Last Notes
There’s a huge gap between “interacted with him extensively” and/or went to his island and “sent a well-connected person some emails to encourage him to evangelize bitcoin”
Like, not sure how this is objectionable activity:
https://x.com/adam3us/status/2018069917967233443
Apparently if you did roughly anything someone sent an email about it to Epstein. At this point not being included just means you never did anything
Man is that how much longer we have to hear about it? They should have picked a date sooner so that it’s over with quicker.
Errr incredibly pleasant and intriguingly
Yea it’s dangerously pleasant lol. I have to have an actual alarm across the room I have to get out of bed to silence.
I mean not enough deep but like damn wtf that’s what I call sleep.
https://image.nostr.build/55e75123a373ab461f8df9ccb893df8b35bd900e37a9d41cec38b9cf879c92f2.jpg
I mean (a) I actually find the wrist tapping to be an intriguing pleasant alarm :). But no I do use the data to correlate with trying different things around my routine so it is somewhat helpful. Also I use it to dunk on nostr when my sleep is good 😂
😬😬😬
NYC is never that high even indoors with an open window.
lol one of the longest and most consistent libertarians in bitcoin.
> leftist
People sure will say anything to defend their team.
I do not have much in the way of random human-sized plastic parts lying around in my apartment.
lol what kind of trouble LLM is that? Outdoor is in the low 400s.
I do not have a wood shop in my small apartment, sadly.
Luckily I appear to have found the last two sleds for sale in lower Manhattan.
I’m surprised he’s still talking about it honestly. Everyone else has moved on.
Every hardware store in manhattan south of 14th street is currently sold out of sleds. Amazon's next delivery for a sled is in a week.
Our supply chains have failed.
Okay I take that back there is exactly one hardware store with five sleds left.
I’ve seen too much shit out there man
Ohhhh okay so MoneyBadger is just a bridge allowing you to pay an unrelated merchant not using their service? Nevermind lol
TBH I strongly think we shouldn’t bend over to adopt random shit people do that doesn’t make any sense. We have 500 payment formats already, inventing your own just because isn’t okay and wallets shouldn’t stand for it.
So they invented their own spec (email format ln-address inside a QR) rather than using the LNURL parameter thing? Wtf people…
Samson is so good at getting irrelevant government officials to talk about Bitcoin. Weird skill, tbh.
Iiuc these are “crypto payment QRs” that have an embedded LNURL in them, correct?
Unfortunate name collision to be sure. Radical is awesome!
Errr by freezing some coins you *get* the ability to recover potentially many more.
s/especially because that position/especially if that position/
Depends on the QC scenario :)
Sure, to be clear I’m not advocating for radicle specifically, just noting that it seems the furthest along and thus maybe the most exciting. I’m much more driven by retirements than some abstract tech preference, as are most people I imagine :).
It depends so much on the exact scenario. I believe we’re imagining radically different QC development scenarios rather than disagreeing on specifics. Eg see below.
Bitcoin has maintained its neutrality precisely because it only has value if it maintains its neutrality - the market in general will sell any fork that isn’t clearly in line with the properties of Bitcoin that matter.
But there are other market dynamics like supply that matter too. As Pieter puts it, Bitcoin only works if everyone in Bitcoin can agree to the secure set of cryptographic primitives in the system - for those not okay with pre-QC crypto and okay with “you had ten years to move your coins, and even if you forgot we’ll make sure you can still get them in every case we can”, they’ll strongly prefer the fork with fewer coins being sold (not just total supply, coins on the market!). IMO that’s a *very* reasonable position (again, as always, depending on exactly when/how/etc a CRQC is discovered/built), especially because that position *allows more bitcoiners to retain access to their bitcoin*.
#nevent1q…yz23
One thing I’ve heard desired from folks is the ability to default issues to private visible only by maintainers. This not only ensures that security issues aren’t public immediately but also removes the incentive for people to troll by opening issues. Then a maintainer can mark an issue as legit and it’ll be public. IMO this is a great way to approach it.
Will the market see it that way? I doubt it.
#nevent1q…fltc
lol it was a joke bro chill
> First, stop assuming they're Satoshi's. We don't know that.
Fair, thanks for highlighting it. Doesn’t particularly matter to this discussion though.
> Second, when/if they are spent, we won't know how the private key was known to the spender. Quantum's existence won't change that epistemic limitation.
Sure, but the decision a future Bitcoin community will make won’t come after early coins start moving, it would come before then. In a world where it is clear to everyone that a CRQC is *going* to become reality in 2-5 years the Bitcoin community has two choices:
* disable now-clearly-insecure spend paths, allowing those with keys derived from a seedphrase to retain their coins but burning any coins that are not and have not migrated to some post-QC output type
* allow all coins using now-clearly-insecure spend paths to be stolen, absolutely trashing Bitcoin’s reputation as a secure system.
I find it *incredibly* unlikely that the market decides to value fork b over fork a.
> Third, there is no "we" to make such a choice.
There will be a fork cause *someone* will build it and the market will decide which is more valuable. That’s ultimately always how Bitcoin decides.
> No group of people have the right to confiscate coins, no matter how rational the reason.
In this scenario the coins will be confiscated or burned no matter if a fork happens or not. That’s the important part here. Burning >>> theft, imo.
> And to *anyone* (not Matt specifically) who is worried about the market effect of huge selling, consider the market effect of the precedent of freezing coins at the protocol layer. Everything is a one-time exception until it isn't.
Worth raiding again here that no coins derived from a seedphrase would be burned. So strictly speaking no one knows whether any given coin is burned or not. Also possible to do something like allow coins to pre-commit on chain to a new private key via blinded signature that can be revealed later - that way you could spend your coins post-CRQC without doing so pre-fork.
> Notice that that last point is not wrong because "if QC then all btc is worthless"; we are discussing the scenario of there being a migration path but old plain pubkey holders don't use it
Imo the reputational damage of “lol, Google stole 2M bitcoin and is selling it, what a dumb fucking coin” is way worse than you’re making it out. But, again, it’s highly dependent on exactly the state of QC and how public it is at the time. This isn’t something you or I can really decide and ultimately it’s up to the market at the time to pick what it wants bitcoin to be.
I imagine that type of moderation is simply going to be a “no” on any nostr-based platform (for good reason, for social clients! Just not so much for a workspace…), sadly
That’s great, but is exactly the first type of moderation I mentioned as likely insufficient to avoid distraction.
At this point GitHub is so bad that I’m down to switch to anything that is works reliably, has basic issue/PR flows (with decent review tooling, not that GitHub sets a high bar, maybe also issue assignment), has moderation tools (sorry, they’re a requirement, and not just a “I don’t want to see this”, a “I can’t have people spamming the issue tracker everyone else sees cause it’s a massive distraction from work”, we’ve had issues with this repeatedly even just in LDK), and CI tooling.
Sadly you missed a huge group of coins - forgotten wallets and non-bitcoiners.
People often forget they had Bitcoin or just don’t care enough to check in on it for *years*. The only way to ensure they get their money is to disable insecure spend paths but allow them to claim via a seedphrase ZK proof. The side effect of this is that you also burn coins not held in a seedphrase-derived wallet (very old coins and a select tiny minority of wallet software).
Except there are migration tools (mostly around GitHub’s API)! So I wouldn’t say that the state of things is actually all that bad.
Still, multiple frontends for the same data is cool, no doubt, just solving a problem I don’t have.
Except that unlike nostr things (dunno about repo-hosting specifically, but in general) don’t keep a full copy of everything locally. In radicle any contributor fetches everything and always has it all (for repos they care about). If things go down it’s as easy as one more server and flipping a switch.
No, because every contributor has a full mirror locally at all times. If it gets taken down, no big deal at all.
I mean self-hosting gitea is also “portable” in that it’s on a database via a schema defined in open source code. That portability doesn’t matter unless where you want to port it to is some other nostr thing that reads metadata in the same format.
I mean sure, it’s speech, if people want to talk about your project or an issue with it on some other platform great, they should! Just without getting in the way of people working on it.
Right but then it’s not really a complete GitHub replacement? If we still have to host gitea or whatever why shouldn’t we just use it.
Fair enough, curious to see what happens.
Worth pointing out that radicle’s approach is substantially more censorship-resistant and decentralized than nostr.
Well, I suppose not strictly more censorship resistant on the ability to post, depends on the config, but certainly around takedowns.
Do any of them have any kind of moderation tools (to prevent the inevitable flood of spam and illegal content)? At least gitworkshop.dev doesn’t appear to actually use decentralized storage for everything, still requires a git host.
radicle seems like a much better concept for how to do this type of thing (just use git for everything!) vs bothering with nostr, but if someone managed to build a product that met the requirements on nostr that would also be fine enough.