garbagensec
Garbage nsec

garbage

Public Key

npub1hyxredcavc6ruqgsf4wf4hmakpwnvefmzaspl7dja6a2sxlx0q3sxwtqnx

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqstjrpukuwkvdp7qygy6hy6ma7mqhfkv5a3wcqllxewaw4gr0n8sgcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsalmy45

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1hyxredcavc6ruqgsf4wf4hmakpwnvefmzaspl7dja6a2sxlx0q3sxwtqnx

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-11-22 05:12:22 UTC

- reply

The wider point is this. Investing in one thing is dumb. If someone bought gold exactly one year ago and sold their gold today and bought bitcoin then they'd have a lot more bitcoin than if the bought bitcoin one year ago. Not so brain-blowing really. Time your bets.
People here have this mentality that bitcoin is somehow sacred, and that you need to buy it and hold it forever for weird holy reasons of some kind, relating to the future of humankind and something else that demands a classical music interlude.
Bitcoin is passed puberty now. If you bought pre-puberty Bitcoin, good on you, you enjoyed the growth spurt. Now it's just another store of value, in a never-ending tussle with gold and lots of other things and it'll have good days and bad days—but there is no "next level" where it somehow transcends this never-ending tussle.

2025-11-22 02:48:18 UTC

- reply

Nah, if he'd have bought gold in 2021 from the money from selling his house, he'd be in a much better place now. He bought the wrong thing, that's all.

2025-11-14 18:07:27 UTC

- reply

Don't you think we need more users for this model to work?

2025-11-14 07:13:07 UTC

- reply

First, because it’s not a migration in the Bitcoin core sense, or the Signal sense, etc. In nostr the vulnerable key is the absolute end of the line, last station on the subway. Second because a hard fork requires consensus and there is no way to achieve consensus here on something like “just” swapping out the keys, that would require consensus on everything about the hard fork from everyone who is to be a lead participant in it, and in a highly organic and unstructured way, which is the only way nostr has. Which, if you think about it, means starting again from scratch.

2025-11-13 16:42:08 UTC

- reply

"over generations" .... Nostr isn't even quantum resistant. Shor's destroys nostr in it's entirety. Not even Grover's and quadratic speedup but the lowest hanging Shor's fruit. Every public key is public! The lower bound for Shor's is 1,700 logical qbits. We're at 24 now, possibly 48. Within 1 generation we will be at the lower bound, if not within 10 years. (If not within 5 years.)
Time to hard fork and start over. A lot of good stuff can be ported over. But this Nostr we have now, there is no chance for it on a technical level, to say nothing of user adoption and all that.
This is 2025. You just cannot build a new protocol on a Shor's un-hardened curve with all the public keys happily public and zero scope for curve migration, it's insanity.

2025-11-12 05:38:42 UTC

- reply

It's too late for any of this. Nostr is ossified, it's past the days where talking about changing this or that spec is a realistic conversation. There is no realistic mechanism for any such change to propagate. You can tinker in Damus, but there ain't no big "spec" stuff happening no more. About two years ago was the cut off.
Where nostr 1.0 is at now, that's pretty much it for the rest of its life, take it or leave it.

2025-11-12 05:01:26 UTC

- reply

The bigger problem is that when you compare bitcoin to all the other options out there, including stablecoins, the only reason to choose to pay with bitcoin and not one of those other options is ideological.

2025-11-11 15:29:23 UTC

- reply

Much of the work can absolutely be ported over. If you remember Mozilla Suite, it became this bloated application that combined a browser, email client, and other junk. Some devs forked it and started the Firefox project as an experiment to create a leaner, faster, standalone browser alternative. That worked well enough. Many such cases. It can be the way.
What we have now is not what people want. It just isn't. Not only normies but most people. Even Ross Ulbricht left to go back to posting couple pics on Instagram.
I'm not saying there isn't some Deux ex machina waiting in the wings, but the numbers do not look good no matter how you frame them.

2025-11-11 15:10:04 UTC

- reply

Have you considered that it might be time to throw in the towel on Nostr 1.0 and start looking towards Nostr 2.0? An outright refresh?
I think the protocol is too paralysed to be able to implement these recommendations in any serious way. It's been 2 years to remove NIP4 DMs, which everyone agrees are bad (and critically insecure to boot). If something that everyone agrees is bad, and has agreed as such for two years, takes this much work to be rid of (and is STILL here) then what hope for the things you're proposing? There's just no mechanism, and no mechanism to make a mechanism.
And the proof is in the numbers. They are flat for 2 years at 10k, as you point out, and they will likely drop overall this year. And that's *with* all the work that's gone in. And there's no reason to think 2026 and 2027 will be different. Many hopes seem pinned on some Deus ex machina, but there are no signs what that Deus ex machina might be.
I think some thoughts on what Nostr 2.0 could look like would the best thing at this stage.

2025-11-11 14:53:23 UTC

- reply

For most consumers the accounting cost and effort will far outweigh any gains, given the small volume. You literally have to account for every single transaction, including hilariously tiny ones, and it's very complex to calculate the delta.
You need the date and time of disposal, the cost base (the AUD value you originally paid for that specific portion of BTC), the proceeds (the AUD value of whatever at the time of purchase), and the resultant capital gain or loss. Who on earth is going to put themselves through that hell if they don't have to?
Maybe down the line some fancy software will help, but only so much.
Also there's the question of why pay the capital gains now when you might not have to pay it later? Tax laws change, and if the current amount is high then a future amount will surely be lower.

2025-11-10 14:17:30 UTC

- reply

Yes, looks like we agree mostly.
I think people prioritise the things that matter to them in a way that's quite efficient. The key is that what matters to them is often not what's good for them, but that's a whole other story.
Where we diverge is that I think the reminding them to eat their broccoli part is hopeless. That never works.
In Japan people walk a lot because they have to. Cities are designed to force people to walk. It's not a decision anymore, and therefore trying to influence that decision with this motivational speech or that grumpy diatribe is irrelevant, you don't have to waste time and energy doing so.
Nostr 1.0 is designed like a US city. Walking is highly optional, and in many ways discouraged. Therefore all you've got is motivational speeches or grumpy diatribes. And, just like in a US city, the few people that do walk a lot each day are very show-offy and righteous about it. Because it's something that makes them stand out, and when you have something that makes you stand out you tend to want to show it off. I mean imagine a Japanese city-dweller being righteous about walking a lot each day.

2025-11-09 12:20:55 UTC

- reply

Humans don't work this way though. Whatever your thoughts on open-source code, you have to take into account human-code first. Humans (the vast majority of them anyway) make rational decisions based on *palpable* incentives. You cannot make up for a lack of investment in incentive structures by appealing to some abstract notion of goodwill, or with various full-metal-jacket scare-speeches. It might work now and then, here and there, but it's not a genuine solution.
A nostr 2.0 with incentive structures and protocol self-financing taken into account from the very start is the way to go. Respect to Keychat for basically doing this on their own, it's pretty clear they took into account the whole money part from day one with their postage-stamp system. This is the way it could have been across the board, but it's essentially too late now, nostr 1.0 is a tangle of cords that cannot be untangled. Nostr 2.0 is the way.

2025-11-06 23:13:17 UTC

- reply

I'm not here for bitcoin zaps. Or rather for my share of the teensy weensy $1,000 worth of zaps that get sent around Nostr every day, which is supposedly the largest online Bitcoin circular economy in the world.
I'm here for the relay tech, which, unlike the Bitcoin zaps, is very promising.

2025-11-06 21:21:50 UTC

- reply

You’re simply an exception to a general rule that is far bigger. More USDT is spent in a day (as in paying for actual stuff, not investing) than Bitcoin in a year. The use of Bitcoin as a medium of exchange is actually decreasing in many countries.

2025-11-06 19:47:07 UTC

- reply

Hmm, don't think so. At least not e-cash as in Cashu. I was wondering if someone is researching putting up a USDT-backed Cashu mint but that'd require Taproot USDT on both ends, and I don't think we're there yet with Lightning Labs and all. Or you mean e-cash in another sense?

2025-11-06 19:40:18 UTC

- reply

That's a very good logo.

2025-11-06 19:33:22 UTC

- reply

Wrong currency. Bitcoin is a store of value. It's digital gold. Very good digital gold mind you, but the Medium of Exchange race is long lost.
Many people here, they talk about circular this and that, but inside they hate so much to part with their digital gold that even when making small zaps they feel little pangs of loss and regret. The worry that they might not get it zapped back reaches OCD level. That's where we are today.
Nostr needs USDT zaps. Native taproot USDT zaps over lightning. It's possible to care about Nostr more than Bitcoin, and if that's you then you have to see this.

2025-11-05 19:05:59 UTC

Anyone know of anyone else working on AI Agent token-by-token text response streaming in a nostr-native way?

2025-10-23 08:58:40 UTC

- reply

Are you kidding? The attack is mathematically proven. There is literally nothing Bitcoin can do in it's current form. It's just a matter of computational resources, that's it.
And no, Satoshi didn't envision anything about quantum computing, Shor's algo (which he could not have know about) and AI assisted error correction (which he also could not have known about).
This for Satoshi is a complete black sawn.

2025-10-15 15:28:25 UTC

- reply

Make money man!
That money is not going to come from the currently active lot of Nostr users because they are tiny in number and, if we’re being honest, kinda cheap overall.
That money is going to come from businesses. Look at your nostr stack, you’re sitting on B2B gold, if you forget about the current nostr userbase and focus entirely on using that nostr stack to solve problems for businesses then with what you’ve got there are some serious potential income streams there. Smaller businesses is fine, but businesses, not nostriches, not communities, not orgs, but good old-fashioned money-earning businesses.

2025-10-11 15:39:08 UTC

Pays to remember that someone who has never heard of a key pair before could well need several hours of research to genuinely understand the concept of a private key and a public key and a signature.
And maybe several days, because many will have to circle back to grab a bunch of underlying concepts in math and computation that they don't have pre-packed.
And maybe years—as in they need to catch up on years of missing context before they have the educational foundation to genuinely (key word) grasp what a key pair is and does.
If you go through nStart and other "normie-friendly" onboarding tools, these tools make some ridiculous assumptions about what the average normie has cognitively pre-loaded.

2025-10-10 03:24:16 UTC

- reply

If you want the attestation to be technically meaningful here are few things that have to happen (and that do happen on Farcaster and elsewhere):
Everyone who followed your old key before timestamp x (time of theft) now follows your new key, automatic.
DMs sent to your old key can be read using your new key (and no longer read using your old key)
Posts from your old key show with your new avatar and handle to anyone browsing.
And 50 other things.
How are these things to happen Nostr? If what you’re suggesting is just a nostr-native alternative to an adding your NIP05 to your new key then we already know what a non-solution that is. And if you want those things above to happen then you don't need a blockchain per se but you need a hard fork.

2025-10-09 11:29:46 UTC

- reply

Keeping in mind "everyone" on nostr is like 7k people, then you minus those that stay in their lane and couldn't be bothered with other stuff, and so on, and you're basically talking about lobbying an amount of people that would fit into a church.

2025-10-04 08:11:06 UTC

There is some mass delusion here about what normies will learn and do.

2025-10-02 16:58:12 UTC

- reply

Marmot flying the nest is sort of what's going on here, mixed metaphors aside.

2025-09-28 13:32:37 UTC

- reply

The vast majority of people who hold bitcoin now hold it as a store of value . Or most of it, minus the performative-spend budget.
And those new to bitcoin will purchase it as a means to add to their store of value.
Medium of exchange just isn't in the picture here, really.

2025-09-28 13:13:21 UTC

- reply

The medium-of-exchange ship appears to have sailed for Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a store of value, and this is how the story ends most likely. Yes there will be some niche medium-of-exchange use, and performative spend here and there (including nostr zaps), but for the most part Bitcoin will be bought and sold between those looking to hold it and those looking to cash out on their holdings.
To those saying it can be both the ultimate medium of exchange and store of value at once, that's simply the middle character in the IQ curve meme. You can't encourage people to stack and unstack at the same time.
I think the future of the lightning network and cashu are both bright, but as transport for stablecoins, which are coins that your average person will actually spend at the store.

2025-09-28 04:39:47 UTC

For MLS on nostr, being the same user across two devices, say an iPhone and a Mac, looks hard.
Each device is its own leafnode, so that means each of your two devices is a different member of the group and the client has to realise that these two “yous” are in fact just one "you" and reconcile accordingly. Of course if a client is paying attention to pubkeys it can do this magic trick, and it seems like the MLS protocol itself has a robust to-do list for clients vis a vis how to perform the trick, and maybe NIP-EE has revised this for nostr clients.
But it's still seems like a lot to dump on a client. At heart this creates a hard-to-manage lie about the group state that looks like it could easily lead to nasty bugs. For the magic trick to work the client must internally manage and monitor the state of two separate cryptographic identities that belong to the same user. Think about sent messages. For the "you" on the device that didn't send the message, this starts as a received message. That device has to realise that this message is coming from the same nostr pubkey as itself and therefore should be visually implemented as a sent message instead. This is just the start of a rabbit hole I went down, and the further I went down, especially to the parts that relate to the group state itself and not just one to one thinking (the stuff different to Signal) the more fragile it all started to seem.
And then you add nostr interop to the mix, two clients with each client handling this in its own slightly different way, and yikes. Clients must keep this “lie” in mind for when you are removed from the group, but what if some clients decide the "lie" isn't worth the overhead and keep you as two members, but other clients decide the lie is in fact worth the overhead? What happens if one of two yous is removed by a client that does not respect the lie, how does the client that does respect the lie deal with this? Or can these two clients not interoperate with each other, but if not then how to prevent them from doing so?
Again I'm not sure what of this is and is not in the NIP-EE to-do list. Or how keen clients would be to do this even it the to-do list was robust. And many like @nprofile…w70s and @nprofile…9rxc know about this all much better than me. But colour me a little skeptical that appearing as a single user across two (or got forbid three) devices will ever work smoothly on MLS nostr.
Signal seems fundamentally easier than MLS in this regard, since it holds to its one-to-one ethos. A Signal group itself is already an illusion, so adding an illusion on top is no big deal. (Signal does this fine in it's own app.)
And ironically this is all as easy as pie on NIP17.

2025-09-27 02:46:30 UTC

- reply

The one thing that seems to stay constant throughout all the trends is user numbers.

2025-09-22 03:56:27 UTC

- reply

The vast majority of normies (or semi-normies, seeing as normies aren't there yet) using Holepunch are using Keet on iOS.
I myself am not interested in protocols that normies will never care about. Sure some tiny number of developers can do whatever they want with some open source code they pulled from Github before a repo went down. But that's of very little interest to me, it's essentially little more than an open hackathon.
Developers are fond of saying "you can just do this" and "you can just do that" but we all know that normies will never ever "just do" these things.

2025-09-11 10:34:19 UTC

- reply

The real-world analogy for that one is quicksilver from x-men zipping around and pulling cash out of everyone’s pockets.

2025-09-10 09:50:42 UTC

- reply

Bit random but do you know of any clients using NIP44 DMs? As in NIP4 with upgraded encryption but no gift wrap?

2025-09-10 08:58:17 UTC

Bitchat chatter sure disappeared from my feed in a hurry.

2025-09-10 07:45:43 UTC

- reply

I'm pretty hazy on the lighting node stuff, but hardcoding a trusted LSP makes sense. That's similar to another situation we gamed out where the on-chain keys are also generated in the enclave, what we called full autopilot.
The thing for me though is that even for full autopilot it just returns to the update/recovery vector. With a mint and node essentially running together in there on autopilot you'll need updates and emergency recovery flows. The Cashu mint codebases are not yet mature, to say nothing of all the layers of logic to govern the interplay between the mint, the node, the LSP, ensuring no solvency rules are broken, etc. Things will break.
Trying to handle risk mitigation for updates with just signatures from a hardcoded set of approvers for seems not worth it to me. If every updated enclave image represents a potential rug pull, and updates are inevitable and frequent, then in that scenario the only thing standing between the token holders and a rug pull is their trust in the human approvers on that list, i.e the guardians. But for me that just becomes Fedimint, since it seems to be pretty much the same class of distributed risk. And if all the enclave does in terms of mitigating the rug pull risk is to convert Cashu mints to Fedimint mints then seems you may as well just go with a Fedimint mint in the first place.
And on top of that there's the UX issues. For example there is a critical vulnerability discovered, mint has to come offline, soon you have an updated image to push, but of the four hardcoded approvers one is on vacation, another is mad at you, another has a very careful personality and takes days to review these kinds of patches. Just the kind of people stuff that always seems to happen. Even if your n of x is 2 of 4 it’s still a headache. And all this time token holders are trying to transact and getting timeouts. And who updates the list of approvers? And under what rules? It all gets very messy when trying to scale beyond the hobby level.
But coming back to the main thing, even if your maintainers are all super eager, to me it still becomes just a very expensive Fedimint in terms of reliance on trust in a few people. Maybe I'm just not seeing some opportunities here, but as of how it looks to me now the value of enclaves can't be about just rug-proofing Cashu mints, neither the kind of rugging that doesn't profit the rugger (negligence, just being psycho), neither the kind that does profit them (collusion, some clever hack, obfuscating malicious update code that the reviewers miss, etc.). It seems that outcome is always going to be possible. So the value has to be about something else.
Good discussion though.

2025-09-10 03:02:22 UTC

- reply

Fair enough, I've not yet looked into whatever Damus Android is doing.

2025-09-10 00:12:10 UTC

- reply

Ah right, my understanding is that even if the node were birthed in the enclave the bitcoin would return to on-chain in case of force close. If the node is destroyed before a force close event can be sent, and also no backup was obtained (a problematic setup in itself), then I think any of the destroyed node's past outside peers can still initiate the force close and the bitcoin is still released on-chain. And the malicious operator would be behind one of those peers. I have to defer to a lighting dev on this, but the gist of my understanding is that the operator in this scenario is always going to have *some* way to access the bitcoin on-chain if the node is destroyed. Who here would be good to ask this I wonder?

2025-09-09 17:03:46 UTC

- reply

What I mean is that every nostr relay and media server is on an ICANN domain, so without connecting to ICANN DNS nothing on Nostr works.

2025-09-09 16:50:33 UTC

- reply

How do you mean taking them to no-one's benefit?

2025-09-09 16:43:50 UTC

- reply

Apropos of nothing, poser is such a nostalgic insult.

2025-09-09 16:33:13 UTC

- reply

Tricky thing in Cashu is that a service failure and a rug are indistinguishable. And stealing funds and destroying funds are also indistinguishable acts. Destroying the mint is how you steal the funds.

2025-09-09 16:20:57 UTC

- reply

In terms of rugging it's the same I think. In fact it could be worse, the operator could use a cloud enclave to instil trust in the token holders (look you can attest the code) and then wait some time and rug the holders all the same. And every rug is 100% of the value of all your tokens gone, it doesn't matter how trustworthy things looked the split second before the rug.
But I think there are some benefits to enclaves, the biggest benefit being that a mint insurer can be 100% sure of the mint's outstanding assets. That's impossible without enclaves.

2025-09-09 15:59:51 UTC

- reply

The biggest issue with Cashu is that even with cloud enclaves (of any kind) there is no escape from central control, and central control means the central controller can rug the token holders. Cashu basically mandates central control no matter where deployed.
If you look at all the ways to build trust in mints that don't rely on cloud enclaves, some are pretty innovative and will get you to the same level of "good enough" as with cloud enclaves. So the only reason to add enclaves if if you can make the leap from "good enough" to "100% sure", otherwise it's just adding cost and latency.
With what you're suggesting I think it maybe could work with Fedimint, but I'm still quite skeptical vis a vis Cashu.

2025-09-09 14:58:59 UTC

- reply

There are some critical ways in which backups won't help in a Cashu context. The backup can actually be the source of the rug, since the only way a Cashu mint can function is by being a single, authoritative entity. (Double spend and all that.) That means a backup CANNOT be restored unless that specific backup is to take over as the single, authoritative entity, and this leads to all sorts of problems that in the end can only be solved if all backups are under centralised control.
And even if this was solvable, a backup is a snapshot in time, and even if backups are frequent the rug event can easily happen in the shortest of missing time-gaps.
More minor, mint is on an ICANN URL first, and the operator is going to be in control that URL, so there's that.
And other things. For example a vulnerability is discovered and you need to update the code of the mint, or the node, or both, you cannot leave them online in the vulnerable state, they must be shut off. In that case the backups all share this vulnerability, so they are of no use. You need a stable and discoverable source for the new code's hash that has been publicly vetted and which the orchestrator enclave can use to fan out to the fleet, and a smart contract on blockchain can provide that much better than a signed nostr event or something else.

2025-09-09 14:23:37 UTC

- reply

That architecture is really nice for signing. But for Cashu mints, since putting a mint in a Nitro enclave can't prevent rugging then doing so has to be useful for something else in order to bother (and pay) to do it, and that something else for me is mint insurance. And the smart contract facilitates the business end of the insurance side.
Although maybe there's some other benefit to putting a mint in a cloud enclave that exists despite the fact that token holders can still be rugged, I just haven't been able to think of it.

2025-09-09 13:54:47 UTC

- reply

Oh boy, get ready for the "relays are the standard" mob and their pitchforks.

2025-09-09 12:32:56 UTC

- reply

Sure, also just joined this Cashu research group on telegram.

2025-09-09 12:21:08 UTC

- reply

>Is it possible for the owner to pull the keys out or can only AWS or Intel do that?
AWS themselves cannot pull the mint keys out. Only a human or bot holding a private key the sig of which has been designated in the enclave code can. Basically the enclave will only allow to happen what its runtime code allows to happen, and any change to the runtime code will result in an attestation fail. So you can be sure the code is what it is.
> If the owner can pull them out and the mint self-destructs, how is this different to what is possible today? With "self-destruct", I assume you mean the mint is no longer available for any operation, including melt.
The mint doesn't actually have to self destruct. It will only do so if its code says it has to self-destruct if the keys are exported. But if it's possible for a human being to know the mint keys then attested query returns from the database of the mint in the enclave are no longer of value at best, and misleading at worst, so what's the point of it being in the enclave?
But also the owner of the AWS enclave can also just delete the enclave anytime, so whether it does or does not self destruct on a given event is besides the point, it can vanish anytime regardless. And this doesn't touch upon the lightning reserve backing the mint, which is another story.
>Or Is this only about resisting inflation, but not rugpulls?
Neither, it's actually about insurance. In other words, the value for this isn't in making things un-ruggable, it totally doesn't achieve this. The reason I started researching this is related to the topic of mint insurance, which is closer to what I'm working on in a particular B2B space.
As a mint insurer you will only insure a mint the liabilities of which you are sure of. If the mint operator rugs then you as the insurer can recreate the mint and database (this comes down to the smart contract and how it interacts with the AWS enclave) and make whole the token holders.
So a prospective mint operator who wants his or her mint to be insured must spin up an enclaved mint as per the mint insurer's spec. (It can be on the operator's own AWS infra, that's fine, but it has to be one for which the keys are birthed inside). If the owner pulls the keys then the mint can live on, but this will terminate the insurance coverage since the insurer can no longer be sure of the mint's liabilities. So it's actually the insurance coverage that self destructs in my case, not the mint.

2025-09-09 11:41:57 UTC

- reply

That would be the ZK proof gymnastics. I mean as a pure cryptographic feat RGB is pretty stunning. But the whole thing is essentially a patch for compute holes in Bitcoin, and it's heavily offline.
Whereas if you just use a blockchain purpose built for Turing-complete smart contracts and ultralight resolvers that can run in enclaves then everything is so much easier and so much more useful for everyone involved in preserving the Cashu mint's integrity.
The only thing Bitcoin has in its favour in this scenario is security, but it's not as if these other chains are going to cease to exist or be 51% attacked to oblivion any time before our teeth all fall out.

2025-09-09 11:12:19 UTC

- reply

Yeah Enclaves are great. The solve so many problems for Nostr.
But they're expensive!

2025-09-09 11:07:17 UTC

- reply

Nothing so organised I'm afraid. Full heretical disclosure, we (me and small team here in Southeast Asia) are mostly researching Cashu for last-mile payments for regional stablecoins in Asia and this enclave stuff is part of some dabbling around while waiting for the native-taproot rails on lightning to settle in.
Also there's the need to use other chains for the smart contracts that orchestrate the mint enclaves, and I'm a bit wary of bringing that topic to nostr here. (You can do this in an enclave-only scenario without on-chain smart contracts to orchestrate, but then it becomes hard to scale.)
I'll put together a summary though if people are interested.

2025-09-09 09:10:33 UTC

- reply

Yeah sure, I'll figure out this matrix and message you there.

2025-09-09 08:49:21 UTC

- reply

Yeah an actual Cashu mint.
The results is mint the code of which you or anyone can attest and the database of which you or anyone can also attest, as long as you trust AWS and their hypervisor. Or Intel and their chip design, whatever path you go.
But again, if you pull the keys out the mint self-destructs, Mission Impossible style.
I really dunno why enclaves aren't more widespread in the nostr zeitgeist. @npub1xdt…ntxy has been doing a lot of really interesting work on the enclave side for signers. Maybe because it means some reliance on AWS or Intel for the attestation? For me Nostr relies on DNS anyway so not a big deal, but for others I dunno.

2025-09-09 08:40:44 UTC

- reply

A lot. All keys are birthed inside the enclave, and you need an on-chain smart contract to manage how the keys come out and to whom (if ever, they can also just stay in there unknown to all humans). Once they keys are out and knowable to a human being then the enclave has to self-destruct in essence, because then the pending tokens are unknowable and there's no point of having it in the enclave anymore.
And the smart contract also governs who can attest what from the mint's database while the mint is live in the enclave.
The thing is that to run an enclave governed by a smart contract you need a blockchain that is designed to connect to enclaves, meaning the chain's node has to be of an SPV type that can actually run inside an enclave and has enough stuff pre-loaded to prevent the success of any attempt at injecting forged data via the vsock. You can do this, but not with the Bitcoin chain. Also there are all-in-one chain+TEE combos that use intel SGX enclaves out of the box.
Nostr tends to get touchy when you use a chain that isn't Bitcoin so not sure how all this would fly here. But you can't not have a smart contract in the mix, and that smart contract can't be on Bitcoin unless you preform some very ridiculous ZK proof gymnastics which why would you do that given that chains exist that were purpose-engineered for this exact kind of thing.

2025-09-09 08:24:14 UTC

- reply

We dove into both wallets and mints on Nitro enclaves, using nitriding for the netwokring. Works well, but a number of caveats that pop up when you look at how things scale to higher volumes.
https://github.com/brave/nitriding-daemon

2025-09-09 06:02:05 UTC

In the 1800s gold rush times everything was mostly self-custodial, but miners kept getting robbed, and then banks came out that way, and most of the miners were actually pretty happy about this development.

2025-09-09 03:03:51 UTC

- reply

Yes but why would these "I don't need to know about relays early on" users even come to nostr in the first place?
You can't bring new users to nostr without a sales pitch, and as far as I can see there is no effective sales pitch that doesn't involve relays and the awareness of them. They're just so fundamental to nostr. Nothing is more fundamental. It's in the name.
Relays are to nostr what wallets are to bitcoin, not what multi-sig scripts are to bitcoin. Leaving the discovery of relays until later would be like bringing people to bitcoin but leaving the discover of wallets until later. ("I'll just keep it for you myself, my friend, until you ask where it is, and then at that point we can talk about what a wallet is").

2025-09-08 14:14:26 UTC

- reply

Like that you're open mined and looking around to other networks for good ideas. Not every here has that spirt.

2025-09-08 10:53:52 UTC

- reply

Much respect for your work and research, you're one of the grounded ones here.

2025-09-08 05:56:15 UTC

- reply

Let's start saying these kinds of things when we have more than 0.001% of the users they do.

2025-09-08 04:28:35 UTC

Try and imagine what nostr would feel like to someone who has no clear idea what the following 10 things are meant to refer to:
- Protocol
- Private key
- Public key
- Signature
- Relay
- wss://
- Event
- Media server
- Image link
- Sats
Because that's the vast majority of people online.

2025-09-08 04:17:33 UTC

- reply

Holepunch Inc, the company, ceases to exist, or pulls the app from the stores.
For 99% of iOS users, that is effectively the end of their holepunch expereince. They cannot invite friends (who also not tech savvy) to install and join them for a chat, and if they lose their local copy of the app (get a new phone, etc.) that's the end of their own connection too.
Yes 1% might compile from code and install via their own personal testflight or whatever, but when talking about general adoption of decentralised tools there is no sense talking bout that 1%. Most people don't even know what the word "key" means, let's not forget.

2025-09-08 03:11:02 UTC

- reply

This all may be true but it demands a LOT of work and know how. For 99% of keet users, if keet goes down then that person's holepunch world goes down with it.
Same for Bluesky, for 99% of users if Bluesky the app goes down their ATProtocol world goes down with it, even though in theory you can restore your PDS to an outside host, appview and relay running on independent infra and it's also all open source too.
None of this is the case with nostr clients, one goes down then the bulk of the users can simply access their nostr world from another client, in five seconds, no technical knowledge needed.

2025-09-08 02:38:49 UTC

- reply

Far as I know, as of today there aren't any alternative clients that are interoperable with keet via holepunch, giving it a bottom score on the client rug-abliity metric. I don't even think you can export contacts and whatnot out of the keet app. Unless things have changed.

2025-09-07 14:12:47 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…vq0s apropos of small transactions, what are your thoughts on native-taproot USDT via lightning? A good thing for lightning and coinos is happy to support in future (a la joltz.app) or best to keep things simple and on brand and thus stick with bitcoin only?

2025-09-07 13:52:36 UTC

- reply

With you there.
But can you see the note this is replying to? It didn't hit my outbox relays so I tried to delete the relays that it did hit to post again to all my outbox relays but the delete only half worked and I gave up.
Also are you setup for outbox? I guess to be pure outbox you have to just use Jumble, Amethyst and I dunno what for iOS, Nostur? Primal seems to be sort of half-outbox, I can't quite parse it yet.

2025-09-07 12:36:35 UTC

@npub1acg…p35c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL-MxJtTIks Some parts of this feel very mosaic-ish.

2025-09-07 11:34:02 UTC

- reply

Nostr is so brittle. Quirky and fun, but so so brittle.

2025-09-07 09:46:35 UTC

- reply

Bizarre, that I created ages ago when I first made this account to test. I heard nostr.band went down, maybe the did backup restore from ages ago?

2025-09-07 08:33:54 UTC

- reply

what relay are you seeing a new profile pic on?

2025-09-07 08:31:48 UTC

- reply

as far as I know I didn't. unless some silent nsec snatcher is playing fun games and it's only changed on some relays?

2025-09-07 05:46:28 UTC

@nprofile…6f92 is Chorus to be maintained or can we consider it more or less put to rest and something else may come later?

2025-09-07 05:05:04 UTC

- reply

Wait I also got that wrong. Capitol is only for the building, it seems.

2025-09-07 05:02:50 UTC

- reply

He did use a capitol letter, "g" is in Washington.

2025-09-07 02:56:41 UTC

- reply

Yeah, write, read, whatever. #nevent1q…u2l2

2025-09-07 02:54:57 UTC

- reply

Any event-based mental challenge that must be solved for some type or length of access. Maybe via DM, or mention, or some other creative way.
Basically anything where the proof of work comes from inside the user's head.

2025-09-07 02:49:09 UTC

Anyone know of a relay here that's implemented some sort of event-based captcha? Of any kind?
#asknostr

2025-09-07 01:42:59 UTC

- reply

Sorry but shoplifting is not a permissionless activity and you won't convince me otherwise.

2025-09-06 16:35:08 UTC

- reply

But deciding who of the beautiful people is the most beautiful, then it's all good!

2025-09-06 16:34:02 UTC

- reply

I'm kidding. Beautiful people only. Everyone else denied permission.

2025-09-06 16:23:42 UTC

- reply

But permissionless entry right?

2025-09-06 16:20:56 UTC

No global currency that is not primarily a medium of exchange will ever generate much concern in Washington.

2025-09-06 16:07:19 UTC

- reply

But what does that even mean? You use the ham radio without a license, but then you get triangulated, there's a knock on the door, and you're issued a fine. How is that permissionless?
You can just walk into a grocery store and take stuff, there's no gate. Doesn't mean shoplifting is a permissionless activity.
It's just delayed consequences for not having permission. And it's the existence of the consequences that determine whether something is permissioned or not, not the exact timing of those consequences.

2025-09-06 15:38:11 UTC

- reply

Good takes today man

2025-09-06 15:10:47 UTC

- reply

I think it's pretty up in the air. While you'd never know it from Nostr there is widespread support for some of this regulatory stuff. For the keeping children off certain sites thing, it's all well and good to say it should be up to parents, but a lot of parents are working all hours and struggling with just getting by, and getting a little sleep too, they'd welcome some help from regulators to keep their kids off certain social media and porn sites that are known to be bad for child health. It could be that most people want tighter controls, and that those who don't, while well intentioned, are in the minority.

2025-09-06 14:23:14 UTC

- reply

Tech in general exists in a permissioned zone. I don't know what permissionless tech even means? Even Ham radios require a license, and they can triangulate an operator down if that operator doesn't have one.
It's like talking about permissionless passports or something similarly weird-sounding.

2025-09-06 14:11:27 UTC

- reply

Got it, I should have used an example of an outside lightning wallet not tied to my nsec. But good to know that NWC and Cashu funds would both be pretty safe. That's a really useful benefit of how you've set up 0xchat, with both local Cashu and NWC support.

2025-09-06 14:08:19 UTC

- reply

Yes, well put. I'd love to see a deep financial analysis of the Nostr ecosystem, all the grant funds going in, and the investments, the estimated combined earnings of developers, revenue estimates for the major players in each area like Alby, Primal, Nostr.wine and, so on. It's hard to picture just where Nostr is financially right now and how big the gaps are that need to be filled. (Big of course, but just how big?)
On the grant and investment finding side I'd not be surprised if upwards of $2m was flowing in each month, but that's just finger in the air.

2025-09-06 12:10:24 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the typing effort though!
ChatGPT led me to this Japanese black hat report.

2025-09-06 11:58:22 UTC

- reply

NM, I've learned it's pretty bad.

2025-09-06 11:55:55 UTC

- reply

Thanks!

2025-09-06 11:41:24 UTC

If we ignore the exposed metadata part, is NIP04 reasonably safe? Or are the flaws in the cryptographic implementation pretty bad?
#asknostr

2025-09-06 09:52:02 UTC

- reply

Super useful, thanks!

2025-09-06 09:04:28 UTC

Question. Let's say I install an app such as 0xchat that has both a local Cashu wallet and NWC support. I add sats balance to the Cashu wallet and connect NWC to my Primal wallet (or whatever). An attacker then maliciously obtains my nsec. My Cashu sats are safe because they are stored locally. But how about the sats in my Primal wallet up to the NWC budget limit? I am presuming the attacker can obtain the NWC string from a relay and then decrypt it with my nsec, and then I lose however many sats I lose until I detect this. But is that assumption right?
#asknostr

2025-09-06 08:00:46 UTC

- reply

Yeah, I think it's a pretty close metaphor. The forger can never figure out which part of the imprint is from the wood of the stamp and which part is from the paper, or from some dust, or just form some ink spillover.
In parts of Asia that metaphor would fly.
Either way the key metaphor is so confusing for most non-technical people.

2025-09-06 07:32:49 UTC

- reply

The stamp imprint is bound to the paper, so from the point of stamping it's a combination of ink and paper, it's not just the ink.
For this reason you could not recreate an idential stamp by looking at it's impression. The amount of pressure applied, the angle when stamped, the amount of ink on the pad, and even a few specs of dust here and there, these would all combine to make the forged stamp unable to truly mimic the original stamp for future imprints. You could get close enough for the human eye, but a forensic inspection would reveal the forgery. This kind of inspection is actually a proper industry in many places in Asia.

2025-09-06 06:54:10 UTC

- reply

> While that's a valid point, digital signatures created with public keys are not entirely analogous to real-world signatures because they are only valid for the specific content they sign, which eliminates the risk of unauthorized reuse. This means neither a physical stamp nor a key are truly appropriate metaphors.
I'm not sure how that's different to hanko stamps though? If I stamp a document then that stamp imprint is valid for that document only, you cannot cut it out and glue it on another document. And the wooden stamp itself of course does not change, like an nsec.

2025-09-06 05:01:57 UTC

- reply

There you go!
But stamp singular.

2025-09-06 04:38:36 UTC

- reply

Yeah, that works. Yakihonne has that.
Or just put the number on the tabs (1) and (2).

2025-09-06 04:32:32 UTC

The analogy of signing keys has always felt graspy.
In the real world keys don’t sign things. They unlock doors. And start cars. Pens sign things. A secret key is much more analogous to a secret pen. Or a stamp, like those one-of-a-kind hanko stamps that every company in Japan has. Then the signature becomes a stamp-mark.
Many normies, when presented with the information that they have a key with which to sign things, will be lost metaphorically. Nobody in their life has ever signed something with an actual key.

2025-09-06 04:08:49 UTC

You can't just casually drop the word "key" in conversation with the vast majority of people online.