Yes, he is a magician called Michael Carbonaro and his gimmick is that he presents his magic tricks as if they were real products for sale in regular stores. Some of his tricks involve juicers with unlimited juice, impossibly packed "mini" versions of real products, a smart fridge that magically fills up with contents you select from a tablet, and many others. In this one he presents a suit jackets, pants, and hanger that supposedly all pops put of a credit card sized package. (I didn’t show the hanger part, you can find the full trick on his youtube channel.) But it reminded me of how Ark packs many user funds into a single utxo, and how surprising it is that a user can "unpack" their funds from that one utxo.

You don't zap people who use coinos?

I am glad he got out of there. I know what it's like to get an uncomfortable feeling and just leave a place. And it sounds like they were pressuring him to drink alcohol that he didn't want to drink, which is enough of a reason to leave and go to a safe place. I don't know why he is so confused about personalized doordash ads though. Google probably shared flight info from his emails with Doordash and they just sent him a notification when he landed. But that is an invasion of privacy (which he probably consented to years ago without reading the fine print) so it's probably good that it jarred him. Maybe he'll learn to be more careful about terms and conditions in the future.

I think it is a good idea and has its place I also think both teams working on it are overselling it, downplaying its limitations, hiding the risks from users, and discouraging safe use of their software by prioritizing a venmo-like user experience that only works when users trust the server. All of that is bad. Arkade is doing the bad things more than Second but both are doing them.

https://x.com/burakaegean

How Burak explained Ark to me

How the lightning network works

Now things get fun redblocks.supertestnet.org

My latest invention is URSF-110, which does a User Rejected Soft Fork against BIP110. It run on regtest or mainnet, though I recommend not running it on mainnet til someone smarter than me takes a look. Learn more on my github: https://github.com/supertestnet/URSF-110 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egmVtC1dL7k

The average number of contracts processed per day on robosats, since its inception in 2022, is 15. Today they processed 137 contracts. Robosats is running hot today. robostats.supertestnet.org

It is true. Saying "miniscript could do something different than how it does it" does not contradict my point. My point includes that miniscript could and should be modified to work differently. But it is wrong to demand that wallet devs do that, who may not have the requisite expertise, and then give them a 6 month deadline, after which, if they haven't done this thing they may not even know how to do, some of their users may have their money frozen. It would be better to do the work first if changing miniscript and then offering a bip110 compatible variant to them; or modify BIP110 so that it only targets the inscription envelope pattern, which is never used by miniscript.

I'd love it if people started doing that and then a directory of websocket-compatible bitcoin nodes was created. Maybe they could signal on nostr. Or even signal on bitcoin's p2p layer, using service bits. It's possible to make bitcoin's p2p layer web-friendly - but it takes work

Also, robosats coordinators currently publish all orders on nostr and update them when their status changes. But there is currently no way for users to signal via nostr that they accept a particular offer. It would be great if you could DM a coordinator with an offer id and say "hey, I accept this offer, send me a hodl invoice," and then take it. Nostr devs, consider making this a thing! Robosats needs more devs!

They don't lose 92% by enforcing BIP110 All BIP110 compliant blocks are accepted by standard bitcoin nodes, so miners can keep all nodes happy by enforcing BIP110 A URSF might change that

On that note, did you know the websocat tool can expose any TCP port (including bitcoin's) as if it was a websocket port? Yep! It's got a built-in converter that will do the websocket handshake and then directly pipe TCP data to the browser. Consider running it on your node!

> I doubt it would represent a significant loss It sounds like you don't think the loss will be significant but otherwise agree with my premise -- that miners are incentivized to signal for BIP110 *if* they judge that the loss of revenue due to a split outweighs the loss of revenue due to enforcing BIP110. I think BIP110 runners probably represent less fee revenue than the 8% number might suggest on a surface level. But I'm not sure. Definitely thinking about writing a URSF proof of concept to "do my part" in the fight against BIP110. If I make one I might market the effort as an effort to "save miniscript" rather than an effort to "fork the bip110 people off," as I personally align with the BIP110 people in most ways and do not want them to fork off.

If you ever feel like your product or service would lose users by providing them with the truth (informed consent), stop and reflect. Honesty is only in conflict with adoption among scammers. If you ever feel that tension, sacrifice adoption, and keep being honest.

Ah yes, I forgot about the mandatory signaling period. Still, if miners keep ignoring BIP110 they may be in for a rude surprise in September: a sudden, completely avoidable loss of income from BIP110 runners. A sufficiently large loss of income should worry any business. They could be sued by their shareholders for negligence.

A few services make data from bitcoin's p2p layer *available* to browsers, e.g. block explorers, some electrum servers (including esplora servers), and block-dn. But it'd be great if browsers could talk to *any* node instead of placing the load directly on those limited services.

What if they don't signal support for BIP110 but just stop mining txs that violate the BIP110 rules, to avoid losing 8% of their users? I don't want OP_IF in taproot to become "effectively invalid" just because miners opt to comply with a bad BIP out of economic interests

It's annoyingly hard to use bitcoin's p2p layer from browsers. BTC nodes don't understand the handshakes browsers do when they make GET/POST requests, unless you use RPC, which is permissioned. It's cool that Webcoin found a way, but it only works if folks run the bridge software

Why is there no URSF for BIP110 yet? As of now, miners may lose 8% of their users in September unless they comply with BIP110, so it seems in their interest to do so. But a popular URSF can switch that and make them lose *more* users if they *do* comply.

A project in 2018 called Webcoin built a bitcoin browser wallet in SPV mode Details here: https://github.com/mappum/webcoin To talk to bitcoin nodes, it relied on a TCP->Websocket proxy called Webcoin Bridge Details here: https://github.com/mappum/webcoin-bridge Is anyone running that bridge anymore?