<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw79gu0guq7s98t473fyavx3akwaafmx6l5z4rehd50lrcl2mf4zcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgkwaehxw309ashgmrpwvhxummnw3ezumrpdejqz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpr9mhxue69uhkzer4d36zuvfcwpk82uewwdhkx6tpdsq3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwveex2etsd3skxefwdekqjv80cm

Publishing to

Last Notes

2026-02-25 18:41:17 UTC

Onlysats #note1qca…vc28

2026-02-25 18:40:53 UTC

- 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 18:37:40 UTC

- reply

Legit question!

2026-02-21 15:33:19 UTC

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

2026-02-04 17:20:10 UTC

- reply

❤❤❤

2026-01-26 15:45:05 UTC

Catch the Bitcoin celebrities that refused to be judges to disguise among contestant. ;) #note1nsw…0c7f

2026-01-24 15:49:20 UTC

- reply

NO, and only degenerates would even consider the question!

2026-01-23 06:57:23 UTC

- reply

Lol

2026-01-23 06:56:31 UTC

- reply

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

2026-01-22 20:25:27 UTC

It might! ;) #note19qg…g753

2026-01-22 19:00:31 UTC

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

2025-11-18 01:41:43 UTC

- 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 14:55:41 UTC

- 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 15:43:58 UTC

- 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 15:26:19 UTC

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 15:33:58 UTC

- 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 12:49:04 UTC

- 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 11:40:14 UTC

- 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

2025-07-10 06:14:46 UTC

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!

2024-09-02 11:40:36 UTC

- 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 15:42:54 UTC

- reply

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

2024-08-29 13:57:00 UTC

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 08:34:10 UTC

- 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.

2024-08-24 12:00:50 UTC

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 08:43:14 UTC

- reply

2024-07-04 21:49:09 UTC

- reply

Thanks man!

2024-04-19 13:24:42 UTC

There's a disgusting gaslighting operation going on, coordinated by retardinal shitcoin scammers, seeding around several factual lies:
1) "Valid or expensive things can't be spam: spam is always free and protocol-level-invalid"
2) "Most Bitcoin developers have always been against using mempool filters to fight spam, Core never did it"
3) "Core's mempool filters are working as always intended, there never was an unintentional and unforeseen behavior of the datacarriersize parameter in tapscripts"
4) "The block-increase via witness-discount shipped with Segwit to appease big-blockers didn't end up incentivizing spam over real transactions"
5) "Mempool filters are anti-free-speech and anti-free market censorship, a precursor to OFAC compliant blocks"
6) "Mempool filters can be, contemporarily, totally ineffective in creating friction to spam AND ALSO extremely hurtful for fee prediction
7) "Ordinals and Wizards are not a typical and overt shitcoim grift (with negative effects on privacy and UX for Bitcoiners) but legit technical innovation for Bitcoin"
All lies. Absolute, clear, literal, evident, verifiable lies.
I'm skeptical of filters as a long-term sustainable solution for spam attacks, where the attacker is well-funded enough to bribe miners into behaving maliciously. I think the only structural and long-term solution can only be increasing economic density of L2s, to fight L1 censorship and spam with fee pressure. I believe covenant SFs in general and LNHance in particular would greatly help towards such goal. But I don't tolerate the above lies. And sadly the LNHance campaign is now deeply entangled with promoting them.

2024-04-19 13:00:31 UTC

I have long thought that the depiction of the "HODL" sub-subculture (within the Bitcoin subculture) as viciously statist, patheically cuck and dangerously anti-privacy, was vastly esagerated, at the hands of the specular "noKYC" sub-sbuculture (that also has its very serious issues: shitcoining, keynesianism, woke bullshit, etc.). Well, I have to admit the some red flags in this sense are real, and spreading. Some "HODL" folks would go to the extent to actually agree with privacy-focus shitcoiners in promoting "privacy coins" as better than Bitcoin (clear nonsense for technical and economical reasons). Horseshoe Theory of Bitcoin.
https://image.nostr.build/0cbc8874dcb90430592f20372e8f4d8eff2d78a7b7288dce9447c26755fb1260.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/da1e8028307e38caf11407b144e6162abd068bb8572ecbd0e081878982b28872.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/2d8327d262f84e3a7846e174f8ff19808fdb119e0870e5ca38254be778762b14.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/3052b892b45fb3784bf1c7548cf14141a5938e10d8be07504f7180361dc26275.jpg

2024-04-18 16:06:45 UTC

- reply

Concise and accurate!

2024-04-18 12:13:33 UTC

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 12:13:03 UTC

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

2024-03-20 14:43:28 UTC

- reply

Thanks man. But I prefer to cut ties with Shitcoin Magazin completely at this point. But I absolutely respect that the threshold is personal and not clear-cut.

2024-03-15 09:02:26 UTC

- reply

Not so inactive either. :)

2024-03-08 09:34:47 UTC

- reply

My only professional legal opinion is that I don't have professional legal opinions!
(semi-cit from "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", 1990)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fturtlepedia.fandom.com%2Fwiki%2FSterns_%25281990_film_series%2529&psig=AOvVaw1hZE5sUqBTryDf0tQGBXcT&ust=1709976832929000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBMQjRxqFwoTCIjqs5-u5IQDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

2024-03-08 09:24:06 UTC

- reply

And what about sub-meter intervals? What are you, a socialist?

2024-03-08 09:11:12 UTC

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 16:02:55 UTC

- reply

@FBI

2024-01-06 16:04:21 UTC

- reply

I think that both "filter teams" I mentioned (OCEAN-led datacarriersize proposal and Chaincodelabs-led bare-multisig proposal) are skeptical of important higher order effects of updating current Core's filter due to the fact that current Core's filter seamingly didn't produce such effects, and the new proposals don't change their fundamental logic. The stronger arguments I've seen about why these new updates would be worse are actually by the team proposing to remove non-fee-based filters from Core completely. But I'm quite sure that would have important higher order effects as well.
I'm not sure Luke or Murch want to wish away any economic game theory, but it's clear it's not a game theory "that makes Bitcoin work", since Core currently filters away high-fee-paying txs from mempool.
I think is entirely reasonabe on their part to suggest only mempool-level upgrades and not soft fork: mempool policy is a matter of local preference, relatively safe & dynamic, block validity is a matter of global consensus, very risky, hard to change and very hard to change back once changed. So far the only one I've seen suggesting a consensus change was a malicious troll by an "ordinals" developer, trying to lure anti-spam users into running a disastrous fork without even an activation date (I don't remember his name, but he's friend with some Bitcoiners so he gets a pass for such irresponsible behavior, sadly). In general, managing something as dynamic as spam with consensus rules seems frankly crazy to me. Spam attacks and DDoS are preferable to consensus failures and splits.
Bitcoin deva always advocated for whitelisted script templates, nothing new: currently Core stansardness rule explicitly whitelist 5 types of txs, while all the other possible types are nonstandard, regardless of the fees. Not having whitelists in mempool policies is *most definitely not* "what makes Bitcoin bitcoin".
I can't prevent malicious or apatic miners get their massive stack of fees coming from "NFT" frauds and spam attacks: I can just refuse to cooperate actively and shame them publicly.
I absolutely agree with you that one can think all of the inscriptions are spam, and accept nothing can be done about it. It may be the case. One could also think that something may be done to some degree (as I suspect) but that it's still better to focus efforts on other things: totally honest and respectable take.

2024-01-04 19:58:29 UTC

- reply

I mostly see people yelling because he's claiming that even in the case of the inflation bug, it would be legit bug fixing to change the documentation to align with the (buggy) code. But maybe we have a different follow-list so we see different yelling.

2024-01-04 19:56:33 UTC

- reply

Thank you for answering one-off even if blocked elsewhere (I block very liberally on Twitter, here it's neither possible nor needed).
The proposal you list is the second "type" I mention in my brief list. The higher order effect you mention (increasing already present offband auctions of blockspace) would be common between that and the third "type" (Much's proposal to filter out bare multisig, apparently popular among Core devs). But since Core already filters high-fee-paying valid txs, it seems to me that, at least in principle, the first "type" is the only proposal that would avoid that higher order effect completely...not the status quo. Even if I find it likely that the umprecedented move to a total lack of mempool filtering could produce way more/bigger higher order effects.

2023-12-30 16:51:04 UTC

- 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 14:56:15 UTC

- 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

2023-12-02 16:08:00 UTC

- reply

No, I think most of them actually invalid.

2023-09-03 09:57:08 UTC

- reply

My ass is here but in a specific GrapheneOS user that I often forget to open! :D

2023-09-03 09:56:05 UTC

- reply

I'll find him! And sue him for personal brand copyright infringement! ;)

2023-07-31 23:41:40 UTC

- reply

Thanks a lot! I still don't understand how the stream packets go from my device to yours: if relais added such a services or it is a direct connection between us, where the relais only relayed the post with the necessary instructions in the post. Is there any documentation I can read?

2023-07-30 18:14:39 UTC

- reply

It wasn't me to post it, though. Lugano Plan B account. I don't control it. :)

2023-07-30 16:33:45 UTC

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 16:32:11 UTC

- 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.

2023-07-30 16:30:18 UTC

- reply

The video was uploaded on Twitter directly. Are links to YouTube that better?

2023-07-30 15:37:20 UTC

Bits vs Sasts, Adam vs Giacomo!
https://twitter.com/LuganoPlanB/status/1685584288534683648