Dee 007

WhatsApp grew very fast when it was released. Copying that model is better than niche features, that bloat the system. Features can be added after the app gains users.

2025-09-30 10:38:00 UTC

- reply

Nodes are what keep bitcoin decentralized. Miners serve the node network, not the other way round.

2025-09-30 10:28:51 UTC

- reply

Many core devs are good. There are some perverse incentives and a few bad apples.

2025-09-29 21:37:34 UTC

- reply

do it!

2025-09-29 21:01:13 UTC

- reply

Your knot wrong

2025-09-29 19:57:59 UTC

- reply

Leaning Knots or leaning Core?

2025-09-29 19:45:33 UTC

- reply

A perfect explanation.

2025-09-29 19:43:27 UTC

- reply

Yes. And when they are all proved wrong they will say. "We never said dont run knots".

2025-09-29 19:41:05 UTC

- reply

Study OP_RETURN

2025-09-29 18:45:38 UTC

- reply

🤡

2025-09-29 18:24:54 UTC

- reply

Yes, it basically decentralizes power. Which was needed.

2025-09-29 18:22:09 UTC

- reply

More full nodes definitely good. I can see some merchants or apps using lite nodes.

2025-09-29 18:11:42 UTC

- reply

lol he has a point, you can have lite nodes. But full nodes were needed for decentralization and still are. Otherwise the miners would be too powerful.

2025-09-29 16:30:23 UTC

- reply

True! Run Knots if you want to fix the money.

2025-09-29 14:29:51 UTC

Satoshi predicted that OP_RETURN was "an accident waiting to happen".

2025-09-29 14:18:52 UTC

- reply

You can hide arbitrary data in a facebook image. But people will not know it's there until extraction is explained. Then it becomes a problem. As Satoshi said, putting plain text in bitcoin is an accident waiting to happen. Few.

2025-09-29 08:58:12 UTC

- reply

"It will also increase legal risks"

2025-09-29 08:55:20 UTC

- reply

"It will also increase legal risks."
https://media.ditto.pub/e2a5d2248c3bebf5af8368413ff8dfc29b6659c938975025eeff22e59882741d.png

2025-09-29 07:14:53 UTC

- reply

yes

2025-09-29 07:14:34 UTC

- reply

yes

2025-09-28 09:49:17 UTC

- reply

Actually, it's not. The time chain splits in two quite often, and the purpose of consensus is to build on one chain and orphan the other. That happens when there are two blocks created at the same time, we have two chains, and the race is to make the next block. The two chains converge to the one longest chain of accumulated work, which is how proof of work operates. In the case of an intentional large reorg the situation becomes more complex. Core would show one attacked chain as valid, but knots would likely show the correct chain as valid. Hash would move to the Knots clients, and the Core clients would halt. Without Knots the attack would be successful. With Knots the chain becomes resilient and Core has time to make an emergency patch.

2025-09-28 09:39:08 UTC

- reply

Knots is more attack resistant in general. It makes practical choices to avoid attack. Same philosophy for spam or 51% attacks. Whereas Core will become increasingly less secure. If Core were to face an intentional large 51% in future (as has happened to many coins), the policy is "there's nothing we can do about it". Knots can easily spot an attack and invalidate it. So the Knots chain would keep running, and the Core chain would halt. The game theory of this in itself makes the attack less likely. Thus, Knots raises the overall security of Bitcoin and makes it a better, more valuable, money.

2025-09-28 09:29:27 UTC

- reply

In theory, yes. But Knots is more anti fragile. That in itself makes bitcoin more valuable on both sets of software.

2025-09-28 07:19:32 UTC

- reply

Knots is also better money

2025-09-27 23:34:14 UTC

- reply

If you want to separate money from state, knots is a far better client. Core up to 29 is all right. Core v30+ is looking increasingly risky. Knots is on a path to fixing the money & fixing the world.

2025-09-27 13:13:06 UTC

- reply

You cant claim to be for privacy, and then also participate in doxxing a bitcoin dev.

2025-09-27 09:43:54 UTC

- reply

this

2025-09-26 14:33:19 UTC

- reply

Imagine saying you are for privacy then doxxing the private conversations of a bitcoin developer.

2025-09-26 13:28:08 UTC

- reply

Maybe it's better to ask how they got it right for so long. Core has grown bitcoin from a small project to a $2 trillion asset, and with that comes many pressures. Just as no one person can get it right every time, similarly the group-think can have blind spots. It is often ego related, and sometimes agitation driven. Core is about to make a big mistake if they release v30 next week in current form. Fortunately, the community is communicating this loudly and clearly. If all else fails, it's open source, and we can migrate to new software and thank Core for their amazing contribution to bitcoin.

2025-09-26 13:21:21 UTC

- reply

https://media.ditto.pub/f86b3f19f06e2d56caf5d6e3c79547604db9c56862fac1a20a9896d0c265587d.png

2025-09-26 13:18:35 UTC

- reply

People are moving away from core v30 or not upgrading. Some are embracing Knots. There is a lot to like. The change to v30 was pushed through too quickly without community buy-in. Adam normally gets it right, but he seems to have a blind spot on this issue. Which is why it's good that bitcoin has a big community.
https://media.ditto.pub/f86b3f19f06e2d56caf5d6e3c79547604db9c56862fac1a20a9896d0c265587d.png

2025-09-26 13:09:50 UTC

- reply

He would call it the bitcoin reference client. He would recognize that spam is a game of cat and mouse and would use sensible defaults (aka heuristics) to find a usable balance. That's what he always did. He also said that if spam got were more things we could do. So, knots is far closer to that philosophy than removing filters.

2025-09-26 13:03:23 UTC

- reply

Knots. It's closest to his code.

2025-09-24 15:47:28 UTC

- reply

It widens the attack surface. It has been rushed, and leads to multiple unintended consequences. How big a deal it will be, time will tell.

2025-09-24 15:39:14 UTC

- reply

Yes, there was big fallout

2025-09-22 09:07:09 UTC

- reply

Extraordinary when you consider about 1 million dollars a month is being pumped into it. Where is the money going, I wonder?

2025-09-19 09:23:54 UTC

- reply

Influencers are the algorithm on nostr

2025-09-19 09:15:11 UTC

- reply

You get good and bad in any group. Some of the core devs are about to make a (rare) mistake. That should not be funded blindly. Saylor knows.

2025-09-19 09:13:16 UTC

- reply

Of course he was

2025-09-19 09:07:14 UTC

- reply

Just following orders

2025-09-19 09:01:07 UTC

- reply

For some reason there is big, centralized, resistance to these use cases. If nostr integrated bitcoin. It could do NFTs, voting and many more use cases. That it has not happened yet, tells a story.

2025-09-19 08:59:19 UTC

- reply

The current Nostr dev setup has many limitations. Pubky seems a breath of fresh air where the leadership enable developers. It would be good to see nostr get back to innovation, or devs making apps that work on both protocols.

2025-09-19 08:45:39 UTC

- reply

Layer 2 is very fast and cheap

2025-09-08 14:24:45 UTC

- reply

Lightning doesnt work too well or consistently, but is great for micropayments. Rollups and other stuff can be done easily enough onchain or at layer 2.

2025-08-27 11:47:25 UTC

- reply

Banks spend our money to advertise at sporting events that they are solvent.

2025-08-25 18:43:12 UTC

- reply

2025-08-25 09:50:38 UTC

- reply

Entertainment matters alot. There should be a viable alternative to twitter, but, more importantly to the other entertainment and media giants. Then people need to understand how to use it. No one has built that yet, but hopefully it will come soon.

2025-08-25 09:36:53 UTC

- reply

I think people would prefer it. They just dont know how. And there is also misinformation.

2025-08-24 10:39:07 UTC

- reply

1 hour in. Already worth it. High energy, no sleep. Thanks for the share.

2025-08-24 10:03:33 UTC

- reply

Likely incredible

2025-08-22 14:39:39 UTC

- reply

https://nostrhub.io/

2025-08-13 10:00:07 UTC

- reply

Maybe a simple page that says why it's blocked, and what they can do

2025-08-13 06:45:10 UTC

- reply

Yes, Farage and Johnson made a pact to stop him last time.

2025-08-13 06:38:02 UTC

- reply

Collapsing. Wen GE?

2025-08-11 15:35:13 UTC

- reply

40 years ago went to Ethiopia, after Rattle and Hum. Then got in bed with Deep State NGOs. Finally has said something, but far too late.

2025-08-11 08:33:04 UTC

- reply

I think basically have a trust and reputation system where users see content that is trusted. Or exit the UK market. Or use the primal model. Maybe standardize the primal model so others can use it.

2025-08-10 09:47:06 UTC

- reply

Embrace non-custodial solutions too

2025-08-08 15:32:22 UTC

- reply

First RGB wallet launched this week, and already 40,000 users in their telegram group. There is plenty of demand for a bitcoin commerce layer.

2025-08-04 12:16:54 UTC

- reply

This is all reasonable.
Adding the ED curve gives, not only pubky, but ssh, git, pgp, oauth and dozens of other benefits.
As you point out there are always (switching) costs. To my mind those costs are very low, just a few lines of code.
As a user or developer I would want to use the more powerful system.

2025-08-04 11:37:17 UTC

- reply

All valid!
There is of course a small cost for new features. How big a cost that is, would be subjective. I simply argue that the benefit outweighs the cost, because most of the hard work (storing a secret) is done.
Reusable identifiers could be considered "magical", but that may not be such a bad thing.
The main point here is that the ed25519 curve has several benefits. Else pubky would not have chosen it. Those benefits can be brought to nostr developers and users that are ready for them. It's a few lines of code for most apps. The current nostr user base is focused on the twitter use case. But more is possible.
Ultimately the ED curve can do much more than the nostr curve, so I think it is a big win for users.

2025-08-04 08:53:09 UTC

- reply

The ED curve has many properties and features that nostr users can get for free. It may be a business decision to give a user fewer features. Or it may be a political decision. But giving a user more features, without extra cost, is good from a user POV. The user need not know the exact tech or exact terminology behind it. Key management for two or more keys is known as a hard problem. One is still quite hard. Although credible exit may be best of all.

2025-08-03 13:10:10 UTC

- reply

From a user's perspective, the Nostr nsec (a 64 char hex string) is their single, core private key. This exact same secret serves as the root for deriving identities across networks like Nostr, Bitcoin (Taproot), and Ed25519 curves.
While the specific algorithms and public keys and signing differ, the underlying secret that the user controls remains the same. This allows for one key to drive multiple identities and offering choice in cryptographic algorithms across different networks.
The public keys are published via the network and optionally signed, linking identities, and giving users access to both networks, and both sets of features.

2025-08-03 11:28:58 UTC

- reply

Forget seeds for a moment. A keypair consists of a private key and public key. The private key is the same for both curves. It is used to sign events, for example. The public key is derived from the private key and published widely, say, on a network. Both systems allow the publishing on public keys. While the signing mechanism is different, any software that does one, can add the other. The private keys are interoperable because they are identical. Software libraries are then used to allow the user to sign on one or both curves.

2025-08-03 05:43:48 UTC

- reply

It is the same private key. The public key is public. So you publish it, say, in your profile. There are no games. This is basic cryptography.

2025-08-02 23:01:31 UTC

- reply

Pubky is for bittorrent style censorship resistance. You can sign notes but dont have to. Nostr has much weaker DNS based resistance. For nostr to be censorship resistant it needs to use public keys as relays, instead of DNS.

2025-08-02 22:47:52 UTC

- reply

The private key is the same

2025-07-14 09:02:44 UTC

- reply

sethue 3000 13

2025-06-21 09:46:51 UTC

- reply

"a" actually means "and" in czech, so it makes sense

2025-06-21 07:43:27 UTC

- reply

This is the way