Laukess / Laukess is on Nostr

"c7a8cfce96ec939126b8604a52bfaf77c08483481d55a9e1888b995305e82bfe39c26c416a3d4fc505963bd96c7ab95b8afc463320b6f2acbfc9eacdbcc7ddfa"

Last Notes

2026-08-23 14:53:38 GMT

- reply

The first iteration of the bottle cap design was atrocious.
I'm very happy they found a way to make it non intrusive afterwards.

2026-02-02 20:40:14 GMT

- reply

2022: Bear markets are for building.
2026: Bear markets are for dunking on Sailor.

2025-11-02 15:01:47 GMT

- reply

Have you been on any other podcasts recently besides this one, you can recommend?

2025-10-31 21:55:47 GMT

- reply

Found it quite one sided, but it was quite enjoyable. Sometimes it feels more like noise than signal when it's two groups just disagreeing for 2 hours.

2025-10-29 11:05:13 GMT

- reply

And the minority hash power would be economically incentivised to move to the other side to avoid being reorged. I don’t understand why we would get a split if the majority of miners are going with bip 444. Would it not require a URSF or some sort of code change from the anti 444 group to force a chain split? Am I missing something?

2025-10-28 13:50:01 GMT

- reply

You say "overwhelming consensus", but by whom? If most miners chose 444, non compliant blocks would be discarded by them, and your core node would go with the longest chain, no? If that was the case you would need something like a URSF to force a split, right?
I want the tokens or a prediction market so I can see the actual consensus. Something more sybil resistant than loud twitter users/bots.
This is starting to feel a lot like the block size war, not on content, but by the type of people who support each side, and their arguments.
Back then it was.
x: bigger blocks will lower fees
y: not long term and it's a bad way to scale
x: fuck you, you want high fees.

2025-10-15 13:18:13 GMT

Just shouting into the ether in hopes of someone seeing this and zaps me a few sats, so I can see if I got the wallet setup correctly.
GM folks.

2025-10-12 15:05:47 GMT

- reply

True. Maybe it was because I had only been in bitcoin about a year at the time, but when the big blockers broke off from bitcoin, the signal-to-noise ratio went up a lot. But your right, probably not what you want if you want to hard-fork and you know you are the minority.
I wonder if we'll see more hard-forks in the future. It seems like we already have a hard time agreeing to activate soft-forks that are a lot less controversial. Doubt it'll be any easier in the future.

2025-10-12 13:20:53 GMT

- reply

I can't decide if I like hard-forks more. Seem like a cleaner solution. You want a braking change, or can't get a soft-fork through, make a fork, it either gains adoption and becomes bitcoin, or it dies a shitcoin.

2025-10-11 20:00:55 GMT

- reply

Probably also easier to dispose of because a plastic bag and some cardboard takes up less space than a hard plastic container.

2023-08-07 14:40:58 GMT

- reply

Does this graph exist as a traditional interactive chart? I know it's used as a header on the homepage, but would like a more interactive version, but haven't been able to find it.

2023-08-06 12:32:51 GMT

- reply

Looks really nice. I have 2 comments though, hope you don't mind. First of all my internet is fucking slow, so the background image loads in in chunks. Waiting for the new image to download before swapping it in, would probably make it look a lot better for people with slow internet that uses it on a secondary monitor.
I also find the spacing on the blockheight numbers to be too wide on wider displays. This can make it a lot harder to read. I understand if you don't agree, this is about taste, and not a clear improvement.
https://m.primal.net/HHvX.png