@proofofsteph@peachbitcoin@RoboSats @capoczino @capoczino Just opened an issue to start working on this topic. Looking forward to cooperate! https://t.co/UARaWdK5Sa
@L0laL33tz@FloralWater7@RoboSats However, there might certainly be some reasons why this is not liked by robots (peers). It hinder speediness if the "seller" cannot get confirmation from the designated entity of fiat reception quickly. It might also affect dispute resolution badly for the sats seller.
@L0laL33tz@FloralWater7@RoboSats I think it will depend on the case/purpose. It is your trade peer who will send the bank transfer (not robosats), so as a "Sats seller" you can ask your peer to include the reference in the bank transfer.
@pseudotoshi@SahilC0@BTCsessions@RoboSats@umbrel Backend can be used for paying/receiving by installing a WebLN extension.
Future updates of the node client will do things that cannot be implemented for plain Tor Browser. E.g., keeping track of past robots and tokens if enabled, or seamless switch to I2P if TOR is slow.
RoboSats is now WebLN compatible ⚡️
You can try it out with @getAlby 🐝It can be connected to your node to directly interact with RoboSats. No more QR scanning.
This feature was implemented by @koala_sat as part of the ⚡️developer rewards program ⚡️ for 200K Sats. Thank you!!
@SovereignPlebs @RoboSats@umbrel Yes
https://t.co/0bEgsxbAt7
I f you want to build from Dockerfile and context (note: you must build the main.js bundle yourseulf)
https://t.co/gvI8odhNBJ
@MonetaryFrame @RoboSats I would rather simply use "Sats" and "Wallets", since these are native to users.
Then only make the distinction for the low privacy ones (e.g. "surveilled Sats" "surveilled wallets"). It might make communication hard if you want to specify further "not-surveilled Sats" 😅
@MonetaryFrame @RoboSats I rather not associate negative terms with positive qualities.
"unregistered sats" is in line with "unhosted wallets". Both sound as if there is "a proper way" (the gvmt controlled one) that is not followed.
@decentralized_b@lunaticoin A ver si alguien nos ilumina. Ciertamente cada nodo tiene que verificar el hash antes de re-enviarlo, introduciendo mayor latencia. Pero entiendo que nodos PoS tambien deben verificar nuevos bloques.
@decentralized_b@lunaticoin Entiendo que @lunaticoin indica que la velocidad de propagación de bloques es independiente de si son creados con PoW/PoS. También tengo entendido que es así.
Quizá haya protocolos específicos para aumentar la velocidad de propagación, aunque es independiente de validación PoS.
It's demeaning to ourselves to define the "kind of" Bitcoin we want as the negative of some legal jargon.
Giving up on using terms like "no-KYC" "w/o KYC" or "KYC-free".
We simply want pure OKYC: Only you Know Your Coins.
@benthecarman Usually I2P does not need to be "instead of TOR", but in addition of TOR. I no downside.
We exposed RoboSats frontend over I2P months ago and it worked flawlessly so far.
I can't say whether it fits Vortex, because on your site says it is a secret :)