Some countries want thorough explanations on source of funds. If you can get the view key of the transaction and claim it was a mining reward, it is the easiest way to get past AML scrutiny. It just depends on what countries you live and bank in.

Sometimes you want to buy a house with crypto.

so that’s why they steal my wallet, so I don’t get any idea of deporting them back to Africa

> damus just doesn’t work in poorer countries

I am extremely sorry that you can’t afford an unlimited data plan, and my heart goes out to you. I am sure it is frustrating seeing a large data bill. But many people want liberty, and are willing to pay for it.

> Also let’s not act like courts can’t force Will to censor through his relay

Well Primal is doing censorship via their caching servers today, courts don’t need to force them to do it, so it is already a present-day issue.

> we make nostr more decentralized

It does not make Nostr more decentralized to have everyone subscribing to an algorithmic feed controlled by Primal. It is literal centralization.

I got the top reposted post on the site repeatedly one week because Torba was implementing a filtering feature that was just shadowbanning with a new name on it. He started misconstruing every post of mine as a ToS violation. He’s as bad as Elon on this shit. Zero acceptance of criticism or requests for accountability that get any reach or support.

You can talk shit as long as nobody sees it.

Wow to me it was just a hypothetical, I didn’t know they were already moderating the cache feed. But it is not surprising. Once you have a censor’s pen in hand it becomes extremely difficult not to use it.

Primal’s choice of sacrificing feed decentralization for convenience seems like a long-term devil’s bargain. Don’t trade liberty for comfort or a few extra gigs of data.

my personal problem with primal is that their caching servers essentially end-run Nostr and turn it into a pseudo centralized service. You can take your key elsewhere, but if Primal were forced by app stores who were forced by courts to censor, normal people would absolutely not notice or choose alternative Primal caching services. To the vast majority of users, the default is what will be used forever. So when I am onboarding my friends to Nostr, I ask them to use anything but Primal, because I have been personally censored from every centralized financial rail and social network in the world. Even the “free speech” ones like Gab and Poast have banned me. I am willing to see additional data be used to have a client that is actually interfacing with the protocol and doing its own data collection rather than trusting the cache of a centralized third party to do so, and I ask people that follow me to do the same.

BIP300 rather (sorry making dinner)

okay! now we're getting somewhere. yes, I see the expansive scope of BIP100 and it is frightening to me. Not going to lie. Look, I don’t have a day job. I don’t have anything. I am cut off from society and Bitcoin is my whole savings and future. It is my children’s future. So I am very skeptical of adding lots of different things at once.

I can be convinced of the merit of adding a singular simple primitive to enable greater scope of merge mining.

Do I need to repeat myself?

> Seems like a security disaster, ripe for a multitude of race conditions and consensus attacks on supply, state, and immutability, architecturally completely an autistic dream that is not possible to soundly implement.

I don’t think we should change the entire transaction validation mechanism to add excessive complexity.

Shouldn’t HTLCs accommodate these additional L2s? I don’t understand why, if you want a chain with alternative features and functions, you can’t just use HTLCs like Lightning does. Lightning already does about a billion dollars worth of transactions monthly, seems like the concept of using HTLCs to interface with an additional layer is pretty proven. It seems the necessary interface is already there. I guess I am just too stupid to understand.

BIP300 is one of those “ideas guy” moments where something very bold is proposed without a lot of mind put towards the implementation being completely nightmarish.

I don't know how you can have Bitcoin be spread across multiple blockchains while still maintaining a fixed supply of 21M. Seems like a security disaster, ripe for a multitude of race conditions and consensus attacks on supply, state, and immutability, architecturally completely an autistic dream that is not possible to soundly implement. And Bitcoin is explictly defined as *the longest chain*. Not *the longest chains*. What you are describing is no longer Bitcoin at all, and cannot possibly be Bitcoin.

I can agree with this to a certain extent. Monero’s team actually accomplished this incredibly with Tari with “merge mining”, where the proof of work of Monero can be used with Tari with no extra computation necessary. Just submit the same block proof to both blockchains.

There are definitely creative ways we’ve seen that allow for Bitcoin to not lose its value proposition of cornerstone ledger with maximum proof of work. But Bitcoin itself definitely has to be one blockchain, because that’s the definition made in the paper. Chain with longest proof of work, fixed and capped supply of 21M. You can’t have Bitcoin be more than one ledger and preserve that. But Bitcoin’s proof of work could be what secures many additional blockchains.