Shower thought: a frontend for C-Lightning should be called "Indoors".

*If you C-Lightning, get Indoors.*

harding boosted

This looks interesting: btc-rpc-proxy "enables you to specify several users and for each user the list of RPC calls he's allowed to make." Useful to reduce permissions of LN nodes, liquid, joinmarket, etc etc. by

harding boosted


Bitcoin Optech newsletter #71 is here:

- summarizes continued discussion of LN anchor outputs
- describes a proposal for allowing full nodes and lightweight clients to signal support for IP address relay
- requests Bitcoin Core RC feedback

@stevenroose I was only figuring 7 passengers per private jet. From , most of the private jets in the world are fairly small. From that page, I figured an average private jet to use about 2 liters of fuel per nautical mile (looking again, maybe 3L/nm is fairer); from the 747 page on Wikipedia, I calculated a 747-MAX uses about 7.5L/nm. Even if you assume only 1 passenger per private jet, it's only two orders of magnitude more fuel consumption per passenger.

@stevenroose FYI, I was curious, so I ran some quick numbers using data from Wikipedia and I get business jets using about 1 liter of fuel per every 3.5 passenger miles. A 737-MAX commercial jet uses about 1 liter per 25 passenger miles (if it doesn't crash). (Both figures assume full passenger capacity.) Only a single order of magnitude difference in fuel consumption per passenger doesn't seem that significant to me. (Warning: my math could be totally off.)

@stevenroose Even if it's true that demand for jet-quality fuel is highly inelastic (which doesn't sound right to me), as long as demand remains, people are going to continue extracting hydrocarbons from ancient reservoirs, burn them, and dump the resultant material into the atmosphere. At best, any climate-change consequences are delayed (but perhaps prolonged).

@stevenroose banning x consumer of fuel doesn't reduce the amount of fuel available, so it probably doesn't reduce the amount of fuel or pollution that will ultimately be produced.

@kekcoin @orionwl @devrandom To produce a compiler, you need... a compiler. So somewhere you have to trust someone's compiler (this is called the "trusting trust" problem; see Ken Thompson). The solution being worked on by various people, which Carl Dong hopes to adopt for Bitcoin Core, is to create a tiny compiler of about ~500 lines of well-documented assembly and use that to bootstrap building more advanced compilers from well-audited source code, which then build the rest of the toolchain.

@waxwing @stevenroose 2/2 Given that the number of coins lost each year is likely to be highly variable and that, worse, in the current design of Bitcoin and Ethereum, users don't know the know of coins lost in the most common ways (e.g. lost privkeys), I think a system with perpetual fixed inflation could suffer from periods of high inflation or high deflation in percentage terms---and that the only way of detecting this would be using things like CPI.

@waxwing @stevenroose I think it's only asymptotic zero inflation if no coins are ever lost, e.g.if we only look at total emitted supply. If we look at circulating supply, the inflation rate asymptotically approaches the average rate of coin loss; e.g. if 1% of coins leave circulation each year, the number of coins in circulation will stabilize at around 100x the fixed inflation rate. 1/2

harding boosted

There is absolutely a right to be able to pay to lie to the masses, free from state interference: this is protected speech.

Companies like Twitter have a similar right to decline to run such advertising.

Speech rules are precise and should be discussed with precision.

There are specific categories of lie in relation to which lying is actionable or criminal: defamation, false light torts, perjury, fraud.

But the government can't criminalize the political equivalent of puffery no matter what kind of "damage to institutions" may arise, perceived or actual.

@stevenroose You could make it a soft fork by forcing all UTXOs created after the fork date to use a new segwit version that allows any UTXO to be spent by anyone after x years. E.g., force people to either spend their UTXOs within 10 years or lose them to someone else. (This requires some care to not incentivize miners to block transactions and so claim the value themselves.)

@FreePietje Sorry, I'm traveling and don't currently have access to my RockPro. 😠

@stevenroose I though in Freicoin, the implicit input value of a coin was depreciated by the demurrage rate. E.g. for 5% annual demurrage, a 1.00 freicoin UTXO would be worth 0.95 freicoin if spent after a year. That allows giving miners a constant subsidy equal to total_supply * demurrage_rate / blocks_per_year.

@stevenroose @FreePietje @waxwing I was thinking in terms of reorg safety, e.g. the reason generation transactions (coinbase tx) have a 100-block waiting period before they can be spent, or the reason that OP_CLTV and OP_CSV don't just push block heights to the stack, or the reason nLockTime can't be used to specify a time when a transaction expires if not confirmed (a much desired feature).

@stevenroose @FreePietje @waxwing Hmm, thinking about it as a soft fork makes me wonder what happens during a reorg. E.g., if my tx paid the appropriate minimum fee for demurrage in block height x, what happens if there's a reorg and a miner wants to included my tx in block height x+1 where the fee is insufficient?

Show more

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!