hoppe2

Public Key

npub1pt4qwkcpp76et45pfatrxqywsuxh0gky84xa592yapesuqye29zql4eera

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsq46s8tvqsldv466q5743nqz8gwrth5tzr6nw6z4zwsucwqzv4z3qpremhxue69uhkummnw3ezu6r0wpcx2ttjv4kxz7fwd96zucm0d5q32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv35hgar09ec82cs8m4cx3

Publishing to

nostr.hoppe-relay.it.com

relay.ditto.pub

relay.wisp.talk

Author Public Key

npub1pt4qwkcpp76et45pfatrxqywsuxh0gky84xa592yapesuqye29zql4eera

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-10-25 11:18:43 UTC

- reply

Even self-proclaimed Bitcoiners don’t seem to understand this. They think they’re just victims and that the government is oppressing us—as if the government had Marvel-character-level superpowers. But the government can oppress its citizens only because those citizens have given it that power. Its real strength comes from the gutter-rat mentality of cheering when the government goes after people who earn more or have more than they do. If people stopped doing that, the government would immediately be reduced to an incompetent bunch of crazies.

2026-10-24 16:26:45 UTC

- reply

It works well. Now that I think about it, it’s a feature I need.

2026-10-24 10:06:26 UTC

- reply

국가의 적절한 역할은 소멸 정도겠죠 ㅎㅎ

2026-10-23 23:30:37 UTC

- reply

Today I found out why two posts I wrote after switching my outbox relays to a lesser-known one don't show up in iPhone clients.

2026-10-22 00:14:10 UTC

- reply

gm ☕

2026-10-16 00:28:08 UTC

- reply

I tried DMing between a Nostr app on iPhone and one on Android. Sending from the iPhone to the Android worked fine, but when I tried sending from the Android side, it said the recipient hadn't set up DM relays, so it couldn't go through. So I went to set them up on the iPhone app, and there's no separate DM relay setting anywhere ☺

2026-10-09 14:34:45 UTC

Here is what the wallet I built does. When it refreshes, it doesn't merge everything into one VTXO. It sets aside a few small "hot" coins for everyday payments and gathers the rest into a single "cold" coin (the names are my own). And when it pays, it uses a single coin whenever it can, because merging spreads the contagion.
Which coin it uses is also fixed: the most worn-out one first. The measure is the amount minus the exit cost, that is, what I could actually salvage on the worst day. The coin where that number is lowest, or already negative, gets spent first. A coin whose exit cost has passed its amount has nothing left to salvage, so piling a hundred more payments onto it costs me nothing further. Spending from a clean coin, on the other hand, eats into money I could have recovered in full.
Done this way, no matter how fast exit cost builds up, it stays quarantined inside one hot coin, and ownership of most of the balance remains intact.
https://npub1pt4qwkcpp76et45pfatrxqywsuxh0gky84xa592yapesuqye29zql4eera.blossom.band/4c786abeffd009e9f46973fdb40ebc7f589b6918b5bf2b6ff93864c1d8b76713.png
Here is the actual state of my ark wallet. At refresh I split it into three hot coins of 5,000 sats each and one cold coin, then routed every payment through one of the hot coins. While that coin's balance fell by about 600 sats, it accumulated 123 transactions, and its exit cost is now around 87,000 sats. That is 20 times the coin's value, and more than the wallet's entire balance of about 67,000. Had I been spending from one merged coin, everything I own would be impossible to exit (possible, strictly speaking, but pointless). Yet the 52,000-sat cold coin can still leave for about 2,400 sats, 5% of its amount.
As you can see, an Ark wallet has a lot to get right, especially if it is to guarantee ownership without sacrificing usability. But I don't count that as a weakness, because everything that has to be done sits on the local side. What matters for ownership is not whether the logic is complicated, but whether it has dependencies. Even the simplest thing isn't fully mine if it needs someone else's cooperation. Something a bit complicated that depends only on client logic just takes some care to build.
Once a coin has been refreshed, the worst an ASP can do is refuse to cooperate, and then I simply exit. But if that exit costs more than the money, the promise is hollow. Keeping the exit cost down to a reasonable level is what makes it real. And if users can walk away cheaply, the only one ruined by a refusal is the ASP itself, so it has no reason to refuse in the first place.
#nevent1q…e93d

2026-10-09 14:01:29 UTC

Over the last four posts I looked at how Ark gains scalability while staying self-custodial. Today I want to look at another of its drawbacks: cost. In the first post I said that most criticisms of Ark are things a well-behaved client can overcome. This is the biggest of them.
Ark's self-custody rests on the right to exit unilaterally. But unlike Lightning, where a unilateral exit takes just two onchain transactions no matter how heavily the channel has been used, an Ark exit has no fixed size. To exit a VTXO, I have to replay its offchain transaction history onchain, in order. Not all the way back, of course; only as far as the last refresh. Still, if I've been spending actively offchain, that can mean dozens or even hundreds of transactions, and whoever exits pays the fees for all of them.
So every time a VTXO is spent, an "exit cost" quietly piles up behind it, separate from its face value. An onchain transaction costs a few hundred sats, so each time I pay a few dozen sats offchain, the onchain value of that coin drops by far more than what I spent. Keep going, and at some point the exit cost exceeds the amount of the coin itself. From then on, my cryptographic ownership of it is ownership in name only.
It gets worse, because exit cost is contagious. If I put a heavily used VTXO and a clean one into the same payment, the change inherits the history of both. Nothing I do offchain can shrink it. Only a refresh resets it to zero.
And a wallet left to its defaults drifts straight into the worst case. A refresh merges my whole balance into a single VTXO, so every small payment after that raises the exit cost of everything I own. Even when I do hold several VTXOs, the SDK's default coin selection reaches for the largest one first.
So is the unilateral exit an empty promise for anyone who actually uses Ark? No. And once again, the fix is entirely up to the client.
#nevent1q…fdxg

2026-10-09 03:33:16 UTC

- reply

nice

2026-10-06 16:19:07 UTC

- reply

I can't zap this note, and I can't tell whether the problem is on the Lightning address server side or on my wallet side.

2026-10-06 01:22:08 UTC

On my way to work, I didn’t realize until I got to the office that I’d taken my laptop home over the weekend. I really want to die. When am I ever going to achieve FIRE? Even if I can’t do that, I’d be perfectly happy just to get a job at a company that lets me work from home.

2026-10-03 15:58:03 UTC

This is where Ark's greatest achievement comes in. Many people can take part in an Ark refresh at the same time, and yet the transaction size does not grow in proportion to the number of participants; it stays fixed. In other words, unlike other onchain transactions, the transactions generated by Ark activity don't consume block space exclusively for a single person. They consume truly O(1) block space, which is qualitatively different from something like the batched withdrawals commonly seen at exchanges (a batched withdrawal needs as many outputs as there are recipients).
So, taking all of this into account, Ark scales Bitcoin significantly, but in a completely different direction from Lightning. To use internet speed as an analogy, Lightning offers low latency, while Ark offers high throughput. Ark doesn't guarantee Lightning-level immediacy for large amounts, but in most transactions, amounts above a certain size don't really need immediacy anyway; what matters is throughput. And once full ownership has been secured through a refresh, I can spend freely from then on. The resulting VTXOs will still be marked as theoretically double-spendable, but since the only person who could double-spend them is me, their safety is guaranteed.
Ark also lets users send and receive payments and transfers across ASPs "atomically" through the Lightning nodes run by ASPs, without bearing the burden of running a node themselves. This should vastly improve on Lightning's weakness in reliability and dramatically reduce failure rates. Being able to receive without keeping anything running is another great advantage.
Of course, users do bear a liveness requirement. It's true that anyone who wants a fully unilateral exit needs to be fairly diligent about maintaining that liveness. But only those who want that need to do so.
In conclusion, I believe Ark can be called self-custodial when used with a precise understanding of how it works, and I expect that, thanks to its overwhelming convenience, it will play the most important role if a world where people pay with bitcoin ever arrives.
#nevent1q…h3hz

2026-10-03 15:37:03 UTC

Therefore, as long as the client-side wallet app behaves properly, nearly complete self-custody can be guaranteed for nearly everyone. In particular, for people whose usage pattern is occasionally receiving large sums and spending them in small amounts, it can guarantee almost total ownership, provided the wallet app pairs a sensible refresh strategy with coin control. And that is not difficult at all, because it requires no cooperation from the ASP; it is entirely up to the client.
Receiving a substantial amount on Layer 2 while knowing it could still be double-spent may be hard to accept. But this, too, is the kind of problem that can be managed with the right mental model. The answer is simply to refresh right away and not count the funds as received until the refresh is done. In other words, they should be treated the same as zero-confirmation funds onchain.
Having explained this far, I expect the following objection:
"The whole point of a Layer 2 is that onchain is slow and expensive. If certainty requires a refresh, and a refresh is an onchain transaction, then why bother using it at all? Doesn't that mean waiting for onchain block confirmations anyway? Besides, the reason Lightning isn't a complete solution is that even though channels can be used freely once opened, the chain could never handle it if every person made even a single onchain transaction. Isn't this the same thing? In fact, unlike Lightning, where a channel can be reused indefinitely once opened, this has to be done every time a lump sum comes in, so doesn't it require even more onchain transactions?"
#nevent1q…ykcn

2026-10-03 15:20:52 UTC

So what does it mean that someone other than me can touch my funds on Layer 2? It means that if the previous owner of a VTXO I hold (essentially, bitcoin on Layer 2) colludes with the ASP, a double spend becomes possible. I may think I've received the money, but in reality it could have been double-spent so that someone else receives it too, and if that person withdraws onchain first, I have no recourse.
Some might conclude from this that it isn't self-custody at all, but that's not the case. A VTXO can have its history reset through a process called "refresh," either periodically or whenever its owner wants. Put simply, a refresh is an onchain transaction, and through it the VTXO becomes something only I can withdraw. This is cryptographically guaranteed.
And since the only party who can wrongfully touch my VTXO is its previous owner, once I've refreshed, every change VTXO that comes back to me as I spend from then on belongs to me alone, because every previous owner is me.
#nevent1q…ma6g

2026-10-03 15:08:08 UTC

I really like the Lightning Network, but there's one thing its critics say that I can't help but agree with: Lightning alone cannot solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. In fact, that was the very first thing I asked the Bitcoiners here publicly when I first came to Nostr (though I never got a single answer).
This is obvious to anyone who can do a bit of arithmetic, which is why everyone is exploring new Layer 2s to complement Lightning. I'm no exception, and of all of them, I consider Ark the most promising. Its detractors call it a "fake L2" or even a "scam." So which side has the stronger case? Let's look at whether their arguments actually hold up.
For a Layer 2 to be called self-custodial, it must satisfy the following conditions:
An onchain deposit must atomically result in Layer 2 funds.
A Layer 2 withdrawal must atomically result in an onchain UTXO.
I must be able to perform #2 entirely on my own, without any help from the Ark Service Provider, and even in an adversarial environment.
No one but me should be able to touch my funds on Layer 2.
Ark satisfies 1, 2, and 3. The only one it doesn't fully satisfy is #4, and that is the strongest criticism against Ark. There are other criticisms too, but most of them are drawbacks that can all be overcome as long as the client behaves correctly. I see those as UX issues, not something to be addressed from a custody standpoint.

2026-10-03 05:54:38 UTC

- reply

Seems you're pretty pessimistic about Lightning. Does Monero intend to solve everything on layer 1? I was told that you fundamentally can never achieve scalability with layer 1 alone, and it was fairly convincing. I heard that block size is an absolute limit that constrains scale, and even if you try to make block size flexibly enlargeable to get around it, that just makes it even harder for ordinary people to run nodes. Combined with the fact that you can't prune the UTXO set for privacy reasons, and that transaction sizes are inherently larger, it's a design that's far more disadvantageous for scaling than Bitcoin—and the only reason it hasn't hit that problem yet is that there are far fewer users. If users grow, they argued, it'll become far harder to use than Bitcoin. Ultimately scale can only be solved with layer 2, but due to Monero's nature it's too hard to build a layer 2, so eventually ordinary people won't be able to run nodes, and the moment they delegate operation to experts, all of Monero's advantages become meaningless—that was their argument. It sounded plausible to me. What's the Monero brothers' answer to this?
I'm not attacking, I'm just asking because I'm curious. I also think the idea of Lightning, especially having ordinary people run it, is quite unrealistic. I just don't know much about Monero.

2026-09-22 16:21:07 UTC

- reply

Even if everything eventually starts working smoothly, I still can’t imagine convincing my friends to install at least two apps just to deal with a signer.

2026-09-17 00:29:26 UTC

most usful nostr app
#nevent1q…2vs2

2026-09-15 13:10:51 UTC

- reply

I also left a comment there — beyond privacy and the risk of state attacks, there's one more thing worth weighing, and it's why I voted no: scalability, or maybe more precisely how easy it is to build a layer 2. It isn't mathematically proven, but looking at the tech we have so far, getting scalability, ownership and privacy all at once looks impossible. And if we have to give up one of the three, it should be the last one. Because privacy can be recovered at a higher layer

2026-09-14 15:42:19 UTC

- reply

alby hub?

2026-09-06 14:12:58 UTC

- reply

Thinking about it, the core of reply spam is the asymmetry: posting a reply just once gives it unlimited exposure, so charging a very small fee wouldn’t help much. Why didn’t you tell me this before I built it? I wasted my tokens for nothing 😂

2026-09-06 14:01:40 UTC

#nevent1q…vrw7
Today I completely solved nostr's spam problem. The link below is a demo web client and relay you can try out — a pay-per-reply concept where posting a comment costs you 1 sat.
https://npub1pt4qwkcpp76et45pfatrxqywsuxh0gky84xa592yapesuqye29zql4eera.nsite.lol/
This page is a plain nostr client (it follows the outbox model properly) that shows the 5 most recent notes from one hardcoded account. That account has exactly one inbox relay, and that relay charges.
Connect NWC and you can actually leave a comment, paying 1 sat for it. No login — comments are signed with a throwaway key. It uses ecash, so you need to top up 100 sats to start, but once you're done testing you can sweep the whole balance back to your own lightning address (2 sat fee).
If NWC supported keysend, no top-up would be needed and this could be genuinely pay-per-reply. But it doesn't, so there's no one-way push payment — doing it over lightning would take two round trips, which is why it's ecash instead.
I’m not a professional relay operator, and the relay isn’t optimized, so the connection may be somewhat unstable. Thank you for your understanding.

2026-09-06 12:40:59 UTC

- reply

THIS IS SPAM REPLY

2026-09-03 14:44:07 UTC

- reply

That’s true—it was an unrealistic hope.

2026-09-03 14:28:05 UTC

- reply

If everyone followed the standard, things would work with a reasonable amount of effort. But once we start relying on nonstandard behavior, it may be convenient in the short term, yet it eventually becomes the de facto standard. Wouldn’t it be better to avoid using hardcoded relays?

2026-09-03 14:23:41 UTC

I’d like to ask something I’ve been curious about for a while.
For a Nostr client that respects the outbox model, when fetching the replies to a note, it wouldn’t retrieve them from some arbitrarily hardcoded relay. Instead, it would find the note author’s inbox relays and fetch the replies from there. The note itself, of course, would be fetched from the author’s outbox relays.
That much seems obvious, but what happens with replies to replies?
Does the client fetch them **only** from the original author’s inbox relays, or does it also look up the inbox relays of the authors of the replies and fetch them from there as well? And as more replies are added, does it keep looking up the inbox relays of each new author and continue fetching from those relays?
If all Nostr clients followed the standard exactly, the former approach should be enough to find everything. When posting a reply, a client is required to tag every `p` tag from the parent note, so the author of the root event would also be included. That means the root event author’s inbox relays would be among the broadcast targets as well.
How is this usually implemented?

2026-08-27 15:33:52 UTC

- reply

amethyst O
wisp O
jumble X

2026-08-27 12:23:21 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is so cheap right now that I can't afford to buy anything else, but once it breaks its all-time high, I'm planning to buy a new computer. It would be perfect if computer prices crashed at that exact moment.

2026-08-22 15:21:27 UTC

I once heard someone say this: "Is it normal to have to open a messenger just to copy and paste? Everyone uses it that way, so they don't even realize how inconvenient it is. But having to open a messenger just to copy-paste between devices—that's not normal. It's incredibly inconvenient, it's seriously bad for privacy" and so on and so forth.
They said they searched everywhere for an app that solved this problem, but found nothing. Their argument was that people aren't not inconvenienced by it—they just don't realize how inconvenient it is, they're using it out of sheer habit. And then they said they were going to solve it and were looking for investment.
I strongly agreed with the core problem itself. But I wondered in this day and age, does solving this really require investment and dedicated developers? So I just made it myself using AI.
I figured Nostr would be a great fit, so I decided to use it as an opportunity to help spread Nostr too. Everything—encryption and message delivery—relies on Nostr. For cross-device login, I used Amber, so that even on a fresh start, users don't have to manually transfer anything. The relays also automatically detect and switch to the user's preferred relays.
While building it, I found out that these kinds of tools do actually exist. I'd been told there was nothing, so I went ahead and made it—lol. But I'm using it and it works well for me. And in some respects, mine seems better than the existing alternatives. So I thought that with a bit of promotion, I could probably get a decent number of users.
A clipboard sync tool is something that non-technical people would find useful. I figured if the distribution process weren't such a pain, there might actually be demand. So right now I'm only distributing through Zapstore, but I decided I should also put it on the Google Play Store and promote it to regular users. I started building an onboarding page for general users...
...and that's when I discovered that Amber isn't on the Play Store.
Which means, for a regular user to use this:
They have to manually dismiss all kinds of warning messages and install Zapstore themselves.
They have to install Amber and create a key.
They have to install my app and log in via NIP-46.
That's the barrier. And if I want to avoid that, I'd have to let them install via a direct APK from GitHub. So I just gave up on promoting it to general users.
https://zapstore.dev/apps/naddr1qqfkxmmd9e5x7ursv5hxxmrfwpex2mrp0yq3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fw0fshqum5daex2tnyv4mqygq2agr4kqg0kk2adq202cespr58p4m693pafhdp238gwv8qpx23gspsgqqq0c9spdsmg4

2026-08-17 15:47:18 UTC

- reply

what is protocol level issues that are not really solvable?

2026-08-15 12:31:17 UTC

- reply

GM. coffee time

2026-08-11 15:01:13 UTC

@npub1psm…8970 has been closing channels. Is this related to the service being suspended after a recent attack, or are they just cleaning up low-usage channels? What's going on?
https://amboss.space/node/026165850492521f4ac8abd9bd8088123446d126f648ca35e60f88177dc149ceb2
https://npub1pt4qwkcpp76et45pfatrxqywsuxh0gky84xa592yapesuqye29zql4eera.blossom.band/984a50da08a604902ed2ae59891a25918391e8e8c0f5e9340dec2a832b07e942.png

2026-08-11 14:14:23 UTC

- reply

t o r r e n t

2026-08-11 10:56:34 UTC

- reply

Do moms and dads really see their kids snapping photos looking like that and not feel even slightly weirded out? lol

2026-08-08 11:45:54 UTC

- reply

wow. nice

2026-08-06 12:38:58 UTC

- reply

Considering that most people used gold exchange certificates for money even before there was an online business (so there wasn’t really any particular reason why it had to be that way), and that they did so simply for convenience, we can imagine that Bitcoin will probably end up in a similar way. Perhaps true freedom is impossible, and we may have to settle for merely preserving our purchasing power.

2026-08-06 12:20:17 UTC

- reply

Good Morning — what's gonna blow up today?

2026-08-06 12:02:04 UTC

- reply

GM 🫂

2026-08-06 12:00:12 UTC

- reply

GM!! 🫂

2026-08-06 11:57:04 UTC

- reply

It reminds me of how hardcore Bitcoiners used to trash gold over storage costs whenever they argued with gold bugs. From my position of holding both, I thought 'that's really not true at all,' but I didn't bother jumping in.

2026-08-06 11:53:14 UTC

Has anyone seen anything shared about what actually happened to Boltz that's got the service down — or is it still under investigation?

2026-08-04 15:49:42 UTC

- reply

I heard the other day that when putting funds into a Nostr app — specifically into a Taproot address directly tied to a pubkey (as implemented in Amethyst or Ditto) — it's a good idea to only put in an amount suitable for use as a canary to detect whether the nsec has leaked, and that made sense to me.

2026-08-04 00:18:28 UTC

- reply

2026-08-03 07:56:21 UTC

- reply

2026-08-03 02:22:11 UTC

https://npub1pt4qwkcpp76et45pfatrxqywsuxh0gky84xa592yapesuqye29zql4eera.blossom.band/d0870088b8a0bce8f77ca31a5ce41b248835f9aa9e83ed417aec3b9a48c6e964.jpg

2026-08-02 14:40:56 UTC

- reply

beautiful life

2026-08-02 14:39:28 UTC

- reply

Actually, things like 'no-log' policies or 'we delete customer data' claims can't really be verified, so it was probably inappropriate for them to market that as a competitive advantage in the first place. And honestly, people shouldn't have believed it even if they claimed it. I never believed this kind of 'no-log' stuff anyway — I always figured deleting data is extra work, so they're probably just not deleting it.

2026-08-02 10:10:41 UTC

- reply

2026-08-02 05:02:22 UTC

- reply

honestly makes sense — vibecoded apps just borrow the OS's RNG for free, so it's kind of expected lol

2026-08-01 13:26:51 UTC

- reply

2026-08-01 13:01:40 UTC

- reply

Good morning. I recommended gathering Bitcoin to everyone I know, but no one listened to me except my parents, and even my parents didn’t transfer it from exchange. It was a bit frustrating, but this time it seemed like my parents were right. Even if it just means paying a bit more in taxes, I think it’d be better for my parents’ Bitcoin to stay there.

2026-08-01 12:58:23 UTC

- reply

GM Derek

2026-07-31 13:53:57 UTC

What’s the best way to connect to Chinese open-source models like GLM 5.2, DeepSeek, or Kimi? Would something like OpenCode be good? I’ve only used Claude Code with Opus, so I’m not really sure. I’m a bit tight on money lately, so I probably need to look for something cheaper.

2026-07-31 13:29:20 UTC

- reply

Good night. You must live in a time zone similar to mine.

2026-07-31 13:13:42 UTC

I’ve been very positive about Bitcoin, but I’ve always thought that, in terms of storage, it would inevitably cost much more than physical gold and silver. Since I own both, that’s simply been my experience. It’s a deeply unfortunate thing.
There are so many footguns where one mistake can wipe out your entire net worth, and I’m skeptical about whether this is something ordinary people can realistically handle. It’s easy to blame victims for not being careful, but most people can’t be cryptographers.

2026-07-30 07:27:33 UTC

- reply

GM. It looks delicious

2026-07-29 00:08:21 UTC

gm. I miscalculated the date and realized that something I thought could be reset today actually turns out to need waiting 10 more days.

2026-07-27 04:40:05 UTC

I’ve decided I can confidently recommend Nostr to people around me once DMs are reliably delivered in about the top 5 apps by usage.

2026-07-27 00:12:31 UTC

- reply

That’s exactly why all those things—RWA, STO, and the like—are basically scams.

2026-07-22 15:47:41 UTC

- reply

Although I'm not Japanese myself, as someone from the neighboring country, I can't help but chime in — I don't know about vegan pizza, but vegan sushi is honestly a ridiculous concept. It's an insult to sushi.

2026-07-22 00:42:39 UTC

The most frustrating thing about Lightning is that, no matter how well I set things up, a payment fails if the counterparty’s side is misconfigured. The second annoyance is that when a payment fails, it’s hard to tell right away whether the problem is on my side or the other party’s. A better solution is needed.

2026-07-21 15:28:43 UTC

- reply

how can i access fips?

2026-07-20 10:56:39 UTC

In the past, while building a Nostr-related app, I realized that Nostr's pub-sub model lets you act as a server without needing a domain or a fixed IP — and I thought that was incredibly useful.
Around the same time, looking at Lightning Address, I thought it was kind of lackluster, but figured it was unavoidable if you wanted a fixed receiving handle.
Then not long ago I finally saw CLINK. Why didn't I think of that?!

2026-07-17 12:18:21 UTC

- reply

I'm looking for ways to earn money with Bitcoin from the start, so I can get out of this terrible fiat-mining job. I need to get it done as quickly as possible.

2026-07-16 01:37:12 UTC

I think I’ll get fired at work this year. Being a developer doesn’t seem to suit me, so I’m considering doing manual labor.

2026-07-15 03:48:38 UTC

- reply

Is OpenCode better than Claude Code? Or do you use OpenCode because it's more suitable when switching models?

2026-07-15 00:43:16 UTC

I’m wondering whether there is a “pay‑to‑read” service on Nostr. On many platforms, if I click a link to read an article, I’m immediately prompted to log in, so I just close the page. A micro‑payment system could be a better solution for that.
Legacy social networks don’t have built‑in payment features, so it seems impossible there, but with Zap and Lightning becoming common on Nostr, it should be feasible, right?
Would it be difficult to implement the part that receives the payment and distributes it? I haven’t thought about it deeply yet. In my usage pattern, when I click a link to a long‑form article that interests me on Nostr, I’d probably be fine with a small payment request. Nostr makes it possible with a single click.

2026-07-14 00:33:24 UTC

- reply

It happened to me too, haha.

2026-07-09 03:49:18 UTC

- reply

Laws and order should not be constraints governing us, but services we voluntarily choose.
In other words, all matters must be based on mutual agreements.
For example, private insurance companies could provide judgment services.
Someone might argue, "Without a single unified legal system, disputes will never end."
However, the response would be: Even now, disputes with foreigners aren't governed by a single law, yet they generally function effectively.

2026-07-08 17:08:03 UTC

- reply

Ark has the same "back up your proof every vtxo" requirement. And the same limitation: the moment you receive offchain vtxo(and proof), you can unilaterally exit, but it isn't exclusive either — a colluding previous owner + ASP could still double-spend your prior state.
What's better about Ark is the periodic batch round (an onchain tx). When you participate, your old VTXO gets forfeited, which kills the stale state a prior owner could've exited with — so exclusivity is restored and only you, the latest owner, hold full ownership.
And the batch settlement is O(1) onchain regardless of participant count — thousands of participants still settle into a single shared Taproot output that just looks like a normal address. (You only unroll the tree if you unilaterally exit.) That amortizes the fee across everyone, so at scale the per-user burden becomes almost negligible.

2026-07-08 16:52:57 UTC

- reply

The DA dependency isn't really the issue imo — if a holder backs up their proof each tx, a withheld proof just means it's treated as unreceived. Worst case a UX problem, handled in the background.
Spark's real problem, as I understand it, isn't that — it's that even with every proof in hand, you don't quite get true self-custody. Not because UE is impossible, but because it may not be exclusive: as I understand it the federation can equivocate, so a colluding prior owner could double-spend. And if exit exclusivity rests on federation honesty, that's not self-enforcing — or am I missing something?

2026-07-07 08:18:35 UTC

- reply

korea 😂

2026-07-07 00:17:13 UTC

- reply

I want to try it, but there’s nowhere to get it here.

2026-07-03 00:16:05 UTC

https://npub1pt4qwkcpp76et45pfatrxqywsuxh0gky84xa592yapesuqye29zql4eera.blossom.band/4c6c4ad6860824e6e8d7b3070127bb6a5775e5dca1e99aedc9bb28db7ed41cab.jpg
3 hop 0 fee
first time seeing something like this

2026-07-01 15:51:01 UTC

- reply

wallpaper

2026-07-01 11:36:09 UTC

- reply

When the spec actually said it uses the same cryptographic scheme as Bitcoin to create identities, I did think, "Ah, so it derives the same key into a Bitcoin address and uses it to send and receive money." Because I heared it's a Bitcoin native protocol...

2026-07-01 11:28:02 UTC

- reply

Yeah. Before even getting to the argument that " delegating simple tasks to AI frees up time to focus more on design" — in my case, I probably wouldn't have even thought about building anything in the first place if AI hadn't existed.
Recently I had to deal with handling a zero-confirm tx (obviously not talking about on-chain stuff, haha), and going through the process — proposing an approach, getting rebutted by AI, then re-rebutting AI's suggestion, and finally reaching a conclusion — I learned a lot along the way.

2026-07-01 09:48:34 UTC

I've noticed a lot of controversy in Western societies about introducing ID numbers. Since I live in a country that adopted this system decades ago, let me give you a heads up on a few things:
Every single time you sign up for something, you'll experience hell.
Site operators will also experience hell trying to manage all that personal data.
You'll see news about personal data breaches pouring in almost every day.
Using issue #3 as an excuse, they'll demand even more personal information under the pretext of better distinguishing identity theft from legitimate use.
Idiots won't realize this whole mess stems from government policies that force companies to collect personal data in the first place—instead, they'll blame companies for "failing to manage it properly," causing social division.
Enormous amounts of time and manpower will be wasted handling personal data that never would have been leaked if it hadn't been collected in the first place.
Under the pretext of protecting personal information, government intervention in corporate operations will expand dramatically

2026-07-01 01:14:43 UTC

- reply

Batch openings don't seem to provide much scalability benefit, but sharing outputs could be significantly helpful — arc is considered to be implemented for this purpose. While it may not offer the immediate finality comparable to Lightning, it pertains to an area where economies of scale apply. In the future, large-scale ASPs will be able to conduct batch settlement transactions in every block, and when that happens, Arc enables:
1. Cheap utilization of vtxos with unilateral exit rights reset every block.
2. Much more reliable operation for zero-conf payments (here, meaning participation in a batch round rather than onchain confirmation) due to the incentive model — since it’s not anonymous customer but ASPs maintaining an ongoing business that must cooperate.

2026-06-30 07:09:13 UTC

- reply

What percentage of messages are spam for an account as popular as yours? Is the spam filter active, making it impossible to check?

2026-06-29 01:52:34 UTC

- reply

There's a similar warning about not using hotel shower heads—advising either not to use them or to bring your own personal shower head to replace it. The reason is rather hard to talk about frankly.

2026-06-24 11:16:41 UTC

I just eliminated 23 Nostr zombies using #PlebsVsZombies! 🔪🧟‍♂️🧟‍♂️
My Zombie Score™ was 10%! What's yours?
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟩🟩
Follow @npub1pvz…sd4h and join the hunt at: 🏹
https://plebsvszombies.cc

2026-06-13 06:58:11 UTC

- reply

If we're talking about things we can do at an individual level:
1. There are many things that are illegal but don't actually violate anyone's private property—if you've been in the habit of reporting such things, stop doing that immediately.
2. Encourage tax evasion.
3. Persuade others to join in on points 1 and 2 as well.
4. Advocate for, use, and spread the freedom-enabling technologies that make it easier for others to do these things.
5. Above all, stop voting.
6. Exclude, as much as possible, the voluntary Gestapo who can't be persuaded.
In fact, there's one path that's the easiest way to put all of this into practice—one that requires no special effort and is even beneficial to do: save in Bitcoin and pay in Bitcoin.

2026-06-11 13:29:27 UTC

- reply

I used to have this goal of building a sleek Nostr client like yours, so I'd pore over the NIPs. After reading through them multiple times, I came to the conclusion that I should find something else I'm actually good at haha

2026-06-11 11:33:32 UTC

- reply

And this goes without saying, but... it's not just about tagging — the client also needs to look up the inbox relays of every tagged person and publish to those relays as well.

2026-06-11 11:29:09 UTC

- reply

The reason the notification isn't going through is that the problematic note isn't tagging your pubkey. Also, per the Nostr standard spec(NIP), in order to send notifications properly, client is supposed to tag everyone involved — meaning all participants from the root note all the way down to that comment — but it looks like Wisp only tags the pubkey of the immediate parent note.

2026-06-03 03:49:48 UTC

- reply

Most of my NIP-46 issues come from the OS killing my processes. It's never been an issue on Linux, but mobile has been a constant struggle

2026-05-31 06:37:33 UTC

- reply

Just to clarify — this is a general statement; I don't know what this app does.

2026-05-31 06:36:29 UTC

- reply

Right — logging in or signing up is really annoying. For most use cases, an automatically generated private key stored in the browser is enough, provided there's some protection against spam attacks (or the app doesn't need spam protection).

2026-05-21 00:47:41 UTC

- reply

Basically, all financial products, including insurance, are just a gamble. But to be more precise, that 'gamble' is just an excuse to take people's money. They collect cash from users under that pretext and use it to buy assets. In the end, they’re just shorting the dollar using our own money, and we’re paying them a fee to do it for us. We could literally just do it ourselves for free.

2026-05-20 00:26:14 UTC

- reply

I've actually built a fully non-KYC service before, and the thing is, it becomes extremely vulnerable to spam attacks. Then you end up piling on all this complexity just to mitigate it, and from the user's perspective the UX becomes genuinely awful. Anyone on Nostr probably feels this to some degree... and then what happens is maintenance becomes a nightmare, users go "wtf is this, it sucks, I'm out." That's just how it goes.
The other classic solution is using reputation to filter spam — but then we basically just killed the whole point of anonymity

2026-05-18 13:37:27 UTC

People say on-chain zaps are dangerous because they make you a target. But here's the thing: if that's actually true, then promoting "accumulate Bitcoin as money" is way more dangerous. A couple months of salary gets you way more Bitcoin than someone could ever get from zaps in a lifetime.
So either the security risk is real—in which case these people shouldn't be publicly known Bitcoin advocates in the first place—or it's not that serious. You can't have it both ways: tell people to accumulate Bitcoin while also warning them not to be seen with Bitcoin.
Ironically, Krugman or Schiff staying quiet might actually be the most consistent move here. If holding Bitcoin visibly is dangerous, then not broadcasting it is the smarter play. These vocal Bitcoin advocates are basically contradicting their own security argument.

2026-05-18 09:13:49 UTC

- reply

When I first heard about Nostr—introduced as an SNS protocol built by Bitcoiners—I read a document explaining that it solves the identity verification problem the exact same way Bitcoin does.
So I thought, 'Ah, if it uses public-key cryptography for identity and shares the same elliptic curve as Bitcoin, then a Nostr account itself could basically function as a Bitcoin address. That’s what they mean by Bitcoin-native.'
As it turned out, that wasn't the case at all back then. But what I envisioned back then is finally being implemented now.

2026-05-14 13:06:00 UTC

- reply

what client have this option?

2026-05-13 00:29:19 UTC

I've been thinking about inheritance, and I discovered something called the Liana wallet. It seems almost like a perfect solution.
I created a script address that allows me to spend without any restrictions, while adding a time-lock condition for heirs—giving them the ability to spend after a relative time-lock of one year. No third parties or additional requirements needed.
As long as I don't die suddenly and my heir doesn't simultaneously lose access to their device, it's quite secure. And since the script allows great flexibility, I can enhance safety further by using multiple keys in a multisig setup, while maintaining the same overall structure.
As long as I remember to make one on-chain transaction every year, it should be nearly perfect.

2026-05-12 00:33:39 UTC

- reply

and do not enable auto-update

2026-05-10 05:33:58 UTC

There used to be a few things about real estate that I just couldn't wrap my
head around.
Take the 'squatting' controversy in the West, for example. The idea that someone
could illegally occupy a vacant house, stay there long enough, and suddenly gain
rights that make it impossible for the owner to evict them seemed absurd. I
honestly thought America was turning into a socialist country when I first heard
about it.
Then there’s the fact that anyone can legally snoop on a property's registry
just by knowing the address. I couldn't understand why complete strangers were
allowed to check if a house was rented, owned, or heavily mortgaged just to
guess someone's net worth.
Or the lack of absolute 'legal conclusiveness' in the real estate registry. You
hear these incredibly unfair stories of people buying a house trusting the
official state ledger, only to lose their home later because the ledger had been
forged sometime in the past.
And finally, the concept of a tenant's 'opposing power'—the rule that a tenant
must officially register their move-in to protect their deposit. I always
thought, "If I signed a lease and handed over my money, shouldn't my deposit
just be naturally guaranteed?"
Life is full of laws that don't seem to make sense, so I mostly just brushed
them off at the time. But as I dove into Bitcoin and started questioning what it
truly means to 'own' something, all these disjointed mysteries suddenly clicked
into place.
The complex rules around a tenant's rights exist for a very specific reason. A
lease is basically a private contract (a claim) between the tenant and the
'previous owner.' When the house is sold, from the perspective of the new owner
who legitimately paid for the property rights, it is logically correct to argue,
"Your deal was with the last guy, not me. Get out of my house."
But what happens if the law just unconditionally protects the seemingly
vulnerable tenant? A scammer could take out a massive mortgage, default on it,
and then pull out a fake, backdated lease agreement made with a relative to
screw over the bank when they come to seize the asset.
That is why 'public disclosure' is required. By making the existence of a
legitimate contract public at a specific time (like registering a move-in date),
the government promises to review and recognize that right later. It’s a
compromise. And the reason anyone is allowed to look up another person's
property registry is precisely to maintain this public disclosure system.
But herein lies the critical dilemma: the ledger managed by the government—which
effectively acts as a 'monopolistic sequencer'—doesn't perfectly guarantee the
truth.
This is exactly why courts don't grant absolute legal conclusiveness to the real
estate registry. Historically, there have been too many cases where the name
written on the state ledger didn't match the true owner of the land. Fraudsters
have long exploited wars or administrative chaos to manipulate the ledger and
hijack property rights while the true owner was unaware.
So, to make up for this flawed ledger, what happens if the law starts
prioritizing 'actual physical possession' over paper documents? You end up with
the exact squatting crisis we see in the West today.
Whichever path is chosen, scams exploiting the legal loopholes will inevitably
follow. The fundamental reason real estate is so legally tangled and fraught
with endless lawsuits is that, technically speaking, perfectly proving ownership
of a physical asset is impossible. It can only ever be 'presumed.'
High-level verification requires massive costs. People wanted to protect their
assets but didn't want to bear those verification costs, so they handed this
complex arbitration over to a central authority: the government. This has become
the root of many modern social problems. When the government unfairly takes a
side, or when it becomes a player itself and intervenes in the market, we are
left completely defenseless.
This is the core reason why I don't see real estate as the ultimate store of
wealth. I look beyond simple inflation hedging to the true essence of an asset:
"Can I truly own it? Can I prove my ownership without needing anyone's
permission?"
For me, the only assets that pass that test are physical precious metals and
Bitcoin.

2026-05-09 11:18:17 UTC

I’ve previously mentioned that I wasn't entirely convinced about the future of Bitcoin. To put it briefly, my argument was that even with the Lightning Network, there are inherent limitations to Bitcoin evolving into a global-scale payment solution. I was curious to see how Bitcoiners would respond to this, but at the time, I received no answers, which led me to believe it might be an unsolvable problem.
However, I recently started looking into Layer 2 solutions other than Lightning, and I found one that seems quite promising: the Ark protocol. While it’s impossible to explain exactly how it functions in a single post, the conclusion is that it appears to effectively address the limitations of Lightning.
Based on my understanding of their documentation, here is how the UX of Ark works:
Off-chain payments do not provide the same level of finality as Lightning immediately. To achieve Lightning-level finality—meaning no one can touch my funds, and I am cryptographically guaranteed a unilateral exit to Layer 1 without relying on anyone else—I must participate in what is called a 'batch settlement transaction.' This is an on-chain transaction that anchors to Layer 1 to achieve finality.
One might ask, 'If it requires an on-chain transaction, how is this a scaling solution?' The key is that this batch settlement transaction involves multiple people simultaneously, allowing the fees to be shared among them. Furthermore, the size of this batch transaction does not scale proportionally with the number of participants; it remains a fixed size.
In other words, it is an on-chain transaction that enables true 1/n cost efficiency. With Lightning, the decisive obstacle to global scale is that when you open a channel, you have to pay for that on-chain transaction yourself. Ark solves this by allowing for massive, shared efficiency. If this becomes fully realized, it is theoretically possible to achieve self-custody without ever needing to make an on-chain transaction in your lifetime.
This is made possible through Taproot and other technical mechanisms, and based on my current knowledge, it seems theoretically sound. While it still requires code-level verification, this discovery has resolved my only lingering doubt about Bitcoin. I now have genuine hope that it can function as a global-scale payment solution.

2026-05-05 03:51:39 UTC

- reply

https://ark-protocol.org/
you means this? I’m also looking at this lately, and it seems promising. My only worry about Bitcoin is that—even if every micro‑payment were made exclusively through Lightning channels—true self‑custody would require every person to have at least one channel. With the current architecture, just creating a single channel per person would take decades, and the problem only gets worse as the population grows. According to Ark’s documentation, in the ideal case a unilateral escape can be cryptographically guaranteed without a single on‑chain payment, although each batch settlement still needs an on‑chain transaction—but the fee could be \(1/n\). That suggests a massive scale‑up possible in a way that differs from Lightning. I’m reviewing the theory and the code to see if it’s real, and I’d like to hear other well‑known developers mention it as well.

2026-05-01 02:47:55 UTC

I'm trying to switch the wallet setup in my phone's Nostr client to use a local relay (specifically @nprofile…utvn) and @zeus for fast responsiveness, but it doesn't work properly in almost all clients.
I suspect it's because they automatically block WS connections instead of WSS. Only amethyst allows zaps, but even there, balance and history checks don't work.
Blocking WS is fine, but localhost should be whitelisted as an exception.