alanamato
Alan Amato

Public Key

npub15ewx9l05tl7vvwd5ra02mencyldlgahcthptprr502wqyux74mfsr66l0f

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs2vhrzlh69llxx8x6p7h4dueuz0kl5wmu9ms4s336848qzwr02a5cpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dst0wrhw

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub15ewx9l05tl7vvwd5ra02mencyldlgahcthptprr502wqyux74mfsr66l0f

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-05-06 13:35:41 CEST

Misnomer: “Bringing Privacy to Bitcoin”. Uses a shitcoin chain & has the same “con” he says is a “pro” for his DoA solution; marked UTXOs. My answer: Use Lightning, Ashigaru, atomic swaps. https://youtu.be/SGdg7v64dPg?si=9eGPZShkva4SynPX

2026-03-19 08:19:11 CET

- reply

Yes, I run Knots because I want as many configuration options as possible.

2026-03-18 21:15:30 CET

I hate spam/arbitrary data on Bitcoin and believe Bitcoin is the best money every created and that use case should be protected but I also have reservations and observations about BIP-110 and why I believe the UASF will fail. I've said from the beginning (for anyone who can tolerate me talking so much LOL) that I thought this BIP was not specific and targeted enough to garner my support or get consensus. This is not an exhaustive list but these are just a few key points that I keep coming back to. This is not an attack on anyone who supports BIP-110, I'm simply stating my issues with it and why I believe it will fail.
1. The 55% threshold for miners to signal activation is much too low. That is not consensus and should be 75% or higher in my opinion. Futhermore, forcing activation in August, despite not having a 55% consensus is a non-starter and if you have months and months to build up consensus and allow minors to signal and if you don’t get to the low threshold of 55% and you force activate anyway, that isn't right. Essentially, you didn't build consensus over months and instead of taking that as a sign that you shouldn't press forward you activate anyway?!? That's says that you believe you are right despite a large portion of the network choosing not to adopt BIP-110, we are going to force this change on everyone anyway. That sounds kinda tyrannical and not the "Bitcoin way" to me.
2. BIP-110 sets a bad precedent that the rules can be easily changed and even if BIP-110 succeeds and its outcomes are good & noble, the precedent it sets will lead to that precedent being abused for something bad in the future, or for numerous other projects to activate consensus changes. That introduces lots of uncertainty on how all those pieces will interact and possible bugs it introduces into Bitcoin. Attackers could use this as a way to make bad changes within Bitcoin that undermine it, such as tail emissions. If BIP-110 fails, Bitcion OGs, rational contributors, and people who have dedicated their lives to Bitcoin, such as Luke Dashjr, will lose credibility and possibly even leave Bitcion. If BIP-110 succeeds, it means many of us are wrong about Bitcoin being easy to change by a vocal minority and that is scary. Spam sucks but it is not an existential crisis to Bitcoin that requires splitting the network socially and possibly with a chain split. If spam isn't an existential crisis then a UASF is unwarranted. It's a slippery slope to allow bad actors with fiat backers to change Bitcoin via a minority-backed consensus change.
3. Miners respond to incentives and they are not incentivized to change their software. I heard and thought about the intolerant minority and the pros & cons of both sides. However, if you put yourself into the shoes of a miner and imagine their options, they'll choose to just ignore BIP-110. Large mining pools are not hard-core bitcoin maxis with principles, they care about fiat gains and not doing anything to upset their profits. No large miner will signal for BIP-110 because the software and the downstream consequences are untested and what do the miners risk by not signaling? A very, very small % of their profits comes from "spam" and that won't sway them one way or the other. The miners want their 3.125 BTC reward and don't ideologically care about gaining or losing a few hundred dollars for spam transactions. "Economic nodes" will choose not to run a BIP-110 client on their nodes and thus pressure from these entities on the miners won't exist either. The status quo will continue. The belief that for the duration of the soft fork (1 year) that no one, even out of chance and not even a troll Bitaxe miner will mine a BIP-110 non-compliant block at the risk of that block being orphaned is very, very optimistic and the odds of that are microscopic. But it comes down to once BIP-110 activates in August what chain becomes the longer one. Will a non-compliant block be built on top of the longest chain or will it be a BIP-110 compliant block? Yes, miners might switch sides once a good portion 30%+ signals but I don't believe it will ever get close to that because of #4. I believe miners will maintain the status quo, ignore BIP-110 and BIP-110 will see their hash rate support dwindle from 1-2% of miners to 0% as time goes by and as the 1-year UASF "clock" runs out.
4. BIP-110 is essentially only supported by a subset of Knots nodes. If Knots nodes = 20% of the network, BIP-110 nodes will not be higher than this. Yes, nodes control the network and miners mine what nodes tell them to but there are simply not enough nodes to enforce BIP-110, even an intolerant minority of 10% against the other 90%. And if a 10% intolerant minority can change consensus, we have a very serious problem and are vulnerable to state actors attacking bitcoin and making consensus changes that risk bitcoin itself (such as OFAC-compliance).
5. A risk of a chain split if not enough miners signal is not worth the contentious nature of BIP-110 and its "fix" for spam.
6. Both sides are using fear mongering and hyperbole to sway people. Claiming BIP-110 rule changes confiscate/freeze funds is overblown because no one is using OP_IF in a significant way BIP-110 would change and this is hardly some secret attempt by Ocean/Luke/Mechanic to "take over" Bitcoin. And on the other side, the legal risk of spam or CSAM in the blockchain is very much exaggerated since there are questionable things in the blockchain already and not able to be stopped currently. The pro BIP-110 side originally had scary CSAM-legal verbiage for activating the soft work but that was taken out of the BIP after people pushed back, however that justification (overblown fear mongering) is still the primary driver behind it by many involved, even if they don't say that outloud.
7. I don't like the idea of a UASF being temporary. That introduces too much uncertainty on what that will do in a year and thus many nodes and miners won't support it. I believe any soft fork focused on spam should have clear consensus and not try to do too much as this UASF is doing. I'll continue to filter on my node and encourage every node runner to do so as well. If spam is an existential threat, why is this UASF temporary? The change/tightening of the rules is either needed this second and in perpetuity or it isn't a significant threat and the UASF is not necessary. The famous Milton Friedman quote popped into my head, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program". (yes, I understand Bitcoin is not a government program but the point still stands).
8. There is a distinct lack of social consensus around BIP-110 and the reasons for the UASF, why it's a priority and the approach it's taking to mitigate spam. I follow, listen to pocasts/YT videos and read articles and posts from both sides of the debate and this is not a clear cut case as in the Blocksize Wars division. I would be much more willing to support a soft fork that reduces the block size which could help to reduce Spam and that softfork would be more likely to get social consensus since it’s harder and harder to get a consensus change implemented. Forcing one through despite no consensus is anti-bitcoin and this feels more like a petulant child that isn’t getting their way and starts breaking stuff around the house unless their demands are met
9. It tries to do too much too quickly.
10. The real threat is from mining centralization and we need more support for policy choice to block spam and for more block template construction. That would allow spam to be mitigated at the node/policy level and not us having to beg bitcoin Twitter or force miners via a consensus change.
11. A UASF/consensus change is the wrong tool for the job. It’s like using a tomahawk cruise missile to kill a cockroach. true - it sends a signal and acts as a deterrent against spam, but further consensus changes will be needed to mitigate future types of spam or as the spammers adapt their method for spamming the chain, which is why it belongs to policy which is easily adjusted on the node level. Adjusting to various types of spam takes quick action with the addition and tweaking of filters at the node level (filters need to be dynamic) which cannot be accomplished by consensus (which is relatively static).
12. BIP-110 will fail because it’s not a clear miners versus nodes, soft fork; it’s a subset of nodes only. It's not like for SegWit where many miners were taking the position that they wanted to activate SegWit and hard fork and the UASF called their bluff and nodes/plebs activated SegWit before they could hard fork and we forced the miner's hand to accept it.
I love the ideas of a UASF, I just choose not to support this one by running a BIP-110 client myself. I believe this UASF will be a great teaching tool and we will learn more about how Bitcoin truly functions and how all the actors interact and it will ultimately make Bitcoin stronger.

2026-03-17 15:16:53 CET

- reply

I deleted the previous relays and created two new ones with & without https with different REST ports but still get errors. https://blossom.primal.net/6b9a1a7578dd9e31f90b441fcf4139e9a4c0c50d046cd4a99051d35de3b76656.jpg

2026-03-17 12:51:32 CET

- reply

No luck so far. I've tried various options, with and without https but I get different errors. I know it must be me. Is there something I'm not doing inside LND?
I'm stumped. I had to convert my macaroon to hex in the terminal even though it looks like you didn't need it 🤷🏼‍♂️
https://nostr.media/103f4cbd244ee08b0890c63da64c753a37714e915100d0fa5286079bd9bac037.png
https://nostr.media/306ee8e29ff58574442840b1681aa855e1f2647eb0af89c99a43302ee1e3f8e0.png
https://nostr.media/84159bf10c6bb819fb94715818077cb472aea1532f3fcee419a84072856a619f.png
https://nostr.media/89fa4118ac6b15440d9723ca3db03bfd57ca5f7798ff2b6129ec2d6c72d15b07.png
https://nostr.media/931d6e4519c983ca21c83365623f8f924d9a82e20b0342b9b2fe66db4949f4c2.png
https://nostr.media/1436b488e6d583f7187a33f6471c87b6e70308f3b1ac217fb17898a89592d74f.png
https://nostr.media/9b8b59b737d1e5e7873bea29f277cbc1df970ba54e7df2e891ff8078964c2a73.png
https://nostr.media/3a33a8524538d9dd0f01b08929ab6815da8d098e8a169fa062922387780fbb72.png

2026-03-15 13:21:58 CET

- reply

Ooooooh. Very slick 👍🏻

2026-03-15 13:19:24 CET

- reply

Got it. Thanks

2026-03-15 13:16:46 CET

- reply

Looking at your video, I noticed you didn't need to set the macaroon either.

2026-03-15 13:14:59 CET

- reply

Generating a QR would be very cool and simplify the process quite a bit.

2026-03-15 13:14:12 CET

- reply

Is LND REST on a different port for you or is using 8080 what I should use (which is the default I believe)?

2026-03-15 10:21:00 CET

- reply

MagicDNS was on but https was not. So I enabled https and setup Zeus with my Tailrelay IP (from Tailscale iOS app), 8080 port and extracted my Macaroon from LND (and pasted it in) but get a TLS error in Zeus.
https://nostr.media/4596d04da4ecbcf4472656097a7e0a175c3633490df5249a640863a1f00acab6.png
https://nostr.media/b3248a3931a3cb8065f306a9094d39758fb412e98fa708ce1726303cc18a5636.png

2026-03-15 02:09:42 CET

- reply

I installed 0.8.2 successfully 😃 However, the add button doesn't add proxies, only relays. I also get an error when creating a relay to any service, "TLS cert issue: TLS handshake failed (certificate may not be provisioned yet): read tcp 127.0.0.1:54078->127.0.0.1:8443: i/o timeout".

2026-03-10 15:23:40 CET

- reply

OK. I'll wait till for the next version. Thanks

2026-03-10 14:03:08 CET

- reply

Are there settings I should try to get LND access and report back? I tried entering lnd.embassy with no luck. I assume one is turning tor only data off.

2026-03-10 14:00:56 CET

- reply

I haven't gotten LND to work yet. Sorry. But I do have issues with the app not recognizing I'm logged in and I'll need to stop and restart the service to get back into the main screen

2026-03-10 13:56:51 CET

- reply

Yes 0.7.1. I haven't set up any proxies/relays yet since I really just want LND right now.

2026-03-10 12:47:28 CET

- reply

Cool! I'm digging the new UI. I use Lightning Terminal currently with Zeus but it's unstable and I have to restart the app or Zeus multiple times to get it to work. I'm hoping connecting directly to LND will be faster and more stable.

2026-03-10 11:01:01 CET

- reply

Is connecting Zeus to LND on my Start9 not possible with Tailrelay? I don't see a preset for LND and thought it might still work if I turned off "Use Tor for all traffic" within LND.

2026-03-08 02:50:48 CET

- reply

What settings did you use on your phone and in Tailrelay to connect Zeus to your Start9? I'm a little overwhelmed and I don't see any LND presets.

2025-10-30 16:53:20 CET

- reply

Cool. I'll check it out. Thanks

2025-10-30 16:34:36 CET

@nprofile…txq4 hey dude. How do I pay to use your zap.stream service since setting up zapstream core is beyond my technical abilities? And can I get a customized zap.stream LN address?

2025-10-10 12:33:08 CEST

- reply

Yes, a start9 version would be awesome!

2025-08-18 01:25:24 CEST

- reply

I'm hesitating on buying it to for that same reason. I believe that's ironic and sad at the same time.

2025-08-16 01:23:21 CEST

Gigi writes many great articles. This one is useful to re-read once a year or so, https://dergigi.com/2022/04/03/inalienable-property-rights/

2025-08-09 19:07:53 CEST

- reply

There's a similar situation in the States even now. It doesn't make financial sense to buy a house at overinflated/overvalued prices with finite bitcoin

2025-08-09 19:02:46 CEST

- reply

Are you recommending just borrowing against your stack to circumvent capital gains or do we need to create a "How to starve Caesar (ILLEGALLY)" list...for educational purposes of course?

2025-07-23 16:21:58 CEST

- reply

Did that work for your friend?

2025-07-23 13:28:34 CEST

- reply

It is pretty straightforward. Connect the network/CAT-6 cable to your router, plug in the power cable, turn it on and wait about 5 minutes. Start9 should provide the ***.local address for you to connect to using a browser from any other computer on the same local network.
If not, you can use a tool called Angry IP Scanner to see all network devices on your local network by IP address. You can copy/paste each IP into a browser and it should bring up the StartOS login page.
The first time you come to the log in page, you'll need to download and trust your server’s Root Certificate Authority (Root CA) to establish a secure (HTTPS) connection with your server. You only need to do this once (per computer you intend to log into your Start9 server from).
Log into Start9 and under System > About, it will give you the ***.local name for that computer. To install apps, go to Marketplace, under "Start 9 Registry" change to the community registry and install Bitcoin Knots. Run Knots and it will take a couple days to grab the IBD (initial blockchain download, aka: all the Bitcoin blockchain transaction/block data). You'll also want to install electrs and Mempool, at a minimum.
I hope that helps. Let us know if you have more questions.

2025-07-07 19:40:57 CEST

- reply

Cool. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts

2025-07-03 14:05:31 CEST

- reply

Any chance you'll share your presentation and/or finish your UASF thoughts from the conference?

2025-06-04 12:37:14 CEST

Hey @nprofile…4kpu and @nprofile…9j36 is there a timeline for you to release the All in on Bitcoin calculator that you demonstrated a few months ago?

2025-05-07 03:28:22 CEST

- reply

Double wrapped in a ziploc bag inside a baby's poopy diaper.

2025-04-30 14:53:16 CEST

- reply

Not looking for a fight 😃 . I'm just a lowly node runner but I haven't heard any logical reason to remove this limitation. What good does it actually provide node runners? It only seems imho to incentivize spam by making it easier instead of "using the back door". How does removing this limit actually make Bitcoin better money?

2025-04-18 12:31:19 CEST

Want to change the default prompt on your Mac's terminal window to show the Bitcoin ₿ symbol in place of a %?
1) sudo -i
2) nano /etc/zshrc
3) scroll down to Default Prompt & change to
PS1="%n@%m %1~₿ "
4) ctrl-x, y, enter https://m.primal.net/QUmh.png

2025-04-17 21:40:05 CEST

Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." You could easily replace the word "salary" with "investments", "livelihood", "personal identity", "political views", etc. This is part of the reason why it's so hard for people to understand Bitcoin and the deep-seeded issues with our self-serving political and economic systems.

2025-03-26 17:51:48 CET

Anyone know of a professional presentation I could use to orange pill local businesses and convince them to accept Bitcoin and how to incorporate it on their end?

2025-03-23 10:31:38 CET

- reply

@nprofile…crt9 It was my first #Cornychat and won't be my last 🥳

2025-03-23 01:58:08 CET

- reply

Sweet. Thanks, dude

2025-03-22 21:08:14 CET

- reply

Getting closer to to two blonds and Uncle chatting it up

2025-01-09 22:26:24 CET

Use Lightning, Robosats and run your own node? LNproxy now supports blinded paths. A quick summary. https://fountain.fm/clip/QfqdKrqSF02ItgPWsY18

2024-12-18 23:50:31 CET

Privacy hack #16. Want a privacy-focused VPN without tying your identity to it? Buy a Mullvad gift card from Amazon. Amazon knows you bought the card but not the code and Mullvad only knows the code is worth 12 months of access with no KYC data given. No need to use Bitcoin or Monero.
https://a.co/d/7IoMFiS

2024-12-18 14:34:50 CET

- reply

Will it support Silent Payments?

2024-12-02 12:35:57 CET

Physical gold/silver is protection for a systemic economic SHTF scenario and therefore for pessimists. Whereas Bitcoin is for those who envision the future being brighter and using better money, aka: optimists

2024-10-22 14:23:58 CEST

Your reminder that the police are not your friends and you should protect yourself by keeping your mouth shut. I recommend everyone watch this yearly to keep it top of mind. Don't Talk to the Police https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=rwAmjIBBrMq4fXfM

2024-07-28 17:39:41 CEST

Created this cool movie poster for "The Mandibles" book using ideogram.ai. Inspired by @npub1qny…95gx since he and I agree this is the likely path the US will follow as the economy worsens.
https://m.primal.net/JhKK.jpg

2024-06-04 21:41:32 CEST

Today's AI-GENERATED Bitcoin wallpaper for your enjoyment
https://m.primal.net/IYlN.jpg

2024-06-03 03:01:30 CEST

I've started using AI image generators to create inspiring phone wallpapers focused on Bitcoin. I'll post more and see which ones the community enjoys the most
https://m.primal.net/IWiI.jpg