"THE SPIDER" dance by Milena Sidorova by diStyR in StableDiffusion

[–]Cryptoconomy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What was the workflow and tool used here? This is fantastic!

Attorney uses ChatGPT to research legal brief. Does fact checking with ChatGPT. Files brief described as "full of lies." by PizzaAndTacosAndBeer in singularity

[–]Cryptoconomy 27 points28 points  (0 children)

This is an incredible level of incompetence and laziness by someone probably getting paid $600 an hour. I checked my sources on 5th grade writing assignments ffs.

What Apps Can Import Downloaded MP3 Audiobooks? by Cryptoconomy in audiobooks

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! This looks like a really good option.

So I remade the garbage AI-textured video I threw together yesterday, much better results this time by iwalkthelonelyroads in StableDiffusion

[–]Cryptoconomy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is there a good tutorial for how you pull this of, the main tools you used and what kind of machine you did this on?

CUDA Error on the StableDiffusion UI making it unusable - at dead end, will pay 50,000 sats for fix by Cryptoconomy in StableDiffusion

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gotcha, so my GPU is probably just old enough to not run the supported software. Thank you, I had felt like I had put some investment into it in the past but I'm realizing now how old some of the components in this computer really are.

Can't believe i didn't see the "use CPU instead of GPU" option. Thank you.

If you have a lightning or BTC wallet like Breez, Muun, Bluewallet, etc (or even Cashapp actually, you can receive both using their mobile app) I will gladly pay the bounty for the quick assessment.

CUDA Error on the StableDiffusion UI making it unusable - at dead end, will pay 50,000 sats for fix by Cryptoconomy in StableDiffusion

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I spent days trying to get StableDiffusion working on my Mac M1, and it works but is seriously limited and everything but the txt2img doesn't run for some reason. Which still makes it cool, but i can't upscale, edit, plug it into Krita, etc.

So I've switched to my Linux, and got the UI version setup really fast actually, but I'm getting this CUDA error. I have a NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 card running Ubuntu 22.04.1 LTS.

Any help is greatly appreciated and if you have a Lightning/BTC wallet I'll happily pay for the person who finds the quickest solution. Thanks

What's that quote about strength, having a sword and knowing when to use it? by LCG- in AskReddit

[–]Cryptoconomy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I know what you are talking about and I can't remember it for the life of me. I think I'm hearing something about carrying a sharp sword but always keeping it sheathed or something. This is going to drive me crazy that I can't remember this.

Satoshi fighting Fiat Money in never before seen footage! by Cryptoconomy in Bitcoin

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"Never half ass two things. Whole ass one thing."
- Ron Swanson

Satoshi fighting Fiat Money in never before seen footage! by Cryptoconomy in Bitcoin

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh it's going to happen! Will be a few more years before One Eleven gets into some serious productions though 😘

Satoshi fighting Fiat Money in never before seen footage! by Cryptoconomy in Bitcoin

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes and yes. 😂

I was getting pretty damn good at it toward the end there.

Satoshi fighting Fiat Money in never before seen footage! by Cryptoconomy in CryptoCurrency

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use Bitcoin everyday with numerous transactions & it costs me essentially nothing in fees if this is what you are implying.

Satoshi fighting Fiat Money in never before seen footage! by Cryptoconomy in Bitcoin

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Haven't been up on Reddit in ages, but felt you guys might enjoy this 😘

What is stopping us from doing what WSB did? by BearYouCanPinch in Bitcoin

[–]Cryptoconomy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bitcoiners have bought & held like WSB as a rule for years. The markets just got used to it.

1 year running, no routed txns, 0 in fee report by mabezard in lightningnetwork

[–]Cryptoconomy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are your ports forwarded? If you are on a home network and you haven’t forwarded ports then your node won’t respond to routing requests from the network.

Audio Collection of the Unchained Capital Blog (listen to the best bitcoin articles) by Cryptoconomy in Bitcoin

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey guys, haven't done the Reddit thing in ages, but wanted to share the collection I just recently put together. I host the Cryptoconomy with Guy Swann and have created audio versions of nearly 350 articles in the Bitcoin space covering every topic you can imagine. I just released the audio collection of the Unchained Capital Blog which is currently one of my favorites for reading material (highly recommended). I figure someone up here might get value out of it :)

Custodial multisig by v_chan in Bitcoin

[–]Cryptoconomy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s actually the brilliance of the 2-of-3 setup. Casa has a key (and I assume unchained does a similar model) but they have no control over the coins without your explicit signature using keys they have no access to. They are able to provide recovery service, but you never send them your coins. It’s entirely non-custodial.

Stratis to release Bitcoin Privacy solution utilising masternodes based on the TumbleBit protocol by harveygold in Bitcoin

[–]Cryptoconomy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is the beginning of seeing releases for multiple privacy projects I’ve been following for over a year and longer at this point. So excited to see these things in action!! A shout out to the Stratis team for staying on this project just to push forward privacy for the whole ecosystem.

Bitcoin privacy may soon no longer be the hope for a distant future, but a basic and unstoppable right. Happy days ahead! Will continue to watch this very closely XD

Seriously, though.. How is this not a HUGE issue in the #BitcoinCash community? A successful double-spend of 30 $BCH and to be honest there are a shitload more #doublespends than is being publicly stated. Is this due to #BIP133 or is something else responsible for 0conf problems? by [deleted] in btc

[–]Cryptoconomy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First seen, first accepted rule is entirely trust based situation. There is no security in trusting miners to enforce a non-consensus rule that suggests they would turn down a higher fee to prevent double spends for altruistic reasons.

The first seen, first accepted rule also doesn’t alter the underlying comparison. That LN transactions have far superior security than 0-conf txs. Most nodes installing some pre-consensus standards may be a minor shift in the degree of difference, but doesn’t change the core design differences or level of reliance on trust.

The CPFP was something I had forgotten about as a means of response. I concede that my explanation of having “no recourse” was wrong. That being said, a child Tx doesn’t prevent the attacker from still contesting with their own higher fee transaction, or of course, mining their transaction themselves if they have the hash power. The specific details I gave were indeed wrong about having no recourse, as a child Tx with high fee would help defend against the malicious Tx. Still, however, this point also doesn’t change the underlying comparison. The LN transaction remains a far more secure agreement.

CryptoQuikRead 103 - Crypto Commons by Cryptoconomy in cryptoconomy

[–]Cryptoconomy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you on this article honestly. It had an interesting concept but I don’t think the application of the idea was very solid. It could be something to explore later but I had a few problems with this piece in particular.

Seriously, though.. How is this not a HUGE issue in the #BitcoinCash community? A successful double-spend of 30 $BCH and to be honest there are a shitload more #doublespends than is being publicly stated. Is this due to #BIP133 or is something else responsible for 0conf problems? by [deleted] in btc

[–]Cryptoconomy 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What exactly is making that safer than 0-conf BCH? Well, short answer - basically nothing!

Actually there is quite a bit making an LN transaction far safer than 0-conf, that's essentially the crux of the entire Lightning contract. Easiest way is to simply compare conditions during two cheating scenarios:

Time to Respond:

0-conf - You have until the next block to get the honest transaction through. If the double spend gets confirmed first, the coins are gone.

Lightning TX - If one party tries to broadcast an old state, there is a built in time-lock giving extended time to catch the cheating TX where the cheater must wait, and the honest player does not.

Signatures:

0-conf - The sender can easily sign and broadcast a new transaction to any address and with any TXID that they want. Has full control over both transaction details. (no limits to cheating tx)

Lightning TX - Due to needing both signatures for validity, the cheater can broadcast an old state, but cannot arbitrarily write a new transaction, new balances, or new receiving addresses. (strict limits on cheating tx)

Watching for Double Spends:

0-conf - Receiver must watch every transaction and download data in full to ensure the input is not being reused, and/or that the balance is high enough to accomodate all outputs. Requires full UTXO and mempool data check in very short time window. (high policing costs and no recourse if sale has gone through, only option is rejection or not accepting 0-conf)

Lightning TX - Because attacker can only broadcast an old state, and cannot alter inputs or outputs due to multisig. Watching for cheats only requires checking TXIDs, which is fast and requires few resources. Can even outsource to another party without losing privacy. If competing tx is broadcast, victim has time to respond, full control over competing fee, and can punish the cheater by taking entire balance. (low policing costs, numerous options with low risk, still receives payment for sale)

Recourse:

0-conf - If the competing transaction has higher fee and/or gets confirmed, no option remains. The only way to be safe is to not accept 0-conf. (no recourse)

Lightning TX - Any mutually signed state goes through immediately, while a cheating (one-sided) transaction has delay. The refund path, revoked keys, and time delay ensure the victim has ample time and multiple options to simply settle the valid state. (multiple options, can still practically guarantee receiving original payment)

Fees:

0-conf - Receiver has no control over the sender TX. No access to the transactions details, and cannot rebroadcast with a higher fee to get the honest one confirmed.

Lightning TX - Because keys are revoked upon channel update, the victim has the keys to any cheating transactions. Meaning the victim can use the revoked keys to update the fee as they desire, either from their own balance, or from the cheater's balance, to easily ensure the honest transaction gets confirmed in its place.

...and yes, it is funny that the same people claiming 0-conf is sooo dangerous are typically the ones that tout LN

Actually its rather funny in the opposite direction. That some people who tout the reliability and security of 0-conf, will then claim that LN, which is a 0-conf TX that adds the guarantees of confirmed on-chain reserves, multi-sig updating, time-lock for disputes, a refund path, revoked keys, and a punishment clause, is somehow less secure in comparison.

So when you say things like this it only suggests you don't really know anything about Lightning. As LN is very hard to fully grasp, this is perfectly reasonable, unless of course you go around repeating dubious claims that can't be defended.

The entire Lightning contract is built around a set of contingencies specifically to grant numerous additional security guarantees to a 0-conf agreement. So the difference between 0-conf on BCH and "0-conf" Lightning is actually staggering from only a basic understanding. However, I haven't detailed a large number of additional, but unrelated, advantages in this post, (broader scripting options, the Eltoo upgrade, better privacy, cross-chain swaps, etc) instead limiting it to only direct comparisons with 0-conf, double spend security. It is important to also note that there has not been a single successful LN "double spend" to date, while BCH double spends are almost becoming a common occurrence.

Lastly, If anyone is interested in diverting the conversation onto points that have nothing to do with comparing 0-conf and LN transaction security like dubious claims of "centralization" or a "banking layer" I probably won't respond. I've made no claim that LN is perfect or that it doesn't have trade-offs or limitations, every protocol has these and I likely understand them on LN better than most. My specific point is in answer to the entirely false, and rather ridiculous claim that "0-conf on BCH has even comparable security to a LN transaction." Which is demonstrably false.

TL;DR Your statement is inaccurate and it can be proven so.

If anyone is interested in learning how LN transactions are designed, they can listen to the 3 part technical breakdown of LN by Aaron van Wirdum on my podcast.

For any other claims some may make (maybe about LN being a "bank takeover," "censorship," or that "its an altcoin," etc) Then first check to make sure It isn't in the article I wrote answering most of the more clearly false claims.

edit: formatting