I'm checking out Sphynx.chat which @jack just tweeted about.
It appears to be a way to chat over LN. I know they were working on that technology but I did not realise that it was implemented.
Does anyone know much about the tech behind it? Is it truly all living on the LN or is it reliant upon the Sphynx server?
It is truly LN native. But there are "custodial" plans that the Sphinx folks sell. You can run your own server. Most of the Lightning node in a box distros offer it. I am doing HUGE transaction volume based on this tech through my node since i have set my fees to zero when going to the podcastindex node (Adam Curry). Breez has also implemented some crossover stuff... not the chatting, but the podcast/streaming stuff. Very cool. Which would mean it's an uncensorable chat system... I think it's time I set up a Lightning Node. I've just been using custodial stuff but the time has come. My former maid just asked my wife about Bitcoin since she's from El Salvador. I need to figure out the best way for her to get paid over the LN and send it to her family without being too complicated. Strike is not available here in Panama yet. I would be delighted to help with this. And I have some simple suggestions. Forgive me if you do not want them.  Wallets: Non-Custodial: Breez, Phoenix Custodial: Wallet of Satoshi, Bluewallet The reason to even consider a custodial wallet (for the receiving family) is for simplicity and security. It ties your account to an email address so a lost phone is not the end of the world. Breez backs up to google drive (I do not find this acceptable for a "grandma" level user). Phoenix backs up to a 12 word seed. Maybe better than Breez, but still not grandma level. The security tradeoffs are the question here. It's too bad strike does not work in Panama yet because it offers several advantages. It is tax free. You pay in USD which avoids tax implications, and it is drop dead simple. But since it is not an option, I would look at coinos.io. It can be custodial, or you can point it at your own node(s). You send it some BTC (or L-BTC) and you can just send that out over lightning to whatever wallet they choose. Anyway, You might already have this all under your belt... but I have done a LOT of work with lightning and I know my way around it by now. My tolerance for trade offs may also be higher than yours. I would think sending lightning size amounts of money do not need base layer type security guarantees. I would suggest WoS for the recipient just because there is the most chance they know someone who uses it... Anyway feel free to reach out if I can help! |
|
|
|
|
We use these words. million, billion, trillion. Just like 1,2,3 right? Humans do not grasp logarhytmic progressions well. 1 million seonds? 11 days. Last week! Billion seconds? 31 years. Maybe you were a teenager... maybe in your twenties? Trillion seconds? 31,000 years. 24k before the first recorded human civilizations. Now let's do dollars. Nah.. we're done with those.
|
|
|
|
Here's fkn chart for ya:  Seems to me the St Louis Fed is on our side a little. They are not the bullshit slaver types like Yellin or Legarde. Always been interesting. |
|
|
|
I'm checking out Sphynx.chat which @jack just tweeted about.
It appears to be a way to chat over LN. I know they were working on that technology but I did not realise that it was implemented.
Does anyone know much about the tech behind it? Is it truly all living on the LN or is it reliant upon the Sphynx server?
It is truly LN native. But there are "custodial" plans that the Sphinx folks sell. You can run your own server. Most of the Lightning node in a box distros offer it. I am doing HUGE transaction volume based on this tech through my node since i have set my fees to zero when going to the podcastindex node (Adam Curry). Breez has also implemented some crossover stuff... not the chatting, but the podcast/streaming stuff. Very cool. Which would mean it's an uncensorable chat system... I think it's time I set up a Lightning Node. I've just been using custodial stuff but the time has come. My former maid just asked my wife about Bitcoin since she's from El Salvador. I need to figure out the best way for her to get paid over the LN and send it to her family without being too complicated. Strike is not available here in Panama yet. Not only that but if I understand correctly it is also encrypted. This is exactly the kind of stuff chains like BSV (and ETH) are touting as the future but instead of storing every last thing on layer 1 we move all that traffic off to a more appropriate platform. It's all unfolding beautifully. |
|
|
|
37k and hodling
not bad.
$37k won't hold and we all know it. I think you are even more correct than usual about this! |
|
|
|
He is such an interesting "hero" in the BTC space. He is seemingly anti a lot of the right-libertarian/anarchist vibe so strong in the Bitcoin world. He seems a bonafide techno-leftist, and yet he has very FIRMLY fallen in with the maxi sort of position. Piffy paf wing wang...  Just reeling a little as i realize what a huge pivotal moment this is. We sit in here and yammer on and on about the price... and various other things... But THIS development along side the ES thing is going to be a make or break moment for Bitcoin and the scaling path we have chosen. Twitter implimenting the lightning network is actually a bigger test than the El Salvador thing. Or equal. It will obviously light up the BANKS!!! BANKS!!! people because twitter will obviously be running a giant node and all on Twitter traffic will be most likely off chain entirely. But they obviously seem to be intending to send and receive OFF of the platform otherwise why even go to the trouble. Jack Mallers is going to be one rich dude in the end. Go Gen Z! (By the way it sort of delights me that this is a Gen X/ Gen Z joint.. let the Boomer/Millennial people hate on each other all day and the quiet ones will get some shit done... lol) |
|
|
|
I'm checking out Sphynx.chat which @jack just tweeted about.
It appears to be a way to chat over LN. I know they were working on that technology but I did not realise that it was implemented.
Does anyone know much about the tech behind it? Is it truly all living on the LN or is it reliant upon the Sphynx server?
It is truly LN native. But there are "custodial" plans that the Sphinx folks sell. You can run your own server. Most of the Lightning node in a box distros offer it. I am doing HUGE transaction volume based on this tech through my node since i have set my fees to zero when going to the podcastindex node (Adam Curry). Breez has also implemented some crossover stuff... not the chatting, but the podcast/streaming stuff. |
|
|
|
It will not be very many years before tech gets to where we can move the blocksize up.
So I think it is still worth talking about.
-Currently I am mining on a 32thread 16 core CPU I bought for $700. In a number of years 16 core cellphone processors will be a thing. (Not for mining for the most part, but for all the hashing done to validate things quicly enough)
-$400 will get you a 16T hard drive today.
-5G has Terabyte speeds at low latency WITHOUT WIRES.
For reference, the RPi 4 is based on the ARM-Cortex A72 which is from 2014. The Raspberry Pi computers are not designed to be bleeding edge and they are (I believe) run with a small technical team which means it takes time for them to get to market. Also, I'm not sure how much it's changed but I seem to recall they had trouble getting certain technical specs from the manufacturers. As I have said the whole "must be runable on a Pi" ethos is misguided IMHO. But there needs to be SOME minimum hardware requirement target, and though I think the Pi is too low, I would rather have too low than too high. At least it's the Pi4. |
|
|
|
He is such an interesting "hero" in the BTC space. He is seemingly anti a lot of the right-libertarian/anarchist vibe so strong in the Bitcoin world. He seems a bonafide techno-leftist, and yet he has very FIRMLY fallen in with the maxi sort of position. Piffy paf wing wang... |
|
|
|
He is such an interesting "hero" in the BTC space. He is seemingly anti a lot of the right-libertarian/anarchist vibe so strong in the Bitcoin world. He seems a bonafide techno-leftist, and yet he has very FIRMLY fallen in with the maxi sort of position. |
|
|
|
I would think that in a place like this most of us are awake. But I could be wrong. We are in a global war gentlemen. Do you all know that? No, I am not being hyperbolic. Understandable that you would think so. I am thinking about writing a longer tome about it, as there are MANY facets to what I am seeing, political, economic, etc. Think about this: We have been thinking for many decades that the next war would be this global disaster with cities going up in great plumes of radioactive explosions, perhaps with great armies moving into the battlefield like the most recent wars past. Yet we have not. Pax Americana was enforced by concentrated surgical strikes and economic hegemony. So different a world that the one prior that the masses could be lulled into a sense that it was actual peace, when indeed we have been fighting non-stop for a century nearly. And the world has changed on almost every front in that time. We have become a connected world of information, and just as our jobs (many of them) have morphed into pure data, so has the fight. The way this war is being fought is so different from every one before that it is not even recognizable. Just as EVERY war before the great two world wars was entirely different than those conflicts, the war we are in today looks nothing like those wars, at least not yet. And I believe the goal of those pulling the levers is to fight it with as few casualties as possible. Just look at how Covid was engineered. I am not going to go deep on this here... but there is a part of it that should be becoming obvious to us humble bitcoiners in 3... 2... 1... We are about to be dragged onto the battlefield whether we want to be or not. And it might get messy for us. Next front? They are beginning to call the Miami bitcoin conference a "Super Spreader" event. One headline even called the attendees "Anarchists". The global forces behind the war we are in have a very specific plan for the economy of the Earth, including a global tax, as well as CDBCs allowing them to redistribute wealth by central control. The media (absolutely compromised, and a central front in the war) is going to start spinning up every argument possible about the evils of bitcoin. We ain't seen nothin' yet. We are natural enemies of the powers that be. We always knew it. But shit is getting very VERY real. Oh, and they are almost certainly in here with us too. You should suspect me of being a possible spook for example, with all my love of the banks, etc. . And I will return the favor. But we must also remain vigilant to not be divided. I DO NOT CARE if you like big blocks (and you cant deny?). I do not care about your personal politics. We are brothers in digital arms. Good luck to us! Oh, and by the way... We win. |
|
|
|
Why not a adjustable limit based on a previous median timeframe?
Because on top of compromising decentralization for usability (the degree of compromise can and has been argued to death, and no there's no free lunch here) it introduces new attack vectors Could you link that explanation for me, I'm not aware of how compromising decentralization could happen in this instance? I'm usually pretty good at identifying attack vectors but I don't see the one here. Ugh this again, it's rather simple, but lets try a flow chart -nodes matter to decentralization -------------NO---> go to: Faketoshi and BSv
|
YES
|
\|/
-larger capacity leads to higher resource use ------NO---> go to: math class
|
YES
\|/
-raising resource reqs eliminates minimum req nodes (Pis can't handle 100mb blocks) ----NO---> go to: math class
|
YES
\|/
-Less nodes, less decentralization -NO-> go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization
|
YES
\|/
-Voilą
Some big blockers went full retard and argued for unlimited blocks, enter Faketoshi with his enterprise data center nodes Other like Richy_T argues for cost/benefit compromise, for multiple reasons market decided against this thus here we are It will not be very many years before tech gets to where we can move the blocksize up. So I think it is still worth talking about. -Currently I am mining on a 32thread 16 core CPU I bought for $700. In a number of years 16 core cellphone processors will be a thing. (Not for mining for the most part, but for all the hashing done to validate things quicly enough) -$400 will get you a 16T hard drive today. -5G has Terabyte speeds at low latency WITHOUT WIRES. Countries are coming online to bitcoin. So this topic is not going away. That is for SURE. |
|
|
|
I just don't see that. Banks don't need small blocks to remain necessary.
FYI, small block force a side chain solution which is centralized and that in lies the problem. I just don't understand why dynamic blocks are just not discussed, it smells of agenda. Maybe it's not an agenda, but a blind spot? I think it's just equated with fancy big blocks. And not all layer-2 is centralized. Lightning has the capacity to be very well distributed, and is currently. My humble node is routing payments all over. |
|
|
|
Hello gentlemen. How have things been going?
A country accepts bitcoin as legal tender yet the price barely moves. I would have thought this would be a rocket launching event. The problem is that the market is figuring out how bad of an investment bitcoin is and how it's is definitely and indefinitely crashing. So lots of countries might make it legal tender, but the down trend will remain. In fact, we know that as more countries adopt bitcoin the lower the price will go. In that case, you have to be right... Oh well, pack it up. |
|
|
|
|
It is rare I will agree with whiney Cobra, but I do, in this case. His namecoin example is a good one. I have exactly one other coin that I believe offers something BTC cannot natively.
Just about all the rest of it??? ETH for example. All that functionality can be built atop BTC. Will it be? Or will ETH (or one of it's killers) continue to exist? Dunno.
|
|
|
|
OK... So we ended a great run recently...
Not price.
Transactions.
After jumping up to over 30 per day avg, after the Muskpocalypse we seemed to have dumped back down to just a little more than 1/2 that.
What does this mean?
hodling/indecision Hah, I needed to sell a few right when we peaked 500 but was in no hurry to finish the kyc (Kraken) and bam off a cliff! I haven't sold since before alphabay so what are the odds? 
What do you guys do to offboard these days?BTW, you been quite lately, all well? Shit, gotta check out, bbl When I got in I bought Monero with about 80% of my bitcoin. In ~2015 it got up enough that I could sell 1/3rd of it to get back my total BTC stake. Since then I have only ever done some small transactions to and from other alts, LTC, or the like... almost not at all. I have no plan, which may be a bad thing... we will see. |
|
|
|
The white paper is always brought up. And Satoshi had not anticipated ASICS (who knows if that later Satoshi email is real where "he" talks about exactly that) and that changed EVERYTHING. It made the idea of the "validation node" important. Vitally important. We discovered by this tech that between hashing, and consensus validation the latter *might* be more important, though they go deeply hand in hand.
Many would have been happy with cautious size increases. There's no real justification behind the 1MB (as would be expected from it being implemented as an anti-DOS measure when blocks were tiny) and the theoretical maximum while still maintaining your goals is much higher than that. I'd advise not getting wrapped up in Raspberry Pis. They are cool devices and I own many but they are not optimal for this kind of service by any means. They are radically underpowered and even within the realms of SBCs, there are more powerful options available. It's not a binary choice between cell phone processors from the early 2010s and supercomputers in datacenters. I also disagree with the usefulness of "validation nodes". They don't have zero value but they're not as useful as people think and they're certainly not worth crippling the network for just so people can run them on sub-par hardware. If your security is worth $40 per transaction, it's certainly worth more than a $40 computer. I am among those who thinks reasonable blocksize increases would be a good thing. I actually pointed out in the taproot activation thread here that the unsung best part of that being done well is it proves that Bitcoin can govern itself better than many had feared after the 2017 fight. And I even mentioned that this (though a much more popular change) gave me hope that some day we could revisit block size increases as well. As to nodes on RPis etc. I agree it is a silly arbitrary measure to make that what we should be able to run a node on, although I do run a Pi 4, which it must be said is not a terribly under powered SBC, and is a requirement if you want to run a node, as anything below that cannot validate the chain fast enough to be useful. But you bring up cell phone processors. I think in some ways that is a more important measure. Things like SPV, and neutrino are important ways to bring trust minimized validation to handheld computers, and i think in those regards we are going the right direction. I think all the Luke Dashjr type "BLOCKS NEED TO BE SMALLER" arguments are misguided and do us harm. I think Luke is a trainwreck as a person who takes a very extreme view on EVERYTHING. The current Pope is an antichrist, the blocks are too big, we need to wear gas masks to keep from getting covid etc. That combined with the dick measuring contest that the dark side of BTC Maxi culture brings us, and the small block ethos gets more attention than I think it needs. I wish we had Hal with us still. I feel like he would have some really good stuff to say about all this. In fact I would trust him more than Satoshi himself, who I do not think quite had the long view or wisdom of the former. Maybe it's better they are both currently silent (here's to cryogenics? ) I do think validation is perhaps more important than you do. I do not want to trust that job to a small number of servers. But I think we could raise the bar quite a bit before we get into trouble there. I just want to make sure we avoid a "Davos" of Bitcoin forming. Some place where the powerful nodes all gather and decide one day that it is in the best interest of mankind to mint another 21mm, and for our trouble we will split a simple 1mm amongst ourselves to cover costs, of course. Every human endeavor has become corrupted that way eventually. The longer we can keep that from happening to Bitcoin the better. And I do understand that the big-blockers see small blocks as a bank takeover. I just don't see that. Banks don't need small blocks to remain necessary. |
|
|
|
|
OK... So we ended a great run recently...
Not price.
Transactions.
After jumping up to over 30 per day avg, after the Muskpocalypse we seemed to have dumped back down to just a little more than 1/2 that.
What does this mean?
|
|
|
|
Just of note, I tend to deliberately keep that argument out of here. It's not really relevant and tends to upset the natives. I'll usually only bring it in where I think it's directly relevant and then only in relation to BTC itself (i.e. I'll discuss capacity but not in relation to other coins which have addressed it).
I *sort of* appreciate this. And I am sure there are some who would get hot under the collar. But I personally think the scaling discussions are still of extremely high importance. We are moving forward all of us having no idea where we are going. That's why I say "sort of". I think it's an important discussion. As long as it does not devolve into "You're dumb", "Read the whitepaper" type stuff. Which is mostly what reddit is. I personally WANT someone to broaden my thought models. If I could really plant a flag in the big block ideas in a way where I feel confident it would work. I think Satoshi thought it might, for example, while Hal Finney seemed to be the proto small-blocker. The white paper is always brought up. And Satoshi had not anticipated ASICS (who knows if that later Satoshi email is real where "he" talks about exactly that) and that changed EVERYTHING. It made the idea of the "validation node" important. Vitally important. We discovered by this tech that between hashing, and consensus validation the latter *might* be more important, though they go deeply hand in hand. Anyway, i welcome discussing this, and would take part in another thread if it should not happen here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
