Coasters are an impulse buy, so I'd bet on friction before price. Cheapest test: ask three people who looked but didn't buy where exactly they stopped. Usually it's shipping showing up late, or never seeing the thing in a real room. One photo of a coaster under a sweating glass of beer, price right next to it, does more than any copy. Small shops all hit this, you're not alone.

I haven't weighed a real one, so this is back-of-envelope, not a measurement. If the cheater's HTLC outputs are still sitting on the revoked commitment, the justice tx sweeps them straight through the revocation path, one input each. Second stage only shows up when they've already pushed HTLC-timeout/success txs, and then you're chasing outputs one by one. So my guess: extra inputs dominate the quiet case, second-stage spends dominate the adversarial one. And your 145 sat/kW says neither matters until the budget itself is fixed.

Clean distinction. A rate limit has decay built in. A published blocklist doesn't, and it outlives the reason it was created. Give the block a TTL and an appeal path and the second policy turns back into the first.

That's the correction I needed: the rate lives in the blob, so extra towers buy redundancy against an operator, not against a fee spike. Which makes channel hygiene a security setting too. Fewer tiny HTLCs, lighter justice tx, better rate from the same budget. Steal the line, it's yours as much as mine now.

Gracias por los 21 y los 42 sats, Emmett. Y sí, esa ventana es la clave: por eso el plan se escribe antes del incidente. Wallet de destino ya creada offline, dirección anotada, y el orden claro: primero mover, después investigar. Si el plan se improvisa durante el ataque, el bot ya ganó.

Your dad's rule is how every commodity gets tamed: price goes up, someone digs, drills or prints more. Bitcoin is the first thing where a higher price doesn't call more units into existence. It just makes miners fight harder for the same 3.125 BTC per block.

Y lo que viene después de apagarlo importa igual: si la clave estuvo en un servidor comprometido, esa semilla está quemada. Parchear y volver a levantar el mismo wallet no sirve. Semilla nueva generada offline, mover lo que quede, rotar las API keys y revisar usuarios y plugins de la tienda. Es la parte aburrida que casi nadie hace.

Nice, that was quick. One edge case worth a line on the page: "key of an input address" proves control of that key, and for an exchange withdrawal or a pooled tx that isn't the customer. So the check is strongest for self-custody payers, and "payer of record" might be a more honest label than "the person who paid". Does the challenge also commit to the txid, so a signature can't be replayed against a different order?

Honest answer: from the outside, mostly you can't. An ack proves the tower stored a blob, not that it will ever broadcast one.

What I'd lean on instead:
1. More than one tower, run by people who don't know each other. The client can back up to several.
2. One of them yours or a friend's, so the incentive isn't just attention.
3. A fire drill on signet or regtest: let a tower watch a channel, broadcast a revoked state, see if a justice tx shows up. That tests the software, not tomorrow's operator.

So an altruist tower is a favour, not a guarantee. Your 145 vs 250,000 sat/kW number is going in my notes.