Judge Hardcase

Public Key

npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv

Profile Code

nprofile1qqst0xdwylsrwzeg26vnum2g79w3v5uaf2j3l0e7hk7jh3q0vzjdyhspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqsj09hx

Publishing to

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-11 16:15:19 GMT

- reply

Admittedly, this is a bit of hind-sight on my part; but, for someone who actually chose to be invested in bip110, the potential to end up in this situation had to be foreseeable.
Frankly, if I were a bip110er - and I had been sold on the idea that this fork was an imminently existential emergency - I'd be more than a little miffed that the hard fork fall-back plan wasn't built right into the bip to begin with.

2026-08-10 16:39:43 GMT

- reply

This guide may be useful for anyone interested:
#nevent1q…ragn

2026-08-09 14:51:30 GMT

- reply

yeah... I don't wonder whether the grifters exist.

2026-08-09 14:36:52 GMT

- reply

Yes: be careful.
On the other hand, I would expect anyone who truly believed that bip-110 was an imminently existential emergency to be preparing to hard fork at this time... just make sure this is what you truly believe, first (though, I wonder whether these people actually exist).

2026-08-09 14:05:59 GMT

- reply

Maybe bubble doesn't pop... but generally, basic economic incentives would suggest: higher prices -> more supply -> lower prices.

2026-08-09 13:34:52 GMT

- reply

Mostly agree. I think the changes bip110 proposed would have been an improvement overall.
That said, I don't think its failure necessarily indicates the wider community just didn't care... just that it wasn't viewed as an existential emergency by the wider community to consider at this time. A non-emergency proposal would have allowed for more time and effort to be dedicated to swaying a consensus... I strongly suspect there will be even more reflexive resistance to any such proposal now.

2026-08-08 14:23:45 GMT

- reply

Obviously, accidental collisions from ColdCard's pathetic RNG-generated entropy was inevitable... but, that this collision occurred with a seed used exactly once just 3 days earlier seems incredible to me... something else (at least in addition to the pathetic entropy) is almost certain to be going on here. right?

2026-08-07 11:44:38 GMT

- reply

Fully-functional support for a testnet environment: Testnet3?, Testnet4?, Signet?, some new one?, etc - whichever makes the most sense; but, there ought to a commonly accepted ecosystem-wide 'standard'.
Ideally, anyone should be able to just choose to take on the role of Software Tester and bang away at any and all software within the Bitcoin ecosystem as easily with their own test coins as with their own real coins.
Instead, that "Fuck it! We're doing it live!" seems to be the most commonly accepted 'standard' is a HUGE missed opportunity for both the growth and security of self-custody, IMO.

2026-08-06 17:23:38 GMT

- reply

"... but I told it: 'make no mistakes'." 🤷

2026-08-06 13:30:04 GMT

- reply

So True. But; that was then; this is now:
"You didn't lose all your money like everyone else?"

2026-08-06 12:27:00 GMT

A GUIDE FOR MANUALLY GENERATING A SEED PHRASE OFFLINE, OFF-DEVICE FROM COIN FLIPS (no conversion from binary to decimal required):
*assistance from some form of hardware will be necessary for checksum calculation (see opening note of the Instructions):
Instructions:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19-iLPg8GRDAF3FgMl4jteAy7QTmJjX0X/view
Small print (more compact) version:
Worksheet:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oTrz6Dd0DtLznozeH0JVljUsGOTcYkFx/view
Lookup Table:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13EdkgqkEEJcHekfhj1QmtQwQqrwsL9E0/view
Larger print version (for those of us with less than supernatural vision):
Worksheet:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rrczg6roAEO88UzLXwtrVrcSy68Sagln/view
Lookup Table
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TXThMSc2HMVVTRXLUGySOXSgP5KzBbQf/view

2026-08-06 10:14:34 GMT

- reply

...*verifiable* physical entropy only (e.g. no entropy derived from mouse movements, camera motion capture, etc).

2026-08-05 10:17:54 GMT

You may not be able to *fully* trust a seed generated from the entropy by rolling dice.
You may not be able to fully trust (or at all) the seed supposedly generated by the RNG of a hardware device.
The cool thing is you can benefit from the entropy of both by combining them with a simple XOR. In fact, you can XOR as many seeds together as you want and benefit from the entropy that each provides - verifiably by hand reasonably simply.
For example, even if unbeknownst to you, the ColdCard RNG were to provide zero entropy (i.e. if it were to produce the same seed every single time), by XORing it with a seed you manually generate with dice, you would still at least be benefiting from the dice entropy.
PS. ColdCard did provide the option to combine RNG with dice rolls... but there was no way to verify it actually combined anything (AFAIK).
It also provided an option for seed generation by dice rolls alone. This was verifiable; but, the verification process required you to expose seed material to another device... which I kind of thought was what a hardware wallet was supposed to allow you to avoid.

2026-08-04 19:09:57 GMT

- reply

Yeah, I may be done with cashu for the forseeable future... not just because of this particular npub.cash issue; but I've gotten pretty janky results on and off for years now (npub.cash had actually been one of the more consistently reliable components in the past).
It's a cool project idea. I hope it eventually earns a reputation for being reliably stable someday.

2026-08-04 18:44:16 GMT

- reply

Same here.
If y'all are using an npub.cash address as I am, it would seem this may be the explanation:
#nevent1q…45nt

2026-08-04 13:59:05 GMT

- reply

Spot on!
I've been watiching religiously for years. I'm certain the knowledge I've gained from doing so is more than I had ever even considered. So much so that if/when @npub1qny…95gx said something to the effect of "[just don't roll dice]", I almost certianly rejected it instantly as not being compatible with the the toolkit to figure things out for myself based on the wealth of knowledge they had previously provided me.

2026-08-04 12:59:38 GMT

- reply

💯 I *know* I've lost out on recruits because I couldn't bring myself to give the dumbed-down to the point of being misleading advice that many others might.
#nevent1q…n6jd

2026-08-04 12:42:28 GMT

- reply

Yep. The step by step dice roll process could have been designed *way* better, IMO. (you can forget about a normie being able to handle that verification process). But, at least it was an option.

2026-08-04 12:37:57 GMT

- reply

ah... I think I understand: even if there were a perfect machine (which we wouldn't even be able to verify if there were), it still wouldn't be able to instruct a user how to not do any of the unknowable number of things that could produce a dice roll with an entropy that contains an unknowable degree of imperfection. Is that about it?
Fair enough. I'm still going to take my chances with dice (more likely, coins, actually). I know I can't trust them (or myself) for absolutely perfect entropy; but at least, I can know I can at least verify my seed is determined from the albeit faulty entropy that I end up providing. Conversely, I can neither trust nor verify that a signing device is even using an RNG the way it claims to be.

2026-08-04 12:12:16 GMT

- reply

My apologies, but I'm failing to grasp how this applies to a machine instructing the user to provide the result of a single dice roll.
The human doesn't have to be able to spot any randomness... repeated 256 times, the user still doesn't have to be able to spot any randomness.
Maybe it would be helpful to me if you could describe a specific example for how this could get screwed up.

2026-08-04 11:47:48 GMT

- reply

I agree risk can never be completely eliminate.
I'd like to explore the rolling dice is a known failure assertion a little further. It is absolutely known to be prone to failure - particularly due to humans tending to lose focus while doing something tedious.
My position is with a little care on the part of the signing device, this risk *could* be greatly mitigated with a helpful UI process that methodically forces the user to be guided step-by-step: roll-by-roll, word-by-word.
At worst, the user is only cheating himself rather than unwittingly taking the risk of being cheated by the signing device.

2026-08-04 11:22:08 GMT

- reply

This is the 'answer' I'm proposing:
If it's not absolutely necessary for a cold storage signing device to be using any form of an inherently not able to independently verify RNG at all, then it's not worth the risk.
If you disagree with any part of it, I would love to have a discussion so that *I* may be enlightened as to why I'm wrong.

2026-08-04 11:07:04 GMT

- reply

The jokey format of your response aside, I honestly can't tell if the underlying message is sincere or if it's just intended to mock.
I was genuinely interested in having a productive discussion.

2026-08-04 10:49:39 GMT

- reply

I understand what you're saying. But in light of the Cold Card fiasco, if tomorrow's state-of-the-art cold storage signing device offered the following options for seed generation, which makes more sense (I'm going to use coin flips instead of dice for my example because it's easier to describe (and I like coins better) - but the same principles could be applied to dice)?
Option 1) Coin Flips - You will enter each of the results from 11 coin flips; 1 at a time. Do the coin flips for real, and do your best to ensure the coin(s) you use is fair. If you cheat and just pick heads or tails in your mind, your seed will not be secure! After the 11th flip, I will present you with the associated seed word. We will repeat for each word in your seed phrase. You can follow along with a widely available list of words to ensure that each word I give you indeed matches the 11 coin flips you entered. The flips you provide for the final word will be modified to incorporate a necessary checksum - which you can also verify against the results from entering your new seed phrase into any number of other signing devices by any number of other vendors - if you are so inclined (but the the entropy provided by your seed phrase less the final word is generally accepted as very, very good, anyway - indeed, the entropy from 23 words of a 24-word seed phrase is certainly more than overkill);
or, Option 2) Random Number Generator - I will provide you with a seed phrase generated by my RNG. You won't be able to verify this process at all for yourself. But, I've vetted it. And, it may have even been vetted by someone else as well. Trust me, Bro!
I would love to know if there's something I'm missing here, but if it's not absolutely necessary for a cold storage signing device to be using any form of an inherently not able to independently verify RNG at all, why take the risk?

2026-08-04 09:52:21 GMT

- reply

Thanks, but I can't take all the credit. It was heavily inspired by a similar scheme for dice rolls by BitBox.
https://bitbox.swiss/bitbox02/BitBox_Diceware_LookupTable.pdf

2026-08-03 21:55:55 GMT

- reply

PS. What I think most would find useful here is that the lookup tables remove the otherwise common necessity of converting binary to decimal before doing the lookup.

2026-08-03 19:28:30 GMT

- reply

In case anyone might find this useful:
#nevent1q…scge

2026-08-03 19:25:21 GMT

- reply

If this is something you still might be interested in, this aid may help.
#nevent1q…scge

2026-08-03 19:15:22 GMT

Hello Friends!
All of the entropy generation talk has inspired me to put together what I hope is a useful aid for generating seed words from coin flips. I suspect something similar already exists; but, I wanted to make my own exactly as I wanted it; and I thought I'd share it.
If you think you might be interested in doing this, but it's not exactly clear to you what this process entails, I highly recommend reading the note at the start of the instructions section before going any further. It may easily turn out that this process is not for you.
If you already know what you're getting into, I hope to have made the rest of it intuitive enough so that you should be fine to skip the instructions.
Instructions:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1esU_VnMGXjNQrY7FcehDZlcFqMKW999V/view
Small print (more compact) version:
Worksheet:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oTrz6Dd0DtLznozeH0JVljUsGOTcYkFx/view
Lookup Table:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zrQwBR5781qwr2luXI29RBBo8PgqnZNT/view
Larger print version (for those of us with less than supernatural vision):
Worksheet:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rrczg6roAEO88UzLXwtrVrcSy68Sagln/view
Lookup Table
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jHII0iqJVu2UPUCA6RnmvKt26F-_KAAu/view
If you find this aid useful or know someone you think might, feel free to share, download, improve, or do whatever else you want to with it.

2026-08-03 13:54:04 GMT

- reply

Exactly!
What would really be great is if all signers (including hot wallets) would provide an embedded tool to accept a 12th (or 24th) word you generated (likely not checksum-valid), discard the invalid checksum bits, and replace them with a valid checksum and tell you what your new valid last word should be (and force you to reenter your entire seed phrase again for checksum verification)
Instead, it would seem most developers are more interested in abstracting away user responsibility for the sake of quick and convenient on-boarding of the naive.

2026-08-03 10:16:02 GMT

Taking responsibility vs convenience... and knowing the trade-offs.
IMO, this is supposed to be the ethos of Bitcoin. It seems it should be clear now that the Bitcoin community in general has been too eager to abstract away responsibility to the user for the sake offering convenience in order to recruit new adoption more quickly - without sufficient emphasis on the trade-offs. This needs to change.
It's laudable to provide a mechanism for making it more convenient for a user to take responsibility; but that's completely different from abstracting a responsibility away altogether. At the very least, maintain a reasonably useful path for a user to choose to retain that responsibility.
#nevent1q…0g24

2026-08-01 21:04:48 GMT

- reply

I am intending to produce a more useful guide very soon; but I didn't want to leave you hanging in the meantime:
Here is the list of 2048 available seed words (english version) - numbered 1 - 2048.
My recommendation would be to get 11 coins. Shake them up; then stack them without paying any attention to their heads/tails orientation. Next, one by one, record on a piece of paper - in order from top of the stack to the bottom - whether each is a heads or a tails. Then convert that record to 1s and 0s. (eg. heads = 1; tails = 0)
Your result should be an 11-bit binary number (e.g.: 01110001010). Convert this binary number to a decimal number (e.g.: 01110001010 in binary = 906 in decimal). Add 1 to account for the list provided beginning with 1 instead of 0. (e.g. final result is 907). Look up the word from the list by its number (e.g. 907 = image). This is your first seed word. Repeat as necessary to form either a 12-word seed phrase or a 24-word seed phrase. *I highly recommend doing all of this offline. Don't cheat by using an online binary to decimal converter. It's easy. If you're not sure how, you should be able to easily find a simple guide online.
Having said all that, this is where it gets a bit tricky: the last word needs to contain a checksum. And you can't really figure that out manually. The easiest thing to do is use bluewallet (link below)... because it has a tool "Tools > Seed final word" that will provide you with a valid last word to replace your 12th or 24th word as applicable... make sure you replace the last word you had generated on your own (or maybe only generate 11 or 23 words to begin with since you're going to let bluewallet choose your last word for you). Unfortunately, bluewallet might be the only mobile wallet I've heard of that offers a final word tool like this... but after you update your seed phrase with the final word bluewallet provides, any other bip39-based wallet (pretty much all of them) should accept your new seed phrase.
*NOTE: I'm assuming here that you already understand that mobile wallets already come with other additional inherent risks beyond an offline cold storage wallet.
Normally, a 12-word seed phrase is 128 bits of entropy. By only using 11 words you generated on your own, and if you assume the worst case that bluewallet's 12th word didn't actually add any useful entropy, that still gives you 121 bits of entropy which is still considered very, very good... though 253 bits of entropy that 23 seed words you generated by yourself gives you (plus 1 word added by bluewallet) would be even better.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039/english.txt
https://bluewallet.io/

2026-08-01 12:22:49 GMT

- reply

Yes. It ought to be easy enough to explain to a normie how to flip a coin 11 times (or roll dice or whatever) to randomly select each seed word from an easily available list. It's mostly useless, however, for a normie to do so until they have a wallet that can assist them with this last step - so, it's mostly useless to encourage a normie to do it.

2026-08-01 12:15:17 GMT

A message to all BIP39-based wallet providers (to include signing devices):
Please make it easy for users to bring their own seed words. I'm referring to assisting a user who has generated their own seed words manually to land on a final checksum valid word.
Ideally, a user should be able to generate their own seed phrase offline with indifference to a checksum. Then, when a wallet they try to enter it into for the first time detects an invalid checksum, the wallet could offer to provide the associated checksum-valid final word; so that the user may update their own physical backup and reenter their entire seed phrase for checksum verification.
I realize some wallets already offer some version of this "generate final word" assistance. It really seems like this should be expected as a standard now for all wallets.
Also, might be best to start encouraging users to be generating their own seed words rather than relying on a wallet to tell them what their seed words will be.
PS. Thank you! Your work is greatly appreciated, and probably doesn't get the full recognition that it deserves.

2026-08-01 00:24:34 GMT

- reply

this attack was allowed by a coding error that mistakenly generated much weaker than intended entropy for seed generation.
bottom line: any wallet developer is capable of making a similar mistake.
This can be mitigated by not relying on any wallet to generate your seed words for you. Instead, you can generate your own near-perfect entropy offline simply by letting 11 coin flips choose each of your seed words from the list of 2048 BIP-39 words. Then tell your mobile wallet what your seed words are rather than the other way around.

2026-07-31 14:51:36 GMT

- reply

IMO, there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just don't rely on RNG for seed generation. Verify that your coldcard is processing dice rolls correctly (perhaps with several test cases); you should be fine.
It shouldn't be surprising that if something was going to fall through the cracks (on any signing device), it would be reliance on RNG. It's one of the few functions that isn't deterministic, and therefore can't be independently verified is working properly. So, just don't rely on RNG for seed generation, period.
https://coldcard.com/docs/verifying-dice-roll-math/

2026-07-30 09:59:50 GMT

- reply

Just a heads-up: simply changing your credit card number alone may not be good enough.
Long story, short: your credit card provider may automatically allow subscriptions to certain 'reputable' services to persist through a card number change as a 'convenience' to *you*... best to also tell your card provider which specific subscriptions you want to stop paying.

2026-07-29 16:47:44 GMT

- reply

FWIW, Congress does have the power to compel testimony via the granting of immunity - which shouldn't really be an issue considering President Biden had already granted Fauci a preemptive pardon.
That Congress didn't bother to grant Fauci immunity in exchange for his testimony is just an indication that Congress isn't really interested in uncovering the truth (as shocking as that may seem).

2026-07-26 20:00:12 GMT

- reply

Naturally, the dog just considers the things on 2 legs to be the responsibility of the guard on 2 legs.
"I spot a squirrel 100ft away, and I'm right on it!
My human just lets other 2-leggers enter the house all the time without so much of a butt sniff."

2026-07-11 14:00:12 GMT

- reply

https://xcancel.com/adam3us/status/2075884851794735602

2026-07-09 13:43:08 GMT

- reply

Agreed - unless those supporters *actually* believe bip-110 is existentially vital to bitcoin... in which case, they would view corecoins as imminently worthless to them anyway.
I'm not really buying their conviction in that belief, though.

2026-07-08 16:06:01 GMT

- reply

https://npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv.blossom.band/b27992022f39b90c36364a4a9e586795b8130ca912bb5fdc0ce6a7f92126f2d3.gif

2026-07-07 20:34:33 GMT

- reply

Suddenly, my craving for a grilled cheese has morphed into a craving for a monte cristo.

2026-07-07 20:05:15 GMT

- reply

https://npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv.blossom.band/58ebccdd1914d4d45c1fa463b917c77c731811476efcf0c9e07254788cf67be6.gif

2026-07-02 16:39:41 GMT

- reply

The truth is that I don't really know how I'm supposed to Nostr... I suspect there's a very good chance that my reach is limited by my lack of understanding in how I should be making use of relays.
* If so, I'm sure it's entirely my own fault... I've just been too lazy (so far) to put in the effort to learn.

2026-07-02 15:28:10 GMT

- reply

My bad... I sometimes forget that not everybody had been involved in as many pointless arguments on the interwebs as I have over the years. 😜

2026-07-02 14:59:18 GMT

- reply

just pointing out (poorly) that purity tests are just a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

2026-07-02 14:33:08 GMT

- reply

You, sir, are No True Scotsman.

2026-07-01 17:24:55 GMT

- reply

FWIW, IMO, there won't be a significant chain split. Either, Bip110 gains enough hash rate to compel virtually all miners to join in; or, Bip110 hash rate remains minuscule - effectively becoming its own network (or perhaps even abandoned).
Of course, a popular URSF as a response if Bip110 starts gaining some real steam would be a completely different landscape to deal with.

2026-07-01 17:10:13 GMT

- reply

If Bip110 threatens dominance, the vast majority of users probably wouldn't notice the change.
For those Core users who have specialized uses for what Bip110 prohibits, it's probably best to just rely on the providers of the specialized software that offer those specialized uses to warn their users... or at worst, those users will just naturally find out when their proposed transactions going forward aren't getting mined.
As for Bip110 users 🤷. FAFO. I mean, it's vital that users ultimately control the network - but that necessarily requires those users who are controlling their node on the network to pay attention to what the heck they're doing.

2026-06-28 14:47:29 GMT

- reply

I'm just a spectator myself. I find the topic fascinating. FWIW, my best guess is that BTC (and therefore, MSTR, STRC, etc) will turn it around soon enough.
I've just been annoyed by all the hucksters (not Stache... necessarily) who had been hyping Strategy products as some sort of can't lose. It gives me a bit of a warm feeling inside watching them now squirm a bit. 😁

2026-06-28 13:58:13 GMT

- reply

O, it's in motion alright. Unfortunately, motion doesn't imply in which direction. 🤣

2026-06-27 15:10:51 GMT

- reply

In his latest video, he also speculates that he "knows" that due to a "death spiral" preventing STRC returning to $100, that Strategy ever selling STRC to buy Bitcoin again is "over".
Possible; but I doubt it (FWIW, I don't own anything Strategy).
Anyway, once STRC returns to $100, and Strategy resumes business as usual, can we all just agree to never pay any attention to what Schiff has to say vis-a-vis anything Bitcoin related ever again?
PS. In the meantime, lawsuits popping up wouldn't surprise me at all.... this is 'Merica. 🇺🇸

2026-06-27 02:12:57 GMT

- reply

e.g.
#nevent1q…7r0s

2026-06-27 01:58:39 GMT

- reply

To be fair, he doesn't exactly have the best track record of sticking to those publicly laid plans (and, no, I'm not talking about the "never sell your bitcoin" nothing-burger). I don't think that makes him a fraud... but I understand if people (who probably didn't even consider reading the fine print) feel misled.

2026-06-26 14:34:22 GMT

- reply

Nostr's inherent incentive is that it's freedom tech. Most normies just don't yet care about freedom tech.
IMO, it's a waste of time trying to convince someone by dangling an incentive they just don't care about. Instead, I would try to educate them (assuming they are at all receptive to being educated) on why they should recognize freedom tech in general as being important to them - then, convincing won't be necessary.

2026-06-24 20:43:26 GMT

- reply

There is this:
"I’ve titled the series Gradually, Then Suddenly. As Hemingway penned the process of going bankrupt, it’s also the way that government-backed currencies hyper-inflate and often how people come to understand bitcoin (gradually, then suddenly)"
https://www.unchained.com/blog/dollar-crisis-to-bitcoin

2026-06-24 20:28:36 GMT

- reply

So, I'm guessing since no lightning network, all their zaps are on-chain?...
It doesn't seem like it could be merely coincidence that they seemed to pop up so soon after the recent on-chain zaps mini-controversy here.

2026-06-24 19:09:23 GMT

- reply

Yep... no worse off than shoving dollars under your mattress, I guess. 😜

2026-06-24 18:03:24 GMT

- reply

The world of shipping is still entrenched in the fiat world - particularly international shipping. There is no permissionless shipping protocol in any practical sense. Coinkite does what it can to keep its own house clean; but can’t reasonably be expected to take responsibility for what the shipping industry does to protect customer data. Regardless of what Coinkite does to protect user data, there is no perfect protection. Ultimately, the onus is on Coinkite’s customers to consider these factors when taking responsibility for their own security.
IMO, the above statement would have been a reasonable response to this situation. Unfortunately, the response chosen so far has been nothing like it.
FWIW, Coinkite’s privacy policy - which indicates that the shipping company with which it must share customer data has its own privacy policy - is effectively saying this same thing when you read between the lines.

2026-06-24 12:57:30 GMT

- reply

Whatever the amount, my guess is it will be denominated in yuan. 😥

2026-06-22 17:00:14 GMT

- reply

Yeah, it could be a middle man shipping person... but this smells to me more like the middle man shipping company itself might have been hacked - exposing past invoice data.
It's great that Coinkite delete's user data, but they can't control the deletion of the data that they had already passed along to someone else.
To me, the bottom line is, there are no guarantees: act accordingly. *and in this case, it sounds like the appropriate skepticism to an unexpected correspondence was indeed applied.
PS. It does seem like Coinkite should take more of an interest in determining if their shipping partner was the weak link here or not. Maybe behind the scenes they will/are. 🤷

2026-06-19 13:54:49 GMT

LFG!!! 🚀
#nevent1q…52ng

2026-06-17 13:54:46 GMT

- reply

true. the fee structures have been changing so often that it's difficult to keep track of what they're paying for anymore. 🤷

2026-06-17 13:40:46 GMT

- reply

... which raises the possibility that the 0.9% fee might still apply if the merchant happened to choose to keep btc rather than auto-convert btc to dollars. 🤔

2026-06-17 13:32:21 GMT

- reply

no 0.9% fee? Interesting. Makes perfect sense, though, to waive that fee when you're just paying one of their other clients via square (they likely aren't even actually converting to BTC since they can just adjust the custodied balances on each side of the transaction).
*I'm going to assume someone of authority there is aware of that toggle... just not the minimum wage employee running the cash register at the time. 😉

2026-06-15 16:13:19 GMT

- reply

💯
#nevent1q…7r0s

2026-06-15 16:04:19 GMT

- reply

newer car usually translates to higher monthly insurance premium. mystery solved. 😉

2026-06-15 14:47:41 GMT

So, last week Strategy sold MSTR at an average price of ~$121/share and bought BTC at an average price of ~$63K. With BTC that low, IMO, this will almost certainly end up being a good move.
Unfortunately, just last month, at their Q1 earnings call, they revealed the slide below to explain when selling shares to buy BTC would be accretive (and vice versa). Based on the average prices above, prior to these moves, their BTC Reserves sat at ~$53B, and their ADSO Market Cap sat at only ~$46B - well below the "BPS Accretive Breakeven" point as indicated by their own slide.
As per usual, Saylor's biggest PR problem (and likely rating agency problem, btw) isn't that he's selling equities to buy bitcoin... it's that he keeps saying one thing while doing another.
https://npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv.blossom.band/e4a47fab9b038d1065e6ca584c37f1dbcd31219dec4a06ffe0f2616068b7f0eb.png

2026-06-15 00:26:44 GMT

- reply

Yeah... it's a shame. That combined with the recent support for making USDC payments (with 0% fee) has me mildly concerned that Cash App is starting to lose the plot.
#nevent1q…yqdz

2026-06-13 17:27:30 GMT

- reply

Is that inflation adjusted? 😜

2026-06-08 15:46:21 GMT

- reply

Not exactly. 15.5K in 2022 was obviously lower than the previous cycle's high of 20K in 2017.
IMO, a much better demonstration of bitcoin's 4-year 'cycle' consistent resilience is that the 200-week moving average has never trended down... ever:
https://image.nostr.build/6e20f8319a3b8f0c77b010758c48d4a41ec66c81618867ba96bb14739a17650f.png

2026-06-07 23:19:38 GMT

- reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_hlcieuNzE

2026-06-05 19:11:56 GMT

- reply

Interesting... though, I imagine the vast majority of the 0.9% fee mentioned here is for the swap rather than the ln network fees (which are usually way lower as well).
I would expect Cash App to eventually charge a similar fee to swap from a dollar balance to pay a USDC invoice regardless of what the USDC network fees are.

2026-06-05 17:29:18 GMT

- reply

Of course, you could probably save a little by sending yourself USDC from your @npub1cas…dg5l cash balance first instead (at least while that fee is still 0%); then, using something like @npub1psm…8970 or @npub1cm3…96wt to swap from USDC to pay an ln BTC invoice.
All this just makes it seem like Cash App doesn't have its incentives balanced out quite right yet. (and the end result is a slight disadvantage for using Cash App for BTC by comparison)

2026-06-05 17:00:32 GMT

Well, this is new: @npub1cas…dg5l raised its fee for paying from cash balance to ln BTC from 0% to 0.9%. Obviously, 0% forever was never going to be sustainable. 0.9% is still very reasonable for $ to BTC conversion, though.
(I'm assuming the recent introduction of USDC transactions had something to do with forcing this change at this time)
https://image.nostr.build/1b4d2225c6f8425e00a5e063239f40e34477c0ce5cae3a5150bbd3e0b718729f.png

2026-06-04 16:35:45 GMT

- reply

Maybe someday... hopefully soon (assuming I haven't determined it to be junk in the meantime).
The problem is it's a mess of a spreadsheet right now... but I'm pretty sure I can distill it down to a much more concise formula.
Basically, though, the idea is: given 3 historical lows (Aug 2015: $199.57, Mar 2020: $4,106.99, Jan 2023: $16,521.23) the curve that passes through those 3 points also passes through ~$62,500 for Jun 2026. (*I'm using monthly data - which in itself is a bit problematic).
I just need to relearn how to derive the function for the curve that expresses this. As it stands now, I think I'm accomplishing the same thing by calculating each monthly point along that curve by applying a constantly decaying rate of appreciation.
PS. I believe this is a very similar result to using the power law... but I'm only concerned with the lows... that, and ultimately, I'm no math surgeon. 😉

2026-06-04 15:21:20 GMT

- reply

I'm just going to take this as confirmation that Big Macs aren't made from actual ground beef. 😉

2026-05-31 14:33:20 GMT

- reply

I'm pretty sure the cycle is inversely correlated with bitcoin's price volatility.

2026-05-30 14:20:05 GMT

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/c52282a82b3b7717f4262d58f4cb4d94909d6c492007991b0e6fa356f908bf00.gif

2026-05-29 16:52:55 GMT

- reply

Just make sure to keep it hidden from your deck guy, I guess?

2026-05-28 14:01:52 GMT

- reply

As far as I'm concerned, the only *safe* way to borrow against your bitcoin is if your would-be liquidation price is at or below the price you would just give up on bitcoin anyway.
Also, if there is any price where you would just give up on bitcoin, what are you even doing here, you poser?!! 😉

2026-05-28 10:21:12 GMT

- reply

Looks like that might be Charles Bronson's star 👀... mad respect to your mum for not giving an F who she's stepping on. 😂

2026-05-28 00:28:31 GMT

- reply

Yep... also makes it easier to for a bitcoin user who might not want anything to do with dollars to send btc that shows up as dollars for a cashapp user who might not yet want anything to do with bitcoin.
Meet the people where they're at.

2026-05-27 16:06:08 GMT

- reply

Brilliant! Are we supposed to be regularly checking all of our addresses on Mempool.space to see if there are any op_return legal notices waiting for us? 🤣
I don't know that I've ever used a conventional wallet that even shows me if there's anything in an op_return. (for all I know they all do, but I've just never received an op_return)

2026-05-27 15:40:21 GMT

- reply

So... these were coins hacked from MtGox way back in 2011; and it has been spammed with dust ever since in an attempt to get the owner (hacker) to possibly expose themself by moving them?

2026-05-27 15:24:11 GMT

- reply

hmmmm... that address has only been used to receive; and 79,956.00000000 of that 79,957.26860209 BTC was from it's first receive transaction.
I don't what that implies, but the vast majority of the other 682 transactions it has received have basically just been dust.
https://mempool.space/tx/e67a0550848b7932d7796aeea16ab0e48a5cfe81c4e8cca2c5b03e0416850114

2026-05-18 18:45:49 GMT

- reply

Soon, ozempic will have those same people cheering on their "nobody loves fat people!" ads.

2026-05-18 11:06:02 GMT

Nostr is amazing freedom technology!
Also, if you think 200 replies a day would feel to restrictive, go touch some grass.
Also, if you make 50 original posts in 1 day, you're getting unfollowed. 😉
#nevent1q…09ap

2026-05-17 13:00:06 GMT

- reply

#nevent1q…npmr

2026-05-17 11:53:47 GMT

"Noobs should be able to send/receive Bitcoin secured only by ther nsec"
"Noobs shouldn't have to worry about securing their nsec to use Nostr"
This doesn't end well for noobs... and therefore, nor does it for the adoption of Nostr.

2026-05-14 19:43:22 GMT

- reply

I will 2nd the CashApp suggestion. Yes, you would have the same KYC exposure as Venmo or Zelle; but, from CashApp's perspective, you aren't necessarily ever possessing any BTC yourself. CashApp just debits your fiat account and pays some anon lightning invoice on your behalf (with no fees nor spread).

2026-05-12 21:40:48 GMT

SO BULLISH!!!
#nevent1q…yqss

2026-05-12 20:38:07 GMT

- reply

BREAKING: Police Union worried that preserving civil rights would make their jobs harder.
I'm shocked, I tell ya! Just Shocked! 😲

2026-05-12 17:49:53 GMT

#nevent1q…54ca
Wow, with only the bare minumum 51 votes.... I can't help but be reminded when: 🫏
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reid-invokes-nuclear-option-to-get-obama-nominees-approved/

2026-05-12 15:34:10 GMT

- reply

No. It actually doesn't. Not as a backup for the device. Only as a backup to decrypt the app-key in the cloud.

2026-05-12 15:28:40 GMT

- reply

Not exactly. The recovery contact does not act as a backup for the device. The recovery contact acts *only* as a secodary decryption key for the cloud backup of your app key - in case you lost your primary decryption key (i.e. you *also* lost your bitkey device).
In brief:
The process for recovering from *only* a lost phone is to use the device to decrypt the cloud backup.
The process for recovering from *only* a lost device is to get a new one, and then use your phone app to direct Bitkey to rotate your funds to a new 2-of-3 multisig corresponding to your new device.
The process for recovering from *both* a lost phone *and* a lost device is first: restore your phone app via your recovery contact; then, second: follow the process above for recovering from a lost device.
https://image.nostr.build/79e8bc6d37d69d011de9230cc4f38f341c20cd5034eefb1c439dc46f7c08522b.jpg
There is NO mechanism for recovering the key from your device - even by Block itself. This is intentional by design. They advertise this as a selling point.

2026-05-12 11:23:26 GMT

- reply

My main gripe with Bitkey is that even if all of the Bitkey system works exactly as it's supposed to, it's impossible to back up the hardware device's key. Because of this - unlike virtually any other hardware wallet - If it gets lost, stolen, or broken, you are no longer in control. Instead, you have become absolutely dependent on Bitkey's servers for recovery. *in case it's not clear, the 'cloud backup' is only for recovery of the key managed by the phone app. There is NO mechanism for recovering the key in the hardware device.
For me, full control of 2-of-3 keys would sufficiently qualify as 'full control'. It's just that you aren't in full control of a key if you can't make a copy of it.

2026-05-12 10:48:17 GMT

- reply

I'm not really faulting Danny either. The show is entertainment. It has sponsors. It is what it is.
Bitkey's dishonest advertising is very annoying... and, I can't imagine they're doing themselves any favors by having even a whiff of scamminess in the Bitcoin community. It's getting rarer and rarer to see a podcast not sponsored by them, though.

2026-05-12 10:30:25 GMT

- reply

Yeah, I think the difference is that Strategy isn't a sponsor of the show (Bitkey is). I mean, I love Danny, but I'm chalking this 'interview' up as a sellout.