Super Testnet

7.3K posts

Super Testnet

@SuperTestnet

Open source bitcoin dev | https://t.co/4WgrYhM4QK #npub1yxp7j36cfqws7yj0hkfu2mx25308u4zua6ud22zglxp98ayhh96s8c399 bc1qefhunyf8rsq77f38k07hn2e5njp0acxhlheksn

Katılım Haziran 2020

65 Takip Edilen3.1K Takipçiler

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·5h

@shocknet_justin @utexocom If the definition of "lightning node" includes "a simple lightning wallet," then I think it is perfectly fine for them to be offline, and not harmful to the network at all. If some people perceive it to be fragile on that ground, then I think their expectations are unreasonable.

English

Justin (shocknet)⚡@shocknet_justin·5h

@SuperTestnet @utexocom Perpetuating the inanity that Lightning can be an offline thing can only send perceived fragility skyward. The last thing it needs are nodes that are offline. From a UX perspective you want to enforce best practices, being offline is a worst practice.

English

Utexo@utexocom·2d

Lightning Network is live in our Browser SDK. Open channels, move $BTC & RGB assets, and receive payments even while offline. A full node, running inside a single tab.

English

114

237

35.8K

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·7h

@callebtc Relay policy should reflect user preference. Users don't owe miners anything.

English

183

calle@callebtc·7h

relay policy should reflect mining reality NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND

English

2.5K

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·8h

@BetruetoitUK @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining x.com/i/status/20781…

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet

@BetruetoitUK @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining That post does not contradict mine. He says that funds received after activation get frozen til a certain block height; so do I. Where is the contradiction?

QME

Semi🌞Sol@BetruetoitUK·12h

@SuperTestnet @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining x.com/oomahq/status/…

Extractive Ghost of Unhosted Marcellus 👻@oomahq

Sorry but this is factually wrong, he hasn't understood or read the BIP. First, UTXOs created before activation are grandfathered in, meaning the new BIP-110 rules don't apply to them. If you create an UTXO today that locks sats to a Tapscript that uses the OP_IF opcode it would still be spendable after BIP-100 activation. Second, even if you create one such UTXO after BIP-110 activation the rules are designed to self-expire 52560 blocks after activation (about a year). Therefore it's not possible to lose sats to BIP-110 as he claims.

QME

OCEAN@ocean_mining·5d

Today we are announcing that OCEAN’s backend will be upgraded to follow multiple chains independently in the event of a BIP 110 chain split. If a split occurs, DATUM miners automatically continue on whichever chain their own node enforces, and OCEAN will credit rewards to a split share log for that chain, subject to the chain’s continued operation and to our Terms of Service. OCEAN will effectively operate as two pools from the split point. Updated Terms of Service addressing split handling will be published before block 961632. We are building all this so our miners can receive rewards based on their own actions without adversely affecting other OCEAN miners.

English

439

118.7K

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·8h

@shocknet_justin @utexocom It basically turns "failed payment" into "pending payment," which might be "technically* inferior in some ways, but I think from a UX perspective it feels much better to users. It feels like payments don't fail anymore. They just stay pending until the problem is fixed.

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·8h

@shocknet_justin @utexocom Also, while the "technical" fragility of the payment rises (due to more moving parts), I suspect the "perceived" fragility would fall, as the sender no longer needs to retry a failed payment. That gets delegated to a third party service, whose job it is to make it work eventually

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·13h

@BetruetoitUK @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining > If we have to break some eggs to make the omelette, so be it You don't. No one is forcing you to do it this way. You want omelettes? Break the requisite eggs, don't go smashing other people's eggs that aren't even gonna be in the omelette. Fix the bip and push for *that.*

English

Semi🌞Sol@BetruetoitUK·15h

@SuperTestnet @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining I agree, two wrongs don't make a right. In this case, there has been ample opportunity to fix these bugs, which has not happened. If we have to break some eggs to make the omelette, so be it. If you're unhappy about it, I feel your gripe is with Cores poor stewardship.

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·13h

@shocknet_justin @utexocom The "extra steps" are the parts I think are critical. Those extra steps give the recipient time to come online later, so that sender-initiated retries are rarer. They effectively allow the sender to delegate retries to a non-custodial server, then go offline. That's very cool imo

English

Justin (shocknet)⚡@shocknet_justin·15h

@SuperTestnet @utexocom Your design would expose the lie they need to perpetuate That it's just a sender reattempt with extra steps

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·16h

@shocknet_justin @utexocom Haven't investigated yet. I asked the folks to consider implementing it the way I think would be best, but they did not seem interested. I suspect I can do it on my own without any changes required to their codebase but I haven't tried yet.

English

Justin (shocknet)⚡@shocknet_justin·16h

@SuperTestnet @utexocom Still waiting on your investigation as to whether the LSP re-signaling can be obviated, which is still sender re-attempt

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·16h

@shocknet_justin @utexocom Hmm

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet

@shocknet_justin @_pretyflaco > the 2 levers to pull are therefore either trust, or reattempts You forgot the lever "make the sender's htlc remain pending until the recipient gets online." That requires neither custodians nor reattempts. It does require a server to stay online, but the server lacks custody.

Justin (shocknet)⚡@shocknet_justin·17h

@utexocom Lightning nodes are servers, and inherently interactive. Servers do not work offline therefore, you literally cannot receive Lightning payments offline. Such claims are fraudulent, the only levers to pull are either trust or re-attempt signaling to the sender.

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·16h

@BetruetoitUK @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't get to attack users, and then when users stand up against you, say, "b-b-but THEY did it FIRST!" Yeah, then do *better.* Users don't need to be attacked from both sides.

English

Semi🌞Sol@BetruetoitUK·21h

@SuperTestnet @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining The soft fork was brought about by user-hostile changes.

English

Super Testnet retweetledi

Oli@guggero·1d

A big leap forward for Silent Payments (IMHO): `btcutil-js` now includes full SP scanning using custom P2TR compact filters and dust limit pre-filtered tweak data. Let me explain what all of that means in a 🧵, but first, here's the web based demo: guggero.github.io/cryptography-t… 👇

English

2.1K

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·1d

@stevenroose3 Bip110 is bad but it doesn't prevent *all* future script upgrades. You could define a class of P2SH scripts, which are not affected by bip110, and define new rules that only affect them. You could even recreate taproot inside of P2SH.

English

360

Steven Roose@stevenroose3·1d

Luke fanboys seem unaware that BIP-110 makes any future script upgrade impossible. You can't want covenants and support BIP-110 at the same time.

Dave Lund BIP-110 ⚡️🚢@davelund_

@stevenroose3 @secondhq @PeteClubSeven @arejula27 @francispouliot_ @januszg_ @bc1nuno @gringokiwi After BIP-110

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·1d

@BetruetoitUK @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining No need to insert user-hostile changes in your soft fork. The bip, as is, will fail, and the problem it tries to fix will remain. If y'all decide to try again, I hope you fix the bip for the next round.

English

Semi🌞Sol@BetruetoitUK·1d

@SuperTestnet @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining Better to fix the bugs.

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·1d

@BetruetoitUK @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining If the "rectification" needlessly freezes the funds of other people it is absolutely right to place the blame at the foot of the people pushing for that change. You *could* have just blocked large OP_RETURNs. Instead, you attack OP_IF too. That's on you. Fix the bip.

English

Semi🌞Sol@BetruetoitUK·1d

@SuperTestnet @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining I agree with respect to giving more time. The issue is that Core force merged the heavily nack'd PR, and so the fallout begins there, unfortunately. It's not correct to place that blame at the feet of those attempting to rectify the situation.

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·1d

@byronhambly @BitMEX_Jon @bitcoin_bugle It may be worth it to pro110ers to try to identify what subpools at Foundry have the most hashrate and lobby them specifically, maybe even offer to point some rented hashrate at them to increase their income, but make it conditional: only if they vote they way you want

English

bizzy.hodln@byronhambly·1d

@SuperTestnet @BitMEX_Jon @bitcoin_bugle Okay yeah but I presumed they meant 51% by hashrate

English

Bugle.News 📯@bitcoin_bugle·1d

BREAKING: Foundry to let miners decide BIP-110 signaling via hashrate-weighted vote Pool account owners can vote "Yes" or "No," with each vote weighted by the account's average hashrate. Foundry says it will only switch to signaling support if "Yes" votes represent more than 51% of the voting hashrate. #NotTheBugle

English

126

53.2K

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·1d

@CoineliusX @BitMEX_Jon @crypt0e @bitcoin_bugle See here

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet

@byronhambly @BitMEX_Jon @bitcoin_bugle It's a weighted hashrate. So depending on how the weighting algorithm is done, 51% could vote for it but be weighted as 49% or even lower.

English

Coinelius@CoineliusX·1d

@BitMEX_Jon @crypt0e @bitcoin_bugle Wdym, unless I’m reading wrong if 51% of their hashrate votes for it they will?

English

214

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·1d

@byronhambly @BitMEX_Jon @bitcoin_bugle It's a weighted hashrate. So depending on how the weighting algorithm is done, 51% could vote for it but be weighted as 49% or even lower.

English

bizzy.hodln@byronhambly·1d

@BitMEX_Jon @bitcoin_bugle How does that follow? From what I read if 51% of their hashrate votes yes then they will signal all blocks. Do you mean they will signal without enforcing it?

English

180

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·1d

I think this news indicates that one aspect of the marketing by Ocean Pool and DMND Pool has been effective. Namely, enough hashers want a say in how the blocks they produce look, that older pools are trying to find ways to give them that say, lest they go to pools that offer it.

Bitcoin News@BitcoinNewsCom

FOUNDRY ASKS MINERS TO VOTE ON BIP-110 SIGNALING Foundry USA Pool has begun asking its mining customers how the pool should signal on BIP-110. According to an email sent to pool account owners, votes are weighted by each participant’s average 10-day hashrate. Foundry says it will follow the majority of hashrate votes during the signaling period. If more than 51% of voting hashrate supports BIP-110, the pool says it will signal “Yes” with 100% of its blocks. If a majority opposes it, the pool will not signal support. The move is notable because Foundry is the world’s largest Bitcoin mining pool by hashrate. Rather than taking a position itself, the pool is allowing its miners to collectively determine how it votes, giving customers a direct role in one of Bitcoin’s most closely watched governance debates.

English

2.2K

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·1d

@adam3us @BetruetoitUK @Maxumark1 @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining @BitMEX_Jon Oh, no, I see my error. You're saying they copied Core's compiler, and haven't adapted it, so it will generate op_ifs, just as Core's does. I thought for a second you were saying they haven't copied Core's *adapted compiler,* which would imply Core's *doesn't* generate op_ifs.

English

Super Testnet@SuperTestnet·1d

@adam3us @BetruetoitUK @Maxumark1 @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco @ocean_mining @BitMEX_Jon This almost sounds like core's version of the miniscript compiler doesn't generate op_if. Am I reading that right?

English

Keşfet

@shocknet_justin @utexocom @callebtc @BetruetoitUK @Maxumark1 @adam3us @WalkerAmerica @giacomozucco