JOE2O
JOE2o

B2B

Public Key

npub150rlcxha3efsleq762eawgaxmry8cjtnms63t7ucp9v8v45zwmsq59d063

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs283lurt7cu5c0us0d9v7hywnd3jruf9eacdg4lwvqjkrk26p8dcqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0e0v0r7

Publishing to

nos.lol

relay.primal.net

relay.damus.io

Author Public Key

npub150rlcxha3efsleq762eawgaxmry8cjtnms63t7ucp9v8v45zwmsq59d063

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-02-19 08:42:20 CET

- reply

She's not wrong

2026-02-19 08:24:27 CET

@npub1q6m…x7d5 Good sir, what is the performance hit on your dilithium test relay would you say? Would it be pretty negligible in a personal or small-community context, only really rears its head when you get past x volume or y concurrency or however else you've looked at trying to quantify the performance hit?

2026-02-13 13:00:50 CET

- reply

There are legit projects, and there are scams, and everything in between.
Also gold has countless projects, including more recently those related to Gold-backed stablecoins, but also everything else under the sun, startups with new types of devices to measure gold purity range, geo-spacial imaging analysis, you name it.
Bitcoin is special in that any attempt to build anything often gets one labelled a heretic. Not only build but just maintain, upgraded the the software in any way. It's by far the most Amish of asset communities.

2026-02-11 16:45:12 CET

- reply

It's open-source MIT, not too much recent activity though. Also written in Julia which is pretty niche. Not like OCaml niche, but getting there!
https://github.com/PrimalHQ/primal-server
Whether this is the one actually running I dunno, I thought they were gonna redo it in Rust at some point.

2026-02-11 16:01:59 CET

- reply

Nostr: proudly boasting the world's highest app-to-user ratio.

2026-02-02 10:28:54 CET

- reply

That’s a good point too. I think sometimes people think that “other people” at large are an unlimited resource. But actually the number of other people across the world who have money to buy some meaningful amount bitcoin and who will invest in anything in their lives, bitcoin or whatever else, is kinda fixed. If you have one big chunk that's traumatised, another that's been warned off by the traumatised, another that's moved over to prediction markets and whatnot as you point out, and so on, those are like serious chunks!

2026-02-02 10:11:31 CET

- reply

>Most everyone's broke though.
Key caveat!

2026-02-02 06:00:00 CET

- reply

The problem this time around seems to be a lack of fresh interest, a diminishing of the curiosity that was previously always there, despite the ups and downs. There is a sort of opinion saturation that has happened.
Feels like a rock band that never had a problem selling tickets until this current tour. Now suddenly stadiums are 3/4 full. What's going on?
There are only so many people in the world and opinions have hardened on bitcoin. I'd bet you can go to the far flung village in China or Peru, and most people by now will have an strong-ish opinion on Bitcoin, sensible or otherwise.
This is as opposed to three or four years ago, when far more people hadn't really formed an opinion, either had never really thought about it or had but were pretty neutral and open to arguments either direction.
Obviously those whose opinion is bitcoin is great have bitcoin. So now most of the recruiting has to be a two-step process, first an opinion massaging process and then onboarding. That really limits the intake. Talking people out of hardened opinions is itself hard.
This idea you can keep shaking people out and new people will line up, ad nauseam, doesn't add up. At some point you've shaken through too many people, they've all told their friends of the shake, and word gets around. One person spreads it to 50.
Gold doesn't shake people out in the same way. People tend to leave gold on neutral terms, gold says thanks for visiting come back soon, and many do. There are no "shake out" metaphors for gold because it's just not as suitable to these kinds of violent metaphors as bitcon is.
The world's investing population isn't all that big. It's big, but it's still a zero sum deal, discounting the young generation coming up. Everyone is waiting for the number to go back up. But who is buying? The price of bitcoin is going down, which is normal, but the real issue feels like the price of recruitment is going way up.
I have no numbers to support this, so take it as a personal vibe read. I'd be curious if numbers did support it or contradict it though.

2026-02-01 17:17:59 CET

- reply

This is a very good comparison. It baffles me too how people see this as a binary issue. A lot of things baffle me about how online communities see things.
What are your thoughts on Tether accumulating all that gold and the idea that their gold-backed stablecoin will eat into bitcoin's value-proposition (to a degree), whereas bitcoin doesn't really have a way to eat back.

2026-01-09 11:30:33 CET

- reply

Maybe, but in perspective this appears to be about where nostr is now in terms of creator earnings.
#nevent1q…uc9l

2026-01-08 18:11:35 CET

- reply

I appreciate what you're trying to promote, but I remain skeptical. Of these several creators and artists earning a little bit here, can you list the top 5?

2026-01-08 17:47:04 CET

- reply

What's your business model? We can all see your zap earnings, which on a lucky day might cover your Starbucks latte, so you're obviously not going full time nostr content creator anytime soon.

2026-01-08 08:27:32 CET

- reply

Why so angry? Be more positive and optimistic.

2026-01-07 21:37:21 CET

- reply

careful now, reasonable observations on this particular (and very well-established) branch of science will bring out the cranks and kooks here like nothing else.

2026-01-07 10:13:34 CET

- reply

Don't fret, I'll be alright. Your flat earth theory on the other hand...

2026-01-07 08:36:11 CET

- reply

This is all just rambling.
Go look at how your math brought you to 170 (and not 169 or 171). That path has been shattered by recent real-world results. You can posit a higher number for this "universal speed limit", or a range, but you cannot stick with 170.
Your "for one hour" is not even relevant here, smoke and mirrors. Adding a time assumption does nothing when lower-level assumptions on which your theory absolutely relies have been categorically proven false.

2026-01-07 07:33:41 CET

- reply

The one trying to prove something is you, with your fundamental limit theory. Those results *disprove* your theory, conclusively.
Pretty simple here. Your theory relies, in absolute terms, on assumptions that have been categorically disproven by experiment. In terms of junking a theory this is about as clear cut as it gets.

2026-01-07 06:37:47 CET

- reply

You don't need any of that to junk this theory.
Under your assumptions, the error rate for the logical qubit has to *always be worse* than the physical qubit, no matter how good the isolation is. Always. Every single time. No two ways about it.
Also the lifetime of the logical qubit would have to always be shorter.
For your theory to have any legs, it would be impossible for an experiment to demonstrate, at any scale, that this is not *always* the case.
However experiments have already demonstrated that this is not always the case. Those results prove irrefutably that N is *not* the governing factor in these QEC systems.
Simply, with your math you could never have a logical qubit outperform a physical one. Since we have seen that already, the 170 qubit ceiling is clearly an arbitrary hurdle and not a wall.
It's flat earth now, you should drop that number. Not even the hardcore sceptics are reckless enough to argue in that direction.

2026-01-06 20:49:15 CET

- reply

Scott is legit as they come.

2026-01-04 14:29:12 CET

- reply

These are good questions, but if you hadn't noticed nostr isn't super intellectual. There are a few people here with an actual desire to debate big questions, but not many. Most are here to hurl insults at people who will never hear them in order to impress other people that will.
Vlad here is one to follow, though best to avoid the mumble-grunt replies.
#nevent1q…t30u

2025-12-31 06:44:47 CET

- reply

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09526-6

2025-12-30 23:48:08 CET

- reply

Yes it's tough. Nostr maybe needs a reboot of sorts.
The issue with Blossom for transcoding is that unless you have rock-solid proof that all the transcoded renditions (720, 1080, etc.) are from the same high-res original then you cannot put any sort of cryptographic stamp of authenticity on the whole set.
If there is even a small amount of trust involved then anyone can potentially sneak anything into any rendition and make a mockery of your cryptographic stamp of authenticity for the set, whatever that stamp happens to be. So maybe a little porn scene snuck into the 720p rendition. If that's possible at all then you cannot stamp.
And for transcoding we’re talking 5 or so renditions per source, often more.
This act of proving all the renditions come from the same original is possible but very expensive and very complex. (Involves trusted execution environments and a bunch of other stuff.) And hard to nostr-ize too.
But for Blossom, it's a "this thing is definitely this thing" hashing protocol. For users one video is one video, they don’t see it as multiple transcoded renditions, so you can't just go hashing one by one. Either you stamp the whole set as a 'single thing' or you stamp nothing.
If we say "well then for transcoded videos we'll just go on trust like at YouTube" then that's fine, we go on trust, but then what is the point of Blossom? For that you only need managed services, like what nostr.build was working on.
Creators shouldn't have to worry about any of this.

2025-12-30 18:32:07 CET

- reply

the guy literally built the implementation for this already, over years. then from another angle others pushed a different logic that makes his implementation not feasible.
this is fine, both solution-types (global hash vs. managed service) have pros and cons. His way was WAY easier for transcoding. The Blossom way you have to prove, with hashes, that all of the transcoded variants are the "same thing" (even though in file terms they are not at all the same thing), and in a way that someone is going to pay for (the 'proving these variants are from the same original' part is gonna make it super expensive), etc.
to say, hey, yes your way would have been way easier, but anyway, kindly start again on another years-long journey, on a path with obstacles that you didn't ask for, with extra costs that you didn't ask for, and sure, nostr might do an end-run around you once again, but this is the nostr way .. i dunno, i feel for the guy.

2025-12-30 17:41:03 CET

- reply

there's quite the graveyard here of those such things

2025-12-30 16:51:01 CET

- reply

sounds to me like he's exhausted
three years of work he put in to this direction, now everything moves in a hash direction and, and if we're being honest to get any sort of hash-based decentralised transcoding system working for users protocol wide (or anything even near protocol wide) is another two or three years.
building on nostr is fast. propagation on nostr is incredibly slow.

2025-12-30 13:36:10 CET

- reply

No you're just being bokners.
It’s like we’re discussing whether Pepsi causes burps.
I’m saying: “Lots of people have been witnessed drinking Pepsi and then burping, we can even test it ourselves.”
You’re saying: “The letter P cannot be proven to exist and that is the first letter in the word Pepsi ergo there is no such thing as Pepsi and so it’s impossible to burp from it.”

2025-12-30 13:26:11 CET

- reply

Wrong question.
Question is "is quantum advantage real?"

2025-12-30 13:07:32 CET

- reply

What happens if you turn a cello inside out?
Your questions don't mean anything. Think in terms of actual experiments. That's how science works. Experiments.
And guess what, these experiments have all been done, you can review the results for yourself. These are answered questions, you're just ignoring the answers.

2025-12-30 12:55:24 CET

- reply

Someone could code up a "coin wallet" right now that could be easily be cracked with a quantum computer doing quantum computation.
It’d be a super weak key (maybe 22-bit RSA or ECC or something), but it would be a demonstration of real quantum computation cracking a real ‘wallet-style’ key using real quantum effects, and provable.
Any classical computer could crack that key too, of course, though not by making use of entanglement.

2025-12-30 09:30:00 CET

- reply

You're the guy who says no core cryptographic element of any blockchain on the planet earth, including what are often referred to here on nostr as shitcoins, will ever be cracked by a quantum computer.

2025-12-24 21:00:39 CET

- reply

Because you still have to mine them, ton by ton, you can't just tow one of these to earth, put a parachute on it and done.
Whereas if a lab right now today had a number of quantum machines running 2k logical qubits and 1b gates, Bitcoin would be game over in a week. As in game truly over. Yeah we're nowhere near, but we are at 100 logical qubits and advances in error-correction means there is a clear theoretical path to billions of gates. So it's not crazy pills.
Different threat types.

2025-12-18 23:34:38 CET

- reply

Just for lay of the land, we are at 96 logical qubits now, with error correction working, and we need around 2,000 logical qubits to crack a wallet key.
The main issue, though, is that unexpected breakthroughs are by nature *unexpected*. That includes breakthroughs in hardware, as well as breakthroughs in pure math, which people often forget about. (The most dangerous breakthroughs for bitcoin are actually mathematical, the space of quantum algorithms and classical assistance for quantum algorithms is woefully under-explored.)
So as long as unexpected breakthroughs are a thing, there is no honest assessment of the number of years that would carry weight. All we can say is that the cracking of bitcoin wallet keys in the near term would require a major breakthrough but is certainly within the realm of possibility.

2025-12-06 15:57:24 CET

- reply

I've grumpily decided I don't like zaps. Nostr either without zaps, or with like-zaps (a fixed amount per like that nobody change) would be so nice.

2025-11-22 15:45:38 CET

- reply

The Toaster Protocol
Trusted and Open Association through Signed Text Events on Relays.
Tempting to just go for it. Only kind1 text notes and Outbox.
No DMs, no media, no zaps, no reactions (replies only), no link previews (shortening only).
The only thing I’d add is Falcon keys for post quantum, swap out ECDSA. Because I think it’s kind of wrong to build anything brand new in 2026 on ECDSA.

2025-11-22 14:52:31 CET

- reply

@nprofile…2e5q You. You did this.

2025-11-21 16:05:57 CET

- reply

Ok so let's say you're a compliance auditor. You've been sent by the team a merkle path n' leaf set relating to a website login for a user who supposedly passed an age check, and this includes some user details. You need to run that against Kaspa to see if it checks out, and an RPC call won't do. This suspicious login is from one week ago.
Explain to me how, without an archive node, you do this.

2025-09-25 15:43:02 CEST

- reply

It's actually the opposite. And it's one of the many variables that your one-sentence analysis doesn't factor in.
USDT volume could 1000x the use of the lightning network, and that means 1000x more on-chain transactions for opening channels, closing channels, balancing, etc. (Actually more as the balancing needs are higher.)
USDT volume on tron is $14.9 billion per day. Per DAY! For bitcoin volume on lightning it's in the tens of millions. So a fraction of a single percent.
Right now there are many people in Asia just waiting for the USDT integration with Taproot to go live. If only a few percent of the volume moves from tron to the lightning network that's a massive increase in on-chain transactions related to the lightning network.
It's a very ironic state of affairs, but it is what it is.

2025-09-23 07:54:10 CEST

- reply

No worries. Good to reserach anyway. Maybe X doesn't have a trademark for XChat, who knows? Feels like there must have been lots of things called XChat before X's XChat.

2025-09-23 07:53:38 CEST

- reply

Apple and Google respect trademark claims on their stores, so it just depends on the trademark and if putting the app on the App Store and the Play Store is important or not.
Maybe X doesn't have a trademark for XChat, who knows? Feels like there must have been lots of things called XChat before X's XChat.

2025-09-21 06:31:17 CEST

- reply

Asian Nostr: Yakihonne, Jumble, Keychat, 0xchat, so many other good things.

2025-09-20 17:02:46 CEST

- reply

Depends how you look at it. It's a directory, at the end of the day. The ultimate authority is the DID itself not the directory. The DID itself is derived from a hash of the initial operation signed with the private key.
Anyone can mirror that directory. Because each op is cryptographically signed, anyone who mirrors it can validate the entire log independently. Or you can have multiple, independent groiups operating replicas of the directory.
But because of their UX you need some source of truth, hence it's not completely centralised but still not able to be completely decentralised either.

2025-09-20 08:49:34 CEST

- reply

You have to make some trade-offs to compete with centralised services and their traditional UX elements. Stuff just works on atproto, it's all smooth and consistent and familiar to normies.
This feels like them just trying to balance the trade-offs.
Nostr as a protocol cares relatively little when it comes to these traditional UX elements and so it's much freer when it comes to identity.

2025-09-18 07:53:56 CEST

- reply

Fiat suffers from inflation; Bitcoin suffers from conflation.

2025-09-16 08:11:57 CEST

- reply

(no I don't)

2025-09-16 08:11:26 CEST

- reply

I vote Yakihonstr

2025-09-15 12:28:33 CEST

- reply

Yes. How do Nostr devs earn a living if not from investment and grants? You need millions of people excited to pay at regular intervals for what these devs are developing. That's a tall order.

2025-09-13 16:15:09 CEST

- reply

I think it's a physics problem, the UI cannot know what hasn't been confirmed to it. And confirmation on Nostr is often impossible, too many potential points of failure to confirm what point failed and for who and when and what to do about it. So the UI will have no idea what to explain or not to explain.
Nostr is just not good for air-tight communication, there will always be leaks.
I think it's a case of changing how we use Nostr, that is the biggest problem right now and why Nostr cannot grow.
Most normies, once they have an experience like you (they realise that they missed an important reply) will never trust Nostr again and fade away. And telling them not to worry about missed replies because "it's just how Nostr is" won't bring them back.
What we need is a whole new way to use Nostr.

2025-09-13 16:03:25 CEST

- reply

>I don't know, I think it's a serious problem if someone mention me and I do not receive notifications when I should.
This is just life on Nostr I think. We can either accept it or move to another decentralised network that takes different trade-offs and where this doesn't happen.

2025-09-13 14:22:50 CEST

- reply

They pay because nothing else works for users at scale. There are a number of technical reasons why you can't shoehorn Bittorrent into a CDN for a twitter clone. Latency first of all. The latency you'll get from Bittorrent, even in the best of times, will be a far far cry from what you'll get with even a lower-end CDN.

2025-09-13 08:22:53 CEST

- reply

Lol, yeah. Someone should write a blog about the max lengths a person can technically go to to protect their nsec. Like the most crazy combination of FROST sharding, secure enclaves and whatever else. Would be a good read.

2025-08-05 16:21:46 CEST

- reply

This is true, but maybe there is something to be said for newsgroups/usenet, plus key pair identity, plus some of the other bells and whistles.