JeremyNielsenWMI

bitcoin

Where the 4 Year Cycle Comes From

WarrenLandryKS4

Picture 1:
Saife: Here is a cooking book, the recipes from my grandma. This is how you cook this place to be. TOTALLY FREE.
Nayib: Thank you, I will read it in my next mandate. Will see what we can do.

Picture 2:
Saife: You must do what it says in that book, there is no other way.
Nayib: Please, just let me one more mandate... I need to stack more sats and start those volcano mining rigs.
Saife: Sure, but after that... no more bullshit government, just Bitcoin.

Announcing the Wallet of Satoshi POS!

KatieMeza8JR

The 0-conf risk is negligeable completely LOW RISK, as the attackers have no incentive to do it for low value trxs, and it is in no one's authority to restrict such flexibility to merchants who accept the risk for customer convenience. Why for instance sybil attack never happened and it is a likely risk suddenly? This is about FLEXIBILITY on-chain, always independent from any L2. LN may become outdated but Bitcoin must stay resilient, IMMUTABLE and flexible. Others must addapt to Bitcoin, that should stay STABLE with few to minimum but fixing changes. This is NOT A BUG. BITCOIN IS FINE. There is currently a "Bitcoin Hub" that is out of control and keeps pushing non-bug fixing CHANGES to Bitcoin like in this proposal 24.0. Bitcoin Devs should not even, due to obvious bias, be involved AT ALL in PROMOTING non-bug fixing CHANGES. DOING NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER to Bitccoin and continue to allow 0-conf is good for Bitcoin and  Satoshi as I understood also considered such 'risk' as very low. So why the proposal for a CHANGE at all present in this useless CHANGE proposal 24.0 on that (pardon my French skills) that restricts merchants to continue having a seamless on-chain/LN option for their users only great for more hyperbitcoinization with minimum to NO proven risk, to which acceotcance should be SOLELY at the acceptance criteria of the users?

SN Cowboy Hat: A Case Study in Motivation

EllenCopeland5EA

Buying high quality products 

VernonDillon7CV

https://imgprxy.stacker.news/rbnhYj9nxkY4VzhwgN5AhkFA5M5cAPeKUzKjYttApLQ/rs:fit:600:500:0/g:no/aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWRpYS50ZW5vci5jb20veGZmNU5KOHZRT3dBQUFBZC9jb3dib3ktc2hvb3RpbmcuZ2lm

Book (with Bitcoin) review: *Zero Days* by Ruth Ware

ManuelPerry2GX

Spinning up a FutureBit Apollo BTC miner!

How A Small Team of Devs Created React at Facebook

RebekahKirbyQID

I saw that they've now blocked access to viewing twitter unless signed up/in. Too bad, I used to like getting a quick summary of what's happening instead of spending too much time scrolling through my feeds. Oh well 

Over the past two years I ran an amateur routing node that was in the top 300 on lightning terminal.

I have decided to stop for the following reasons

1) **Profitability**

     I routed many payments but was never profitable. My total lifetime node statistics are in the table below:

     |    Line Item    |     Lifetime    |
     |:---------------:|:---------------:|
     | Payments Routed | 24,916          |
     |   Value Routed  | 944,239,099     |
     |  Revenue Earned |   14,790 [15]   |
     |  Onchain Costs  | 784,204         |
     |  Offchain Costs |   9,665 [474]   |
     |   Percent Cost  | 5,367%          |
     |     Profits     | -779,079 [-825] |

     Could I have done a better job managing my expenses and routing fees? Yes. There are lots of people who run lightning nodes profitability. I was just not one of them. If I had spent more time optimizing my fees and I raised my fee rates I could have been.

     But even doing that wouldn't stop random force/regular closures which require you to reallocate your capital to another channel (which means you have to spend sats on opening fees).

     If you want to run a routing node successfully you really need to treat it like a business. And there are actually a lot of expenses in doing so that aren't apparent upfront.

 2) **Responsibility**
     
     I am happy that it is possible for anyone to run a routing node. However just because you can doesn't mean you should.

     It's a big misconception is that everyone needs to be a routing node. While on paper most people can easily set one up. The average person is much better off connecting to an existing, reliable routing node than trying to make their own. Managing inbound/outbound liquidity requires some effort. And if you don't keep up with it, you might be doing more harm than good to the network. Over-leveraged inbound and outbound liquidity results in more failed payments on the network. 

     I had about double to triple inbound liquidity so I saw a lot of failed transactions and I probably contributed to an overall worse UX for the rest of the network because of those failed transactions. I did not run my node very responsibly because I was doing it as a hobby.

    As silly as it sounds, I just really wanted a higher lightning terminal score and larger node appearance so I bought inbound liquidity to make my node look larger.

    So while I did have a large amount of outbound. It really was a lot less than what it appeared to be. And while it was fun for me to have a larger score, it probably wasn't fun for the people not able to route their payments.

 3) **Risk**
      It is risky to run a lightning node. The software is still experimental, bad backups can lose all your funds, all your money is in a hot wallet. Things can go wrong!! Am I saying don't do it? No, but what I am saying is only put in what you're willing to lose. Because bugs, backup mistakes, software/physical security breaches can happen.

     I am willing to accept these risk but only with less capital than I had allocated when I was a routing node.  I only had success forwarding when I started to have many channels with large bandwidth. It's just no longer worth it to me anymore to maintain that.

So going forward, I am only going to use private channels and focus on my usage not forwarding payments for others.