Explore
New notes
Show Notes
Replying to npub1s277u5r
Sure but if they just rely on the central bank to print cash to buy that debt it will make their inflation even worse. They seem to be far along the path to Weimar if they do that. Much farther than the US is even.
0
0
0
0
Replying to npub1s277u5r
Japan might *want* to continue selling bonds at low rates but who will buy them? You can get an American bond that pays out a lot higher rate in a money that's not tanking as hard. I don't think it's a very sustainable path for them.
0
0
0
0
Why the US Dollar is Surging Against the Japanese Yen Japan raises money by taking out loans. It does this in the form of bonds: you give us 90 yen now, we give you 100 yen later. Japan's bonds have a low interest rate. This frustrates Japanese bond holders. They want the 5% rates America is paying. So they are selling their bonds. And when you sell a bond, you get the currency of the country that issued it: yen. Now those people, who were bond holders, are now yen holders. But they don't want yen, they want American bonds. So they exchange the yen i.e. sell it for USA bonds. And when you sell something, its price falls. Bitcoiners know how that works: when there's lots of sell pressure, bitcoin's price falls. Same with the yen. So the yen's price is collapsing relative to the US dollar as people keep selling it.
0
0
0
0
Replying to npub1t0nyg64 and npub16vzjegl
> You are also sitting in half a dozen other people's chairs taking up space I'm paying the rates they advertise and staying within the time limits they advertise. If they don't like it, they can change their limits or raise their rates > The 5 minute limit has to be negotiated by all chair owners It is. If my payment didn't abide by their advertised limits I couldn't use them in my route. > Also, if you sit in the chair too long a portal to the underworld opens up I think you mean mean if I stay in the chair for their advertised limit, a portal to the underworld opens up. And if that's the case they should obviously lower their limit. Don't tell me I can stay for five minutes if that destroys your business
0
0
0
0
Replying to npub1t0nyg64 and npub16vzjegl
Let me try to answer your main concern by way of an analogy. Suppose a little old woman opened up a street business where she will give you a quick massage. For $5, you can sit in her chair for up to five minutes and she will massage you and talk soothingly to you in a grandmotherly way. Her business is quite successful, and people love to sit in her chair, but she notices something: people rarely stay for the full 5 minutes. They typically only stay for 1 minute. Considering this, she drops her price, but keeps the sign the same otherwise: for $1, you may sit in her chair for up to 5 minutes and be pampered. In this situation, I think it would be silly if she got mad at someone who occupied the whole 5 minutes, or close to it. The little old woman is under no obligation to offer the cheaper rate or expect every sitter to only sit for 1 minute. As long as her sign says you may sit 5 minutes for $1, any sitter should feel perfectly at ease sitting 5 minutes for $1. If the little old woman doesn't like it, she can raise her fee or lower the time limit. The silliest thing she can do is scream at customers to stop staying for 5 minutes when her own sign says they may, or tell them they are ruining her business, or making her mad. The sitters are only accepting the terms she advertises, over which she has complete control. To me, it's the exact same with hodl invoices and lightning. If, for some reason, a node operator doesn't like the rates my users pay to use an htlc slot for something slightly closer to its maximum length than is typical, they have two options: reduce the time limit, or raise the rates. If they don't do that they have no one to blame but themselves. All my users are doing is paying the advertised rate for the advertised time limit. I don't think it's wise to blame them or me. If you're a node operator, and you don't like what my users are paying, change your sign. Be the change you want to see in the world -- don't harp on my users to stop using your node in the way you are publicly advertising they may use it.
0
0
0
0
Replying to npub1t0nyg64 and npub1vp8fdcy
the spec thankfully uses json, which is extensible. Services can start passing that extra data with confidence that wallets who don't understand the extra data will ignore it, and wallets that do understand it will act accordingly
0
0
0
0
Replying to npub1t0nyg64
I endorse this solution. There is nothing wrong with the "long" lightning network being (mostly) separate from the regular lightning network. There can even be nodes that offer a bridge between them, for a fee. To help you make this a reality, here is my node pubkey for easy blocking: 036b4f68dbc23c111decb1512511c9a69ca18d8295899e1b36c3dfce2d8c3ad3cc
0
0
0
0
Replying to npub1t0nyg64
The cltv timelocks were meant for one thing but are useful for another. My users are willing to pay my node to hold htlcs for them for 24 hours, and I charge them accordingly for this service. So no, I don't do this with "no concern for others." I'm concerned with offering my users a service that they are happy to pay for. Moreover, other nodes can easily charge extra fees for providing this service, just like I am doing. If you don't like how my users are using your node, change the parameters of your node. Or charge extra. It's your choice -- freedom and optionality matter.
0
0
0
0
Replying to npub1t0nyg64
They aren't there to hold it "forever" but they are there to say "I will hold these htlcs for up to this amount of time" I think it is fine to increase cltvs because nodes not only consent to it, they charge fees for it. If you're not making enough money from doing this, raise your fees.
0
0
0
0
Replying to npub1ytwcmu0 and npub1494rtg3
Correct, my comfortably sheltered friend. When it's not winter I live in a tent at a campsite in Austin Texas. When it *is* winter I live in hostels in South America. Neither one is conducive to running a pi.
0
0
0
0
Replying to npub1jcwq6k6
Yes, I've seen it. I think it needs some adjustments. The sha256 algorithm requires you to "pad" your input to a multiple of 512 and I don't think this implementation does that. I'll need to write a circuit that does that, then I can pass the result to this function.
0
0
0
0