Hello Bitcoin :-)

[cryptosize]

What a shit idea to use BTC network for this purpose. Why not use other chain already known for NFT Like Eth and Solona. Now we have to pay much high for sample transaction.

Why are people doing stupid things ?

Just because they can do them. As always on the Internet.

I wouldn't call it a "stupid" thing necessarily.

When you advertise immutability as BTC's selling point, it's going to attract lots of fish...

ps: ETH is not immutable (DAO 2016 hack) and Solana is in a constant beta-testing phase.

[1714710865]

1714710865

[1714710865]

1714710865

[1714710865]

1714710865

[1714710865]

1714710865

[DaveF]

Let it continue like this and soon I will have more unconfirmed transactions. A multi-Sig wallet does not allow me to create a lightening channel.

With jumping thought a lot of hoops (you have to create the TX manually) you can open a channel with a multi-sig wallet. But if something goes wrong you are probably screwed. Someone did a demo of it a while ago. Later the node shit the bed and would not re-sync.

But you now have the hot wallet (multicig or not) on the same machine as the LN node. Which has to be online 24/7 Just seems to be a security nightmare if you are worried about things like that.

-Dave

[NotATether]

Technically multi-signature wallets can create Lightning channels too (correct me if I am wrong guys), but the feature is not available in the wallets we use for example in Electrum.

You can in theory, but then it would be non-interactive multisig where all the signing is automated and not done by people (except maybe one person [in this case, you] I guess).

The multisig where all the co-signers need to get online and send each other partial transactions from their wallets so that they can sign them is called interactive multisig, and as a consequence, does not work well with Lightning Network commitment transactions.

[n0nce]

Technically multi-signature wallets can create Lightning channels too (correct me if I am wrong guys), but the feature is not available in the wallets we use for example in Electrum.

To the best of my knowledge, it's not part of the Lightning BOLT / specification: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Alightning%2Fbolts+multisig&type=code

Although you can certainly build a client that is capable of doing so. The challenge will be that you'll need access to all signers' keys at all times in order to update channels in a timely manner.

The feature is available in some wallets like Muun Wallet which is 2 of 2 multi sig wallet.

What they're doing is having an online service which auto co-signs. If it goes offline, you'll have issues with your channels not updating.

The main question to ask yourself is: if your keys are on an online machine anyway (required for Lightning), does using 2 or 3 keys instead of 1 increase your security? What attacker model do you need to make this statement true?

[nutildah]

The brc 20 token ORDI hyped when Binance listed their pairs on 2023-11-07. So it's obvious that in the next few weeks, the hype will eventually die 

Binance is not the real reason, Ordi is just one token on Ordinal network.

By listing ORDI, Binance helped legitimize BRC-20, so it is very much their fault. But they knew the demand was there, so they listed it, because making money is what they do best. They're already making millions on trading fees because it is the current hot thing at the moment. Won't be surprised to see them list other Ordinals tokens in the future.