974fa4f7476fb9bb0b05b7c586d268d1f108d130f