<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1yxp7j36cfqws7yj0hkfu2mx25308u4zua6ud22zglxp98ayhh96s8c399s

Profile Code

nprofile1qqszrqlfgavys8g0zf8mmy79dn92ghn723wwawx49py0nqjn7jtmjagppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5q7qamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7te9xgc8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwda6x7umgdyh8w6tw9ujnyvrhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7ffjxpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumfv9khxarj9e3k7mf0y5erqamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwxpuxx6rpwshxxmmd9ujnyvrhwden5te0den8yetvv9ujuctswqhj2v3swaehxw309aex2mrp09e8xtnwda6x7umgdyh8w6tw9ujnyvrhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx27r5v4e85tnrdakj7ffjxpmhxue69uhkvetwwf5hyttn9ehx7ar0wd5xjtnhd9hqz8thwden5te0dehhxarj94c82c3wwajkcmr0wfjx2u3wdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqyf8wumn8ghj7mmxve3ksctfdch8qatzl83vas

Publishing to

nostr.mom

relay.damus.io/%20wss://relay.notoshi.win/%20wss://nos.lol/%20wss://relay.siamstr.com/%20wss://relay.0xchat.com/%20wss://nfrelay.app/%20wss://relayrs.notoshi.win/%20wss://relay.nexterz.com/%20wss://fenrir-s.notoshi.win

nostr-pub.wellorder.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

offchain.pub

Last Notes

2026-10-30 15:06:28 UTC

My latest idea is Brokerless Hashrate Markets. I think it's a way to make mining about 3% more efficient. Check it out and let me know what you think! https://gist.github.com/supertestnet/5a30ba52f6915d32971d4acec1615607

2026-10-14 19:30:53 UTC

- reply

He says he ran tests and did math and learned that lightning isn't private because 9 nodes control about 90% of pubic capacity. I'd like to ask him to post his methodology and the results of these tests, but he literally says in the video that if you want to replicate his results, just ask an LLM to analyze the network for you. 🙄
This does not seem like serious science. If his "tests and experiments" boil down to "an LLM said pubic capacity is centralized" then I for one am not going to consider this a serious criticism.

2026-10-10 17:16:17 UTC

- reply

I'm trying to piece together their logic, and I think the starting point is this: the sender of a lightning payment gets to see the recipient's invoice, and sometimes the invoice has a "node key" in it that belongs to the recipient. When the thief withdrew stolen money from Blink, he gave them an invoice that had a "node key" in it, and that "node key" belonged to a node with public, announced data on the lightning graph. It's called aegis-ln.
I suspect that was the starting point for Blink's investigation. I believe they figured aegis-ln likely belongs to the thief, and since it has public, announced channels, they investigated those channels. For publicly announced channels, their funding txs are public, so they could check what addresses funded them.
That lead them to a bitcoin address which they call the "collection" address because it collected money from Fedimints. I haven't thoroughly investigated this part yet, but if I'm reading their report right, they seem to allege that this "collection" address was reused in the following manner:
The collection address allegedly funded the aegis-ln node's L1 wallet, which opened at least one LN channel with that money; and after the aegis-ln node's channels were closed, the collection address *also* contributed funds to a an L1 tx *with* the aegis-ln node's money, where the thief sent the stolen money to a new destination, combining funds from the Blink theft with money collected from the Fedimints.
I'm not 100% sure about all of the above paragraph, but that's the picture starting to emerge in my mind. So far, the initial lightning trace appears to be from Blink to the aegis-ln node, and they seem to be basing this so-called "proven" trace (I question the proof) in part on the fact that aegis-ln's pubkey appeared in the invoice they paid -- which, imo, is no proof at all. But it's not the only piece of data they are relying on. Read their essay for more details.

2026-10-10 15:35:58 UTC

- reply

Nah, monero make it worse

2026-10-10 15:35:16 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…u5ez

2026-10-08 22:16:42 UTC

- reply

The way they "prove" that aegis-ln belongs to the perp is also interesting. They mark this as "proven" and give two reasons in the "how we know" section: the first is that this node showed up as the "node pubkey" in an ln invoice they paid, but that is no proof at all, because proxies exist to disrupt the assumption that "node pubkeys" belong to the recipient. They can be faked, and if that was their only reason, they wouldn't know. Maybe aegis-ln is really just a proxy.
Their second reason is stronger, and involves address reuse by the perp. Allegedly he opened a channel from aegis-ln to someone else using funds deposited to aegis-ln from an address he previously used in preparation for the theft. If that is true it's a much bigger mistake by the perp, and suggests that LN privacy devs still have a lot of work to do. Privacy tools need to automate this stuff so that addresses are not reused. But I haven't verified the site's "proofs" yet so I'm really not sure they are all as certain as they claim to be.

2026-10-08 21:55:27 UTC

- reply

Yes, that is interesting, as is his alleged decision to repeatedly send funds from fedimints to an address he used earlier in the theft preparations. He apparently put funds back into a fedimint again and I suspect he didn't make that mistake the second time, but withdrew to fresh addresses, or lightning channels.

2026-10-08 18:32:46 UTC

This is really exciting. This is the first time I've heard of a thief moving funds over lightning to obfuscate his trail, and the first time I've seen someone try to trace the flow of funds over lightning and claim they know where it now sits: https://www.blink.sv/blog/phase-two-following-the-coins-in-public

2026-09-29 23:16:17 UTC

- reply

> The government does not own all of this land
They do. The "claim" they make is to have sovereign power over the land -- which is a type of ownership -- and they also successfully enforce their claimed sovereignty over many generations. Regardless of how the current administration's predecessors initially acquired their power, the current administrators are the legitimate sovereigns and therefore own the land.

2026-09-29 15:09:13 UTC

- reply

> Being against taxes does not equal wanting free stuff
It does. Taxes are a form of rent. Demanding 0 taxes is thus a form of demanding 0 rent, which is freeloading.
> inefficient and wasteful organization
You can lament their inefficiency and even try to reform them. But you don't get to withhold the money you owe them just because you don't like how they spend it. It's their money. The renter can't stop paying rent just because he notices the landlord buys too much booze.

2026-09-29 15:04:48 UTC

- reply

If the compulsion is justified then it doesn't change the morality. The right to compel payment comes from the fact that you are on their land, with no right to use it for free.

2026-09-28 19:52:54 UTC

- reply

> landlords don't coordinate with employers to take rent from wages
Some do. Ever hear of Section 8 housing? The fact that most landlords collect rent in a different manner does not change the fact that the government is a landlord who extracts "rent" (taxes) from everyone who lives on its land.
#nevent1q…a05m

2026-09-28 19:49:54 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…a05m

2026-09-27 04:56:06 UTC

- reply

> it's whether payment is negotiated or extracted
#nevent1q…a05m

2026-09-27 02:20:47 UTC

- reply

> Changing house to rent and changing country do not share the same level of practicality
That is only because most landlords have noncontiguous holdings whose relative size is small compared to a country. Make a landlord's holdings big enough (and all contiguous) and it starts to be pretty hard to leave, especially if your work and family etc. are all on that property
When a landlord gets big enough we start calling him a king, and instead of saying "voluntary rental payments" we start saying "compulsory tax payments"
But they are the same thing. A country is like a really big apartment, and the people who live there are tenants who owe payments to the landlords (the government)

2026-09-27 02:16:29 UTC

- reply

Yes, and then you can charge your tenants
You can also become a king and charge taxes, and if your citizens demand 0 taxes you will know why this libertarian nonsense is just communism in disguise, the same thing as renters demanding 0 rent

2026-09-27 02:08:35 UTC

- reply

Wrong, because taxes are not theft, taxes are rent
People who oppose taxes are the whiny people I'm complaining about
Communists, the lot of them

2026-09-26 22:18:27 UTC

- reply

> I oppose excessive taxation, not all taxation
That is also my opinion

2026-09-26 22:17:05 UTC

- reply

The differences are skin deep. Private corporations are just as capable of using force as governments are, and are often eager to "become" governments as soon as the opportunity arises.
Consider rent. The payments you make seem voluntarily when you have options, but living somewhere is indispensable. A landlord who acquires enough rival apartments can grow so large as to become a king, and at some point people stop saying "voluntary rental payments" and start saying "compulsory tax payments." But they are the same thing. A country is an apartment writ large.

2026-09-26 22:05:56 UTC

- reply

"not understanding economics is why your argument isn't compelling"
I challenge you to find a proof somewhere in economics that contradicts my argument

2026-09-26 22:03:15 UTC

- reply

I am not pro theft

2026-09-26 20:11:49 UTC

- reply

The fact that I said "you don't need to be an economist to see this" and you read it as "economics is irrelevant" shows your reading comprehension

2026-09-26 20:07:11 UTC

- reply

You aren't my landlord
The government is your landlord

2026-09-26 20:00:35 UTC

- reply

Whiny renters often call their landlord's prices theft
Doesn't make it true
Living in a country isn't free, libertarians just want to be

2026-09-26 19:53:38 UTC

- reply

You don't need to be an economist to see through this disguise
Libertarianism's principal export is whine

2026-09-26 19:43:26 UTC

- reply

They try and fail. Private businesses are every bit as tyrannical as governments, except where the government has the bigger stick. And where corporations have the bigger stick, they just buy the government, or sometimes replace it.

2026-09-26 19:41:27 UTC

- reply

Not living in a home is an option, but not living in a country is not an option. Wherever you live, someone in charge will be wasting the money you pay them. Doesn't entitle you to anything free. You can try to reduce the corruption, but you can't just demand free stuff and expect respect.

2026-09-26 19:30:59 UTC

People who oppose taxation are like people who oppose rent
Oh, you want free stuff? Get in line, the real world costs money
Libertarianism is just crybaby communism

2026-09-12 23:50:11 UTC

- reply

Idk, I've never tried

2025-10-01 20:05:41 UTC

- reply

I suspect every person in this thread has a self custodial wallet

2025-08-16 01:53:55 UTC

- reply

layered security is wise. I wrote the above post to highlight that the privacy assumptions at the heart of much of monero's technology (and LN's too) involves trust. I don't think it's possible to completely remove trust, but you can always reduce the trust assumptions, and make things easier for end users.
In many ways I think LN does a better job of this than monero, for example, self-custodial LN wallets -- except Phoenix and Electrum -- use source routing, even on cell phones, and source routing has similar ip-hiding properties as dandelion. But monero wallets, at least on cell phones, don't even *try* to do dandelion. So a typical self-custodial LN wallet is superior to a typical self-custodial monero wallet in this respect.