pull down to refresh
If asymmetric fees cause imbalance in an otherwise perfectly balanced network, then how do you arrive at this corollary: asymmetric fees cannot possibly cause balance in a naturally imbalanced network?
It seems if fees have the ability to disrupt balance, then they can also be wielded to maintain balance.
I don't think you can call a perfectly circular network a "best case", because its not a case that can exist in reality -- its a theoretical case.
I think it's wrong to read René's work and come to the conclusion that mainnet is degraded because fees are asymmetric.
René makes the proof that even in a perfectly circular economy, one where aggregate demand is balanced and there's no net directional flow, asymmetric fees alone are sufficient to degrade this kind of payment channel network.
This is excellent graph theory, but the current lightning network demand flows are nowhere near perfectly circular! The real mainnet is full of sinks and sources, not circular at all.
The free-rider problem isn't eliminated with this design, it's just moved the goal post from "who will pay to rebalance?" to "who will run the rebalance infrastructure?" -- which is actually pretty interesting.
If a small cluster was running this, it could improve the liquidity conditions for nodes that aren't even paying attention to the secondary fee market. Keep working on this!
when someone does initiate a rebalance, they might be shifting other nodes’ balances in directions those nodes don’t want.
Isn't this what routing fees are for? If I don't want my channel to drain in a particular direction, I have the ability to price the cost of drain at whatever PPM I think is fair.
Each node gossips their channels’ surplus outbound to peers using LND’s custom P2P messages
So it sounds like rebalances using this system aren't "free", rather, you pay by loss of privacy.
I’m looking for code review and feedback on the design.
This sounds like a secondary fee market on-top of Lightning's default Gossip-layer. But the requirement of this market is that all rebalances are nominally "free". However, there is no free lunch so I challenge you to think of what else might be "exchanged" to compensate for these rebalances. If the goal is aligning "coincidence of wants" in some kind of barter-protocol (trade inbound for outbound 1:1 with no fees) then I would call it "neat" and "niche" -- because barter does not scale like prices set in a free-market.
Are you even a full node if you're not validating every script? And what about every sidechain that peg-in using a BTC script? Gotta verify what you can on LN also, and you must run BitVM alongside Ark to verify bitcoin to the fullest extent, right? Gotta verify that arbitrary data on your node can actually be interpreted as JPEG. Otherwise you're just trusting that there's jpegs in the blockchain.
Truth: there is no proof of full node. Validate what you care about. The "fullness" you can achieve depends on the size your hard drive and how hard your "drive" is to care about onchain data.
Since we haven't "cured cancer" yet, its unlikely that AI is going to generate tokens in the "correct sequence" that leads directly to a cure. Simply because AI cannot be trained on solutions to unsolved problems, by definition, it's unprovable that the solution is ever going to be produced during inference.
However, given enough time, a monkey and a typewriter can theoretically reproduce the works of Shakespeare.
Maybe cancer researchers can spend more of their human-capital/creative-energy on unsolved problems now that AI can write their grant proposals and do their taxes for them.
Bitcoiners: Bitcoin is permissionless money!
Also Bitcoiners: Be right back! I'm asking the state if I'm allowed to use Bitcoin here.
Also Bitcoiners: The state said, "no". This is bullshit, so sad, HFSP.
This will continue until the infrastructure we build on BTC is aligned with it's permissionless nature.
I have this view that there is "physics of programming". The physics of programming is NOT the algorithms you use, or the syntax, or the runtime complexity or memory footprint of the code. These are just performance metrics or limits of the particular language you are using.
Rather, the physics of programming is the mental model you use to describe the code. The physics is often defined by the variable names you choose, organization and standardization of files or class names, the data structures you use, the comments you write, or even a paragraph or two in the README.md that explains something at a high-level.
The "physics of programming" is what often determines the long-term success of the code.
Can someone new approach the code and read it like a poem or a timely newsletter? Where every line makes you want to keep reading? Can a human tell themselves a story about what's actually happening in the silicon? Is that story clear enough that they can tell another programmer (or AI model) that same story from memory?
As requirements change, as new tech emerges, code with good physics will attract smart programmers to work on it and keep it relevant.
Sometimes this approachability is a bad thing. If a mental model is too simple, it can invite people to complicate it in a way that makes it worse. This is also why we sometimes encounter that one piece of spaghetti code that nobody ever touches, and it somehow works flawlessly for years.
Good physics comes from understanding how people think. How we reason about abstract ideas. The words we use to refer to these ideas -- it comes from understanding the limits of what humans can hold in their mind at one time. When we read code with bad physics, we call it spaghetti, or unmaintainable, or smelly, etc.
AI does not have limits like our. It's context window is huge, it's memory is vast. The stories it can hallucinate are endless. But it is still trained on data that was produced with human limits in mind.
Whether AI models write code with good physics or not is likely dependent on the prompt and context you give it. The AI is trained on lots of code with both good and bad physics. The AI knows the syntax, it knows the quirks of the language you're using, it knows how to write performant code, but the physics is not well-defined unless you give it a "mental model" to work with.
If AI is increasingly writing code and humans, less so. I would imagine that the physics of programming could shift to a point where spaghetti is everywhere, but nobody cares because the AI can reason about it just fine. Kinda like how (almost) nobody reads/writes Assembly or byte-code by hand anymore.
Yuletide greetings, stackers! A good fortune in the turning year! May the sats flow to ye whom treats them best!
In my opinion, multisig is primarily for protocol developers to build things like Lightning Network, side-chains, and for custodians who want distributed signing schemes.
Single signature is fine for individuals (especially beginners). You can achieve multisig-like properties using Shamir's secret sharing, or any number of techniques to split-combine (or even obfuscate) private key material.
At the end of the day, you just need to secure some private data to secure your sats. Multisig just means you have more material to keep secure (more keys, plus wallet descriptors).
But it's great you're learning multisig hands-on!
when the cold phones need an app update, how do you safely update the Electrum app without connecting them to the internet?
Android phones let you side-load APK. You can download and verify the new Electrum APK (or build from source) and load it onto the cold phones via USB drive.
Likewise, with Android OS updates, you can apply these from a linux computer over USB cable adb sideload. Assuming you're able to download the AndroidOS update files onto the linux computer.
For everyone suggesting plants, you would need several industrial vats of algae just to support one person's oxygen needs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAbyUaLN2QA
A more accurate implementation would use the ZMQ to subscribe and get an event exactly when the new block is added. Polling getblockcount is still using normie-time as the basis for the sheduler.
Yea, I might have to vibe this one myself...
For me, this is the opposite of freedom. Reclusive behavior is a symptom of anti-social thinking. The myth of the Lone Wolf is attractive and overly romanticized. Very few great things were produced by one human alone.
Freedom for me is the ability to freely communicate/trade/organize with others in voluntary structures that produce more than the sum of their parts. In the book Atlas Shrugged, the "world" has become bureaucratic and authoritarian causing society to decay and collapse because brilliant people are no longer allowed to organize how they please.
Having "F*ck You Money" gives one an increased ability to act in spite of authoritarians and build one's way towards a more voluntary organization of brilliant people. After all, offering a large salary for another's time and experience is an effective way to make them voluntarily work for you.
In this way, sovereign people can build their own Galt’s Gulch - a safe place for smart people to build the future while avoiding the tyrants.
I think the character of Akston was a warning by Rand. Don't let the tyrants win by withdrawing from society into a prison of your own mind. Instead, find/build a community of like-minded people that can support your unique talents so you don't have to run a diner in the mountains.
"The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (1957)
In that scene, Dagny (protagonist) discovers that Akston, a once renowned philosopher, has withdrawn from the world and is now running a small diner in the mountains. When she questions him about it, he explains his philosophy of reason and independence — including the line you quoted
If BTC is such a pristine asset, how come I can't find anyone that gives a loan against BTC for less than 10 percent interest?
Even if I over-collateralize 2x, the interest rate is still way higher than mortgage.
I get that the opportunity cost for the lender is owning BTC themselves, and BTC tends to go up 50% per year.
But people are buying way more complicated instruments that yield 3-7%
Why isn't that capital being used for BTC backed loans instead?
My pick is A, because you put it first. Also it has a lot of land for growing food, and also, its closest to civilization so you can quickly get groceries when your dream of gardening inevitably fails.
B has a cool river, and old store building, but looks like it's close to a busy intersection. River isn't your property so can't easily use it for hydro power, etc. River could be a concern if floods are common.
C has irregular property shape and is way too close to the neighbors.
If there was an "official process", then bad actors would try to abuse the process.
Just because Bitcoin Core changes its code, does not necessarily mean "the rules" (i.e. consensus) has changed.
Truth is not the goal of social media, getting advertisers is the goal.
Advertisers like audiences who are frustrated, searching, and losing hope so that you are more likely to click on ads and pay for a solution.
I don't have to demonstrate that fees can be wielded to mitigate imbalance...
Rene's paper also mentions convex fees and symmetrical fees as mitigations (in addition to coordinated rebalancing). Its already possible to periodically adjust your asymmetric fees in ways that approximate a symmetric or convex fee function, and you can observe many nodes which seem to be doing this already in mainnet.