@Blockshill @TallTim if a wallet is paying you, it seems like you’re the product. Id find a new wallet.

@Sosthene @TallTim it really is absurd.. who would want the details of their personal (dating) life preserved forever in some blockchain? Who would want to pay a transaction fee for just agreeing to meet up for coffee, have their first kiss, or whatever? How on earth does anyone think this actually address or solve any issues of abuse?

I'm amazed that someone is spending their time to push crap like this. They must be either woefully misinformed, or a shameless scammer.

Sorry to pollute the timeline, but here is a dating app 'bUiLt oN tHe bLocKcHaIn':

Nothing kills the mood like block variance when waiting for that consent tx to confirm : /

a local hackerspace has a beer vending machine hooked up for LN payments. Admittedly not the best investment, but the quick thrill of seeing a can pop out of the machine after sending payment was worth it.. I think :p

Agreed, I think it’ll be a nice change that’ll clean the site up a bit. It’s telling that there wasn’t really much pushback whatsoever, most of the regular users seem more than happy to see the change.

Keep in mind, 'Bitcoin banks' already exist: many users store coins in a centralized exchange, and some exchanges allow users to transact with other exchange customers, without ever publishing transactions to the chain. That satisfies at least some definition of 'bank'.

With that in mind, I think federated sidechains can allow a much better trust model than a single centralized exchange can. If banks are to exist (and they will), lets minimize the risks involved in using them.

I don't disagree with your sentiment, and a *crucial* point in any case is that the user maintains the option of permissionless access to the network. Without that, Bitcoin becomes less potent, less interesting... perhaps even broken entirely.

But, I also meant to point out that a 'bitcoin bank' would be unable to control the wider system in the same way a central bank can. Monetary policy isn't corruptible, and the money itself is unforgeable. That seems to be an improvement.

@harding @FreePietje
This is sort of related to the idea that 'Bitcoin replaces central banks, not retail banks'. Bitcoin banks will be retail at best, since they can offer access to the network, but not define the wider network's rules.

Even if a nationstate instituted laws requiring citizens to engage with 'nationstate-sidechain', that seems like a better situation than being forced to use 'nationstate-manipulated-fiat'. If trust exists, lets minimize the damage when it is abused.

@harding @FreePietje
So perhaps, through tech like sidechains + LN interoperability, we can maintain a trustless network, while allowing trust-minimized access through more localized (socially scalable) services.

Users still maintain the option of completely trustless interaction, but they also have the ability to engage with a trust-minimized service that is within their social-scalability-scope. I don't expect this to be celebrated by hardcore bitcoiners, but it is interesting to consider.

@harding @FreePietje
More broadly, humans living in societies will form relationships that involve trust, but as society grows we run into problems of 'social scalability' - its hard to develop meaningful, trusting relationships with a huge number of people. Hence, Bitcoin is very interesting because it allows us to interact economically on a global scale, without trusting a central admin.

@harding @FreePietje
I'd agree with you both, I think that 'trust' may not be the primary motive for use, but there is implicit trust in engaging a bank's services (& hopefully the client isn't forced into a situation where trust is misplaced- but thats a whole other can of worms that is sorta separate to my original point).

Interesting idea I encountered the other day:

Sidechains + LN's currency agnosticism = scalability!

I think this could be a very interesting development: while the sidechain trust model is different, it could be trust-minimized enough to be used comfortably by many users. A lot of people already trust a bank with their money, is a proper sidechain much different? You could still pay BTC-denominated LN invoices, and its explicitly opt-in. Seems like a reasonable possible future.

@laurentmt @kallewoof
I think an argument could be made that a nation capable of breaking the related encryption mechanisms using a QC might be more interested in breaking other encryption systems quietly, rather than just attacking Bitcoin.
Being able to decipher all of your rival nation's communications might be worth more than siphoning some value from / destroying Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is the canary in the coal mine, the attacker would be prudent to let it live as long as possible.

@kallewoof @stevenroose
Agreed, and in line with what @steven said, for most users the cost of running a full node probably isn't worth keeping $40 worth of BTC transactions private anyways.
These days, I can't imagine many users will start out with a full node, it takes understanding and investment to get there, I think.

I do think that is true, critical thinking will be an essential skillset in a world of 'deep fakes'.

This all reminds me of an Assange quote, I don't recall the exact line, but it was to the effect: It is less resource intensive to tell a truth, than to tell a lie and need to fabricate the circumstances surrounding that lie. The cost of maintaining a lie should always be higher, so it seems purveyors of truth will have an inherent advantage in a hyper-connected world.

So, a BCH hardfork made it impossible to recover funds accidentally sent to segwit addresses.
Later, another hardfork made it again possible to recover those funds.
At that time, a miner created a transaction to recover them, and then mined it.
Soon after, some other miners coordinated a 51% attack to roll back the chain and claim it for themselves instead.

Mostly I'm surprised that people are surprised by this... what did they think was going to happen? Really?

@FreePietje @waxwing
I've been wondering the same about Gab's brave fork - do they have the resources to remain competitive and secure?

I do hope they can pull it off though, while I do find value in Brave insofar as it is very privacy-focused, the shitcoin scam hangs a heavy cloud over it. I find it hard to imagine a world where tokens become commonplace (friction!), so maybe one day Brave themselves will drop the scam and embrace the commons.

I like this take. It seems people have not caught up to the current paradigm of information freedom, they're used to 'curated truths'.
Unforgeable monetary freedom might just be unforgiving enough to teach many a lesson

@stevenroose @kallewoof
what about a privacy argument? Even if you're transacting smaller amounts, I think at least some users might bear the cost of a node for privacy sake. But also, many will not.

Show more
Bitcoin Mastodon

A mastodon instance for Bitcoin Maximalists.
No scams, no shitcoin, no impersonation, no begging, and no illegal content.
Keep it civil and we should all survive :)