I'm rocking urxvt with one of the nerdfonts (that i just installed for use with nomadnet) and got some translucence on it. The screenshot actually looks less crisp than the actual terminal oddly enough. probably just the settings i used (which i don't even remember where that script lives as i just have a hotkey for it). Noticing that the picture is much larger than the original area...

Actually, do you guys already do auto-withdrawal to a Lightning address? I don't automate my DCA's because I'd just as soon keep paying you and making decisions when I see the market but on the same front as the SP auto withdrawals, automatic withdrawal via Lightning would be a convenient feature. I'm not seeing it in the account. And actually, it doesn't even look like paying one time to a lightning address is supported. This suggests to me that there's a reason for this, but I'm not sure I can guess what it'd be.

The lightning space is finally moving off custodial lightning for everything, and while people may not by and large be running full infrastructure yet, at least pulling off to Ark or Spark automatically would be a nice touch. There may be some overhead to trying all this given that lightning addresses can be hit or miss so maybe this is why support isn't there yet, but it'd be worth exploring as an option to see what frictions exist.

Payjoin integration for added privacy when cashing out is definitely at the top of my Christmas List. I'm sure Dan and Armin would be thrilled to see y'all coming on board (and if I understand correctly you may even save some fees in the process, but I won't say I fully understand your existing withdrawal batching).

Silent Payments would add the ability to automatically cash out (perhaps using some sort of balance based logic to allow for smaller DCA's to do sane utxo sizing). I'm sort of neurotically manual about a lot of things but could imagine that at some point I'd go this route if it were available.

I wouldn't be too sad to see y'all do collaborative self custody (possibly with some sort of vaulting). Not sure I'd jump on it but it would be a value add. I'm sort of hellbent on proper self-managed vaults with covenants, but in lieu of them there's the matter of physical security to really contend with. Timelocked wallets that perhaps can instantly spend with signing through the Strike app using miniscript maybe? Seems like a trade off that wouldn't be too offensive to any but the most hardcore of self custody maxis, especially given chaincode delegation, considering that Strike's key wouldn't do anything unilaterally but is just there as a "speed up" option. There'd still be the matter though of how to make it actually any more secure than your own multisig, which is hard to do in a remotely accessible automated manner.

And I've mentioned it before but I think I understand a little more about your architecture to get why it's not a thing, but I wouldn't be sad to see the ability to do bracket orders. Think of a bracket as a conditional pair of orders -- only one ever executes. On the low side for buys (high side for sells) you have a target order as you guys call them, agreeing to buy if the market price gets to your target or better. On the high side for buys (low side for sells) you have a stop loss order, so that if the price runs too far AWAY from your target, the order automatically fills. I think these only exist on bigger true exchange models for a reason though, and suspect that your dealer based model wouldn't make as much sense to manage this sort of order on your book. I'm normally big on market orders but there are cases where I sort of feel like getting cute with pricing, but the thought of setting a target buy and then watching the price run away is not usually something I'm looking to sign up for.

Beyond this, idk man. Maybe an app based point of sale option for merchants to autoconvert to/from fiat, not unlike what Square does (but maybe differentiated by not being a full terminal based POS option) wouldn't hurt. You guys already autoconvert paychecks and billpay, so it seems like a good fit. The guys at Block do a great job but nothing says other options aren't welcome in the market -- and I suspect y'all could collect some nice fees in the process. Sort of ambitious and I'm not a merchant myself but I'd be happy to go hunt down merchants on a "Pay with Strike" map...

That's what's coming to mind right now anyway. I'm sure I'll fill you in if I have more ideas, whether you want 'em or not 😂.

Cheers on being so available.

That said...logging in with google involves multifactor authentication usually.

Setting up a nostr signer initially is a little trickier perhaps (or at least novel), but in my experience actually signing in with them is mostly clicking "sign in with extension" or "sign in with amber" and then clicking "allow" (and maybe specifying how long you're allowing for).

I'm no big fan of Primal but I expect someone onboarding with Primal and then using it as a signer may actually be easier than logging in with Google. Might need to do some "market testing" of that hypothesis though.

I expect if you asked him to he'd bring you the TV remote control and a pen and ask how to proceed.

GM

Your watch fell off again didn't it? 😃

Also not for nothing but there's plenty of 110 friendly spam. Ordinals, runes, even some new stuff cooked up for it.

Because on a system built for sending data around, using keys that are arbitrary data...you can't stop arbitrary data.

You can just make it more harmful by doing things like occupying the UTXO set.

110 is just a circle jerk being fomented by charlatans like Kratter who is sucking up subscription payments from people who don't know any better.

Correct. Mandatory signaling first ONLY checks for the version bit.

Mandatory activation is at 965,644, which, on mainnet is expected in September. If the fork fails as is widely expected, they may never reach that block height without resorting to a hard fork proof of work change.

Though it is worth noting that if they ever lose that 51% majority hashrate the other miners could deactivate it and reinstate the split, as legacy Bitcoin recognizes their blocks as valid.

Also worth pointing out that any one legacy block requires 2 bip110 blocks to reorg, but a single legacy block splits off from a 110 chain.

I'm not sure what you mean by decide to fall.

At height 961632 BIP110 nodes start throwing away any block that doesn't signal BIP110.

They either get the heaviest chain and reorg the others, or they create a new shitcoin.

The latter seems far more likely at this stage. But there is a chance miners will make a reckless last minute change and successfully 51% attack the network to activate BIP110.

With THIS rabid minority, I agree.

But if this one could pull the network with nearly no real mining support nor economic activity, why wouldn't the next small group with a charismatic leader not pull us in another stupid direction?

They PROBABLY wouldn't, but we don't say bitcoin is ∞/(probably 21,000,000). Take that certainty out of peoples' minds and markets tend to stumble.