<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw79gu0guq7s98t473fyavx3akwaafmx6l5z4rehd50lrcl2mf4zcpr9mhxue69uhkzer4d36zuvfcwpk82uewwdhkx6tpdsq3vamnwvaz7tmpw3kxzuewdehhxarj9ekxzmnyqyv8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnxwfjk2urvv93k2tnwdsq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7qgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46qd6vlse

Publishing to

Last Notes

2026-03-14 15:10:43 CET

- reply

Correct. I'm clearly assuming economic weight would also remain with current rules.

2026-02-25 19:41:17 CET

Onlysats #note1qca…vc28

2026-02-25 19:40:53 CET

- reply

To me it would create the precedent that a vocal minority with a confused proposal can effectively force a majority to change consensus. The change itself would be between good and irrelevant. The precedent would be terrible. Same issue of when they tried to push CTV activation clients without consensus. Or Drivechains.

2026-02-25 19:37:40 CET

- reply

Legit question!

2026-02-21 16:33:19 CET

First batch of winner! Real sats to three non-profit projects!!! #note1fcg…t05t

2026-02-11 17:34:03 CET

- reply

Great company!

2026-02-04 18:20:10 CET

- reply

❤❤❤

2026-01-24 16:49:20 CET

- reply

NO, and only degenerates would even consider the question!

2026-01-23 07:56:31 CET

- reply

For Italians, the difference in spelling between tank and punk is less evident, so the pun is funnier! :D

2026-01-22 21:25:27 CET

It might! ;) #note19qg…g753

2026-01-22 20:00:31 CET

It was hard to keep the secret until now!
Premiere very soon!
Please follow and re-share!
#note1ffk…8maa

2025-11-18 02:41:43 CET

- reply

>No, LN is still always cheaper (modulo on-chain HTLC resolution). In Ark even if everyone is exiting and splitting the cost (which isn’t quite how it works but let’s assume), the cost to exit is one-two transactions per wallet (average of one tree transaction plus one transaction to resolve their vTXO. You could do the resolution later so maybe it’s one but depends a lot on the specific construction). In LN it’s always only one.
I don't understand this. First, AFAIK unilateral exit in DryjaPoon always has 2 txs (otherwise you wouldn't have punishment), not one. Secondly, I'm assuming an economic push towards cooperating users just evicting non cooperative ones, so it's not even always 2 tx per "wallet", but potentially even as low as 2*logN/N txs, in optimistic cases where users just migrate to another ark where the current one is unresponsive. I know this is not how it works now, but I'm speaking about the potential evolution where high fees may push the system.

2025-11-15 15:55:41 CET

- reply

Sorry for the delay. Nostr still sucks. :)
> Worth pointing out that Ark doesn’t materially “scale” without adding payment channels on top (ie Timeout Trees). Until that point, you’re really stuck with the statechain model, which has a highly-trusted third party, as you note.
I'd say you have the statechain model *until* you get the confirmation, then the model is closer to a DryjaPoon LSP than a statechain, until the expiration time. But yes, I agree the Ark model will be really interesting with channels on top, they are working on it since a while and it makes sense: https://blog.arklabs.xyz/bitcoin-virtual-channels/
> Huh? Ark is strictly more expensive to unilaterally exit than classic lightning.
I guess I'm playing with the word "unilateral" a bit here. I think that, realistically, the relevant thing is the exit against the coordinator, not against all the other users. The total cost of an unilateral exit in Ark is higher, but you can conceptually split it among more people in most failure modes. In a classic DryjaPoon, you share an UTxO among 2 users. That means that in best case scenarios (cooperative) the cost for opening/closing/resplicing would be X/2. In uncooperative scenarios, the cost for the exiting user is X. In an Ark with N users (ASP included), opening/closing/closing has a cost of about 10X, but that would be shared among N in cooperative cases, N-n in case n (most importantly including the ASP) are uncooperative.
> f course as mentioned above if you want scalable, trustless Ark you need payment channels anyway, so it’s strictly more complicated!
Good point.

2025-11-13 16:43:58 CET

- reply

You do hodl your own keys with Ark, and those keys can exit unilaterally after one block (comparable to onchain levels of sovereignty, pluse state-chain security before that moment, which is less than a DryjaPoon channel but more than you can say onchain). In very high fee scenarios, unilateral exit is economically feasible for most amounts in Ark, but only for very high amounts in DryjaPoon channels.
Running your node is a bit orthogonal. It's just that an Ark client node on top of a L1 node is a trivial thing, unlike a node to manage DryjaPoon channels.
Protecting your own privacy is something you can do well with SOME current DryjaPoon channel setups (with unannounced channels, blinded paths and Tor, for example), and that is still slightly worse for Arkade afaik right now. But it can get very good (see the original Ark paper with also tumbling and chaumian stuff included).
I agree with you that "90%, is very possible with LN". Today the LN is a universal, global, invoicing/hopping/swapping standard across many local security models with different security/usability tradeoffs: L1 (moon), ecash (minibits, fedi, mutiny, etc.), liquid (aqua, bull, breez, etc.), spark (WoS, Blitz, etc.), dryjapoon (phoenix, etc.). I think this complex variety will eventually collapse into a simpler number of primitives (namely: ecash for super small amounts, a mix of arks and spilman channels for average amounts, onchain for super big amounts).
Using your own brain is very likely orthogonal. 😉

2025-11-13 16:26:19 CET

Hodl your own Keys. Run your own Node. Protect your own Privacy. Use your own Brain.
In all these cases, trusted third parties are a security hole.
(and btw Sats Are The Standard)

2025-11-05 16:33:58 CET

- reply

I totally disagree it was unnecessary: I am convinced that it is exactly that behavior to explain a lot of the current situation of "anti-Core sentiment", way more than the technical point itself, which I consider, like the video author, a nothingburger. The video itself is ending with a (imo correct) analysis on possible social consequences, beyond technical ones. Thus I consider it unfair to blame me of "turning a technical debate social" if I comment this point.
My answer to your question, before the fork proposal, would have been definitely A: when the CSAM FUD emerged, a few months ago, the conflict was already since months at maximum possible escalation levels, with reciprocal bad faith assumption, very strong public accusations, github moderation abuses, lobbying to investors to defund Luke's mining project, bans from physical meetups, etc.
After the fork proposal, maybe B could be true, but not sure. One one hand, the fork is intended to avoid "sanctioned/contiguous CSAM encoding onchain" (which I don't think makes any sense, without a hard fork to also remove the not sanctioned/contiguous one already present, which I would consider overkill anyway with respect to the legal risk): Luke's implicit accusation of moral complicity by developers doesn't play a central role in it. On the other hand, it seems like many fork proponents think that this aura of moral complicity may be in itself a key reason for the fork success, so maybe it's B.

2025-11-05 14:02:58 CET

- reply

I'd not restart numbering when listing different points: harder to respond.
1) It's true I am Luke's friend, and I'm biased towards him. But I'm also equally friend of, say, Peter Todd, and I'm also defending him personally. Overall, I think I have way more personal Bitcoin friends on the "Core" side. I'm not convinced it was a Core dev to rob Luke: I find it more likely it was the US Government, and that the FBI pointed towards Core devs to seed drama.
2) My involvement with OCEAN preceded the recent spam drama, and it was about DATUM and about the LN payout market (and about helping Luke, of course). I think the spam drama damaged the company (and my economic interests in it) a lot, but I fully understand it came from a place of principles, and I appreciate principles over profit, to a degree. I think OCEAN would be better off if this all debate didn't exist.
1-bis) He doesn't lie, and he doesn't claim that. He claims that data encoded before were "not sanctioned". I think this distinction is legally and morally meaningless. I think he's totally wrong.
2-bis) Because he agreed policy is the best place to spam mitigation. Consensus change is something he now wants due to the (imo absolutely misguided) CSAM scare.
[unnumbered]) Luke is very technical, and Mechanic was always pretty civil on the mailing list. But I find the two claims unrelated: Greg Maxwell is also pretty technical, and he has been not civil at all.

2025-11-05 13:49:04 CET

- reply

3) Not supposed to be a technical argument? The video I'm commenting goes way beyond purely technical issues, of course. I think the sentence “Bitcoin Core is trying to force everyone who uses Bitcoin to distribute child porn”, beside being imo false in many ways, is indeed pretty triggering, and I did frequently condemn this rhetoric trend (not only by Luke, who will mean the above quite literlly and autistically, but also by others that arrive to imply terrible things about Core developers). It's just that I don't think it can explain very well the radicalization, which by the time the whole CSAM nonsense appeared on the scene was pretty much already peaking. Not sure what "the shit I'm throwing at the wall here myself" is supposed to be. If anybody felt triggered by my comment to this video, it would be fascinating for me to imagine why. But I think I was pretty non-inflammatory.

2025-11-04 12:40:14 CET

- reply

This is overall not bad, imo.
My main criticisms to @nprofile…3s2u would be:
1) it propagates without nuances the "experts vs demagogues" false framing, which is mostly made up (the "Knots side" includes experienced developers like Luke or SuperTestnet, who are way more technical than some influencers on the "Core side" like Shinobi or Lopp, who are more skilled at popularization and mass communication, letting alone that Dunning-Kruger doesn't just apply to computer science illiteracy, but also to economic, social and legal illiteracy, which also abunds on both sides),
2) it completely misrepresents Citrea's involvement, depicting a bunch of literal shitcoin scammers as "legit", and claiming they "need" that specific encoding method (which they actually adapted just out of laziness and lack of care), and they are "hoping to move to less harmful methods", which they publicly stated they aren't even considering at the moment,
3) it omits a lot of nasty triggers by some influential people on the "Core side", which are imo at the root of the current division and drama: the "it isn't spam if it's valid or pays fees" nonsense, the "mempool policy are censorship" nonsense, the "spam filtering in Core never existed" nonsense, the vitriolic and obsessive witch hunt against important and good projects for Bitcoin like OCEAN and Start9, the gross mismanagement of the github repo, the fixation on mempool changes as a way to show dominance and regulate personal beefs, etc.
For the rest, pretty good. I agree with the overall takeaways:
- search for the truth instead of parroting the slogans of your tribe
- mine on OCEAN and DATUM (and maybe tomorrow SV2)
- run your node with your own mempool policies (I'm filtering "inscriptions" since 2022)
- keep looking for possible long-term mitigations to spam (witness discount removal soft forks, fast-to-update user-side spam-filtering policies outside of Core, etc.)
#nevent1q…x87l

2025-11-04 12:31:35 CET

- reply

Very good!
#nevent1q…4rn8

2025-09-30 15:31:42 CEST

$850k for for-profit and non-profit Bitcoin-related projects!
Apply before October 10th!
https://forms.gle/BKmgCBnX7XXjgNnm8

2025-08-23 12:01:55 CEST

- reply

@nprofile…xwsl we may know who it is now: https://x.com/snapolino/status/1959192943442702372

2025-08-23 12:00:36 CEST

- reply

Uhm...sure...how?

2025-08-03 22:42:39 CEST

Plz Bitcoiners do your thing and help us getting Lugano's Major's back in putting the Satoshi statue in an even more outrageously visible place of the city (yes, yes, I know, trivially sybil-prone method, our Lugano community could easily create 5000 burner mails, but don't make us do like Core shills spinning up 500 fake nodes every day, just use your own to sign, c'mon)!
https://www.change.org/Restore_Satoshi_Statue_Artwork_Lugano

2025-07-10 08:14:46 CEST

I'm on @nprofile…xqkm white noise with my npub. Based. Write me there. I'll probably not read messages everyday until somebody integrates it into a Beeper fork (I may issue a bounty about that someday), since I'm too brain-damaged to use several messaging apps on GrapheneOS (also one of the reasons I don't check NorstrDMs and Keet messages everyday). But I'll read!

2025-06-21 18:46:27 CEST

- reply

Since I won, @nprofile…st82 will be forbidden from proposing tail emssion madness again. :)
But since I didn't win by much, he will keep proposing demurrage. :(
#nevent1q…tju3

2025-06-11 10:56:17 CEST

My opening speech at the last Tuscany Lightning Summit!
https://youtu.be/GDYrGPb__cA

2025-03-31 08:48:48 CEST

- reply

Sure.

2025-03-01 20:00:34 CET

- reply

Doesn't seem correct. I lurked hundreds of times in February, liked/zapped/reposted a lot, occasionally posted.

2025-01-11 15:27:50 CET

- reply

Yep

2025-01-11 15:27:28 CET

- reply

@fbi

2025-01-11 15:26:33 CET

- reply

I'm always connected. I just don't respond because I'm the taciturn type.

2024-10-15 08:22:46 CEST

- reply

#nevent1q…gnec

2024-10-15 08:21:30 CEST

- reply

Thanks!

2024-10-02 16:22:43 CEST

Pleas help, good NOSTR neighbors!
Can you point me at some best practice for sharing a NOSTR profile? Is the gold standard for that still just sharing the same private key, or is there any NIP for some more elegant form of delegation?

2024-09-02 13:40:36 CEST

- reply

#Bitcoin scaling, Trustless L2s, covenants, future soft forks.
Some clarity about many controversial topics by @npub1ej4…ndrm, courtesy of Fulgur Ventures!
#note1num…uxr9

2024-08-29 17:42:54 CEST

- reply

I don't hear much about them anymore. They definitely used to be top 3.

2024-08-29 15:57:00 CEST

Dishonest shitcoin shills, ranked from the most to the least annoying, as of now, top 10:
1) XMR
2) KAS
3) LTC
4) BCH
5) ETH
6) BSV
7) XRP
8) SOL
9) BNB
10) DOGE
ETH and BSV shills used to be on top of the shortlist 2 years ago. XMR & LTC used to be on the bottom 8 years ago.

2024-08-27 10:34:10 CEST

- reply

Nothing against Amethyst, still great. But slow enough that I wouldn't open it just to check notifications on a random free second between doing stuff.

2024-08-25 10:24:49 CEST

- reply

How does this work @bumi?! :D
I'm gluten intolerant I can't drink beer! :D

2024-08-24 14:00:50 CEST

Incredibility well-designed and well-realized game by D++! Masterfully hosted by Martell!
I managed to rug some money from @npub1j8y…vrvg, which is always my main goal in life!
https://m.primal.net/KKii.jpg

2024-08-23 10:42:35 CEST

- reply

Still active, even if a bit downsized! Go there and check. You can still pay LN in many places!

2024-07-04 23:49:09 CEST

- reply

Thanks man!

2024-04-19 16:30:48 CEST

- reply

Reinstalled Amethyst on GrapheneOS.

2024-04-18 18:06:45 CEST

- reply

Concise and accurate!

2024-04-18 14:13:33 CEST

THE GASLIGHTING NETWORK:
- "Don't believe your own memories of using LN non-custodially on a daily basis for countless times in the last few years, but believe fraudulent marketing claims by shitcoin scammers about you never actually doing what you actually did and do"
- "Don't compare LN to existent, realistic and sustainable alternatives, including its own future iterations and evolutions, but to imaginary born-perfect, silver-bullet, turn-key solutions like gigameg-blocks, miraculously brought to you by the Second Coming of Bitcoin Jesus, resurrected to bring you with him in the Hard Fork Heavens"
- "Don't think about real-world economic/monetary dynamics, pushing most actual users for much of the foreseeable future to prioritize their concern over inflation and confiscation of their long-term savings, over coffee-paying costs or risks, but make up imaginary millions of people with no fiat but somehow lots of sats to spend in billions of fast/cheap transactions starting tomorrow"
- "Don't engage in nuanced and honest discussions about the actual security-model spectrum for different use-cases, but pretend that those millions of imaginary sat-spenders somehow always need, for their imaginary fast/cheap transactions, the very same trustlessness models than slow/huge ones."
- "Don't acknowledge the fact that Bitcoin's usability for normies has been brought from nonexistent to mediocre over 15 years of hard work, but pretend its layer1 was born perfect, without inherent issues like chain-anal/coin-selection/fee-estimation issues"

2024-04-18 14:13:03 CEST

I notice a nice trilemma while teaching (Bitcoin, physics or literally anything else):
- accurate
- understandable
- concise
You can only pick 2.

2024-04-18 12:07:21 CEST

- reply

Yep. But people on Nostr are less wrong so I don't get to get triggered by them being wrong so often. :(

2024-03-20 10:31:19 CET

The hard lesson once learned by "Consensus" conference in New York City, now learnt once again in Nashville. Nothing is ever new in #Bitcoin.
https://image.nostr.build/000e94f185a007936e5b456ea9abaa01f667cf6f511795f9d1aa342d8c1ec1ae.jpg

2024-03-15 10:02:26 CET

- reply

Not so inactive either. :)

2024-03-08 10:11:12 CET

Did you know? When you pay sats to an orange-pilled taxi-driver, but you only do that at the end of the ride, without having written on global-consensus blockspace at every unit of Plank-time, you are being a CUSTODIAN, and custody-Bitcoin is NOT real Bitcoin!!!
STATIST LARPER!!!
Or maybe, just maybe, you should chill out a bit, and accept the existence of a security-model spectrum, while always aiming at the best extreme (that of total trustlessness) whenever possible, within reason, improving the improvable, without selling impossible dreams. Maybe.

2024-03-06 17:02:55 CET

- reply

@FBI

2023-12-30 17:53:24 CET

- reply

Matt, which of the people listed below do you think are misunderstandings higher order effects? Or there are others?
#nevent1q…g45k

2023-12-30 17:51:04 CET

- reply

Uh? The only radical mempool policy change proposal I see (removing incentive-incompatible filters entirely) are from Peter Todd and Ben Carman, but don't seem to have much following. Milder, more conservative proposals come from Luke Dashjr in Knots & disrespector-patch promoters in Core (extending to tapscript the very same datacarriersize policy that Core uses for pre-taproot txs) and Mark Erhardt (filtering out bare multisig in Core as well, as Knots already does since year). All minority views. Do you hear about anything else?

2023-12-29 15:56:15 CET

- reply

True. It would also be less useful to do so, as of now:
- I post less frequently, so there wouldn't be much of my content I can ban you from anyway
- I don't get tagged frequently, either by friends or foes, so I don't have to prevent that very aggressively

2023-07-30 18:33:45 CEST

Forgive my ignorance, didn't have time to search around: how do Amethyst lives work? Do they use nostr to identify a server that the client connects to? Or does it employ a centralized Amethyst server?

2023-07-30 18:32:11 CEST

- reply

Also, first post in a month because I finally found the time to install amethyst (via apk, since google play asks for a credit card I don't have) and transcribe by hand the hex format of a bip85 derivation from a coldcard. Postponed for so long.