realtbast Profile Banner
t-bast Profile
t-bast

@realtbast

Followers
3K
Following
3K
Statuses
870

The sea gets deeper as you go further into it ⚡️ CTO at Acinq 72BD 8AD9 F656 1619 37FA 8A5D 34F3 77B0 100E D6BB

Joined March 2019
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
@realtbast
t-bast
17 days
@TheBlueMatt @signalapp Right, default settings are clearly not optimized for privacy...
0
0
1
@realtbast
t-bast
20 days
RT @SurfinBitcoin: 📢 Et c'est en ligne ! “Construire des applications sur Bitcoin et Lightning Network”, avec Vincent Durmont @vdurmont,…
0
1
0
@realtbast
t-bast
1 month
RT @PhoenixWallet: Phoenix Android just reached 100k downloads on the Play store! Proud to be one of the most popular self-custodial Bitco…
0
88
0
@realtbast
t-bast
1 month
@cguida6 @oomahq @peterktodd @LukeDashjr @theinstagibbs I summarized pinning attacks related to LN a few years ago here: but there have been more discussions since then, scattered across threads. More links can be found here:
1
0
4
@realtbast
t-bast
1 month
@LukeDashjr @cguida6 @oomahq @peterktodd @theinstagibbs They are strictly an improvement over v2 pinning-wise, so it's still better than doing nothing
1
0
1
@realtbast
t-bast
1 month
@cguida6 @oomahq @peterktodd @LukeDashjr @theinstagibbs The pinning improvements come from combining this with v3 txs for LN (the spec isn't written yet, but it's in the works 😉)
2
0
1
@realtbast
t-bast
1 month
@BitcoinErrorLog That's a separate question: we still have 0-conf available for trusted peers (or yolo peers), but I'm interested in what people feel safe for untrusted peers where they don't want to use 0-conf.
1
0
1
@realtbast
t-bast
1 month
@moneyball The poll asks specifically for non-wumbo (ie small) channels. For wumbo channels, I think it's not controversial to scale confs based on the channel capacity. I'm curious about the default behavior, when not overridden by user's choice (which should of course be allowed).
0
0
1
@realtbast
t-bast
2 months
@nickteecee @niftynei Twitter is not a good place to detail that, please provide more details on the github issue to explain why you believe it's necessary to fetch a batch of invoices and we'll see what we can do.
1
0
2
@realtbast
t-bast
2 months
@niftynei @nickteecee Why do you want to do that? Bolt 12 invoices are not intended to be exposed. You're kinda spamming the recipient if you're asking them to generate invoices without paying them.
1
0
1
@realtbast
t-bast
2 months
@beeforbacon1 @xyp930 @ZeusLN @PhoenixWallet Yes, eclair and phoenix have supported blinded paths since our initial bolt 12 release.
0
0
0
@realtbast
t-bast
2 months
@beeforbacon1 @xyp930 @ZeusLN @PhoenixWallet Its use of blinded path kinda sucks, because you don't know if the payer supports this feature, so in most cases you need to also create a non-blinded invoice which completely defeats the purpose 🙃
0
0
3
@realtbast
t-bast
2 months
@dusty_daemon Neat! We should have gossip ready in eclair soon ™️ for the final cross-compat tests. We'll need your feedback on though which may require small changes to the reconnect logic 😉
0
0
3
@realtbast
t-bast
2 months
Time to update your eclair node! Don't forget to update bitcoind to 27.2 as well!
@acinq_co
ACINQ
2 months
Eclair v0.11.0 is out ⚡️🚀 This release contains: - official support for Bolt 12 - splicing prototype for private channels - liquidity ads prototype - on-the-fly funding prototype - update to bitcoind 27.2 - and many more goodies See for more details.
0
4
20
@realtbast
t-bast
2 months
RT @SurfinBitcoin: Quel débat enflammé mardi soir 🔥 Si vous l’avez raté, voici le replay de notre podcast tourné en live avec @adrien_laco
0
1
0