Questions about @Keychat * Direct Message Sorting: When I receive DMs through Keychat, the messages are often out of order, not sorted by the correct chronological time. This seems to be due to sorting by the randomly chosen time for metadata protection, following the NIP-17 standard. However, doesn't the encrypted data inside the seal contain the true timestamp of when the message was written? * Duplicate DMs: The DMs I receive are consistently displayed twice, as duplicates. I have no idea why this is happening. * Signal Protocol and NIP-17: I understand that Keychat uses the Signal Protocol, yet I still receive DMs from clients that do not support it. Does this mean that while sending messages uses the Signal Protocol, receiving messages supports both NIP-17 and the Signal Protocol? * Transaction Fees and Refunds: I saw in the documentation that sending a message (adopting a "postal system" model) consumes 1 sat via ecash. However, it seems to be immediately refunded. What is the reason for this refund? Could it be because I sent a DM to someone using a client that doesn't support the Signal Protocol, and the message therefore couldn't be delivered? In other words, does Keychat have a system to refund the sat if the message delivery fails?

There is a single reason why I cannot be completely positive about the future of Bitcoin. It's the scalability issue, and many people would say the Lightning Network is the answer. Of course, I've realized its usefulness by actually running a node, but I'm not fully convinced that it will work perfectly even when Bitcoin is used as the true money itself in the future. This is because an on-chain transaction is still required to open a channel, and Bitcoin's block size is fixed at 1 megabyte at the consensus level. I agree that the proper way to solve the scaling problem is through the Lightning Network, after solving the transaction malleability issue with SegWit, rather than increasing the block size. Increasing the block size requires a hard fork, is not a fundamental solution, and makes it increasingly difficult for individuals to run a node. However, can the Lightning Network be a fundamental solution? If the population continues to grow while Bitcoin's supply and block size are fixed, won't there inevitably come a day when people cannot afford the fee for even a single transaction, even if they work their whole lives? Even if everything is processed through Lightning, at least as many channel opening transactions as the number of people being born are needed, and that number will only continue to increase, right? This is a mathematically foreseen problem if we accept the assumption that the population will grow, not just a curse from pessimistic critics driven by jealousy. Consequently, won't the common people be unable to achieve true ownership in the genuine sense of the word? I'm curious about the stance of nostr user on this. The positions I've encountered so far are as follows, and I can't agree with any of them: * Solve it with a hard fork. -> This is the stupidest solution. How is this different from Bitcoin Cash? * The population won't grow that much. -> Is the future of humanity that pessimistic? * Ownership can be managed in a form like ecash. -> Does this mean complete ownership is solely the privilege of the rich and earlier generations? Doesn't this negate Bitcoin's greatest advantage? * A solution will eventually emerge that guarantees complete ownership and is affordable for common people, no matter how large the population. -> Isn't this overly optimistic? This is the reason why, even after understanding the Lightning Network, I bought Bitcoin with all the money I had left, and continue to buy Bitcoin with my salary (excluding living expenses), but I haven't been able to go all-in by selling my gold. Is there a solution I don't know about? If someone knows, please let me know.