there are (were?) unknown bugs causing lnd to be resource heavy. In principle, it should be as low impact as a lightning client written in C, but not at all in practice

I don't know if the bugs are in the Go runtime/compiler, or in LND itself. When I wrote that comment, neither did anyone at lightning labs
 


actual rust-lightning is not production-ready last I heard.


I don't really get your issue about the language/dependencies for c-lightning plugins; just don't use any plugin you don't like?

sorry, forgot to mention I am also trying descriptor wallets. Maybe an sqlite bug? Debian Buster is now old stable (as to why Buster: "Qubes" is the short answer)

To create the descriptor wallet (for use with a Trezor 1), I followed the sequence of bitcoin-cli commands in the "Use with Bitcoin Core" section on the HWI repo. I found Core's own documentation to be variously wrong (or outdated?). I guess it's still rc.


when entering two different URI's (via File -> Open URI), only the first fills out the send form. For any subsequent URI, the send form remains blank, or still contains the previous address/amount from the 1st URI (I guess it's typically cleared once the tx broadcasts ok? I'm not using the Core gui so often )

well, yeah. It's just new is all, any bugs are not currently obvious, but that doesn't mean there aren't bugs. Time helps to be sure(r).

yes, a few people started talking about dual-funding in this thread a couple months back, some even used it to make channels (apparently)

it's still accessed using --experimental-features in c-lightning, so craeful craeful etc

steps to reproduce:

1. open Bitcoin Core Qt 22.0rc2
2. enter payment URI
3. send
4. send succeeds
5. enter a different URI
6. GUI does not register the uri details in the send "tab"

only restart seems to reset whatever it is needs state resetting

this is involving my testing of HWI with 22.0, FWIW. Latest HWI, Debian Buster as a Qubes VM

@achow101, I believe

note that if you're simply counting the 3- addresses (without waiting for them to be spent from), there is no way of knowing whether they're segwit addresses or some other type of script.

with 3- addresses, the spend script is concealed until spending time, from which point the BTC is no longer stored at that address anyway.

without using the -connect= parameter? How does it do it, crawling random IPs? O_o

ot, but...

red flag rate of return IMO

any time ROI is at or approaching >10%, there is a strong tendency for the company/platform to pay out reliably... for a while, and then reliably disappear into a puff of smoke


I would suggest not talking about this kind of thing, lest you be accused (fairly or unfairly) of shilling for such schemes

"Defi" is just the latest media-hype buzzword. Asking anyone "what does Defi actually mean?" is a good way of discovering what kind of person they are (hint: the more confident and/or specific reply they give, the more full of shit they are ) It's part of a newsmedia storyline designed to influence how people think about the cryptocurrency marketplace, and so not particularly reflecting reality

taproot/schnorr do indeed enable cheaper complex scripting, and they add some more possibilities of what Bitcoin scripts can achieve. But this is really laying the groundwork for future possibilities, all of which need taproot/schnorr simply to make complex contract scripting viable (i.e. the transactions cannot be too expensive)


for something real, regarding Bitcoin at least, check out "discrete log contracts" (DLC). That technology is _a step_ toward some kind of network layers on top of Bitcoin that could enable more possible types of smart contract systems (but does not focus on smart contracts, it enables a panoply of other possibilities also)

DLC is still in full-on research and design mode afaia, didn't check the details recently. It too will have limitations (assuming it actually come to fruition)

unless you count the tox DHT seeders, but according to this logic, Bitcoin is similarly centralized (because of the DNS seeders to bootstrap addrman)



that's what tox does already. Tox is nearly 10 years old, so this new idea is not the first message/video call network that doesn't need a phone number

right, but any email supplier can use this API, and will no doubt re-write their terms & conditions so that they can (and their business model involves selling user data already)


this is solving a problem that doesn't exist, and potentially undoing any privacy benefits of Lightning to boot. You can bet the most glitzily advertised, simple, colorful implementation will be surreptitiously funded by some hedge fund, bank and/or government spies.

invoices as QR codes or URI's are just as easy, and it's much easier to retain privacy while using them

I wouldn't use it or promote it.

• email infrastructure has been on the path to centralization for years, it's a cartel now in essence
• almost everyone uses the monopolists email service

LNURL will probably end up unsupported anyway (lightning devs are coming up with a different standard), so using this protocol means supporting 2 other protocols that are on their way to obsolescence

I realize that there may not be any privacy problems depending on how it's implemented, but I'm still not interested; it's using a creaky centralized system that is otherwise on the way out

I'm pretty sure Gene Simmons is one of many music "stars" who is against peer-to-peer network tech, when he doesn't like the outcome (i.e. he can no longer sell $0.01 pieces of plastic for $10.00 )

So it's maybe a little hypocritical for those like him to jump on this particular bandwagon. But he's also maybe he's figured it out: this tech is very difficult to stop, so if you can't beat 'em...

right, the articles pre-supposes that google (or even anyone) have a working quantum computer that they are using to discover other phenomena.

last I heard, quantum computers can only be made to work for a fraction of 1 second before the qubits decohere, so for how long can a static-yet-dynamic phase of matter be maintained, when it requires an experimental quantum computer to be running before they get it going?

concur with the op; unless they can use this to create warp drive spacecraft engines, or predict the outcome of horse races, I. don't. care.

they've got it already, they can sign any data and put it in their block reward transaction. someone has said this in the thread already

because

• it's easy to fake
• if the units of a currency aren't uniform, acceptance could be harmed

really you're straying into various ideological territories with this thread, which is not what the dev and tech forum is about


technically, what you're suggesting cannot be achieved, which you readily conceded earlier. why are you still talking?

sure. potential long-conners are the most dangerous though.

the more trust supporters have in some celebrity, the less they are willing to believe they're not being conned.


Edit: latest iteration is....

Michael Saylor


this whole "good explainer" label is quite similar to "slick promoter" or "PR master"... which are just euphemisms for "accomplished liar"


and Saylor has already created a "Bitcoin Mining cartel Association", of which he modestly and benevolently acts as the chairman. And there are, of course, a constant stream of threads both here and on social media, hero-worshipping Saylor, which his personal PR reps definitely did not make themselves

no, the victim doesn't pay the fees. we agreed earlier on in the thread that the attacker paying the fees of the correct channel close was part of the deterrent in eltoo, it seems you forgot how... fishy

And so if anything, increasing fee environments dissuade an attempted attack; if the victim notices a false close, they could choose any time they like during the timeout's validity to inflict as much fees as possible on the attacker.

you're both making them all sound worse

Adam certainly sounds terrible, but lest we forget bitcoin celebrities of yesteryear such as Erik Voorhees, who was absolutely on-board with an attempted corporate-backed takeover (with various other bitcoin celebrities cheerleading, and who all now hope we forgot... )


reiterating my point: celebrities who make a career out of talking about anything have an uncanny tendency to use their entire career as a confidence trick.

1. gain credentials/qualifications somehow (many ways to do this)
2. gain followers
3. repeat steps 1-2 for months or years
4. trick the followers into following you off the edge of a cliff
5. your real boss (some rich asshole) pays you off

this does not happen just in bitcoin, the "media" is full of these characters on a constant loop. someone like Andreas worries me, because if he pulls a trick on you, it will be very smart and very significant simultaneously, precisely because people trust him so much

YES! INFINITY BITCOINS!