viper_1
viper_1

newbie

Public Key

npub1c2apjrhrtpar4v7a9xm4plesudpn4577hhkn9nkdrddx68cvrnxqhss4hq

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsv9wsepm34s736k0wjnd6slucwxse6600tmmfjemx3kkndruxpenqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsslkgef

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1c2apjrhrtpar4v7a9xm4plesudpn4577hhkn9nkdrddx68cvrnxqhss4hq

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-14 13:37:48 UTC

- reply

Thank you. My first read is it does not seem likely to refer to skills one can acquire (neither through formal western school e.g. medical school nor apprenticeship e.g. acupuncture or informal medical training). It does seem like either route would (could) pre dispose one to recognize or be open to the grace. But it reads like a grace bestowed selectively (from a human view point perhaps would look “randomly”) to select individuals for the good of the community. Just thinking about it past the first layer and it would take tremendous wisdom and prudence for someone to have such a grace and use it for the good it is - but not allow its use to lead one into pride or frustration or lend ones actions to be used to put God to the test. There are some graces I think I am glad I do not seem to possess.

2026-03-11 20:11:24 UTC

- reply

Great question. What reference are you using? I have not. But I am interested now

2026-03-05 18:02:17 UTC

- reply

These are great questions. Hopefully someone with actual expertise will answer. I am under the impression that the vesicles from ER and golgi are not usually different molecules but rather are parts of the ER or golgi that are “pinched off” with the protein at the final step; and that there are coat proteins that do tell the vesicle where to fuse or not. The vesicles can be as simple as a micro environment to keep the protein from getting degraded or “read” and acted upon in transit. Especially if they are designed to leave the cell without being read or intercepted?

2026-02-28 11:52:06 UTC

- reply

Can you elaborate?

2026-02-24 11:47:45 UTC

- reply

Thank you. What are your thoughts on Maple versus other AI? Also if you don’t mind me asking, are there any text to speech programs or apps that you trust to be private? Things that would allow you to submit a pdf and have it read ?

2026-02-23 03:26:07 UTC

- reply

I would be interested in what you think of Antinet. The author was opinionated on 1) analog only and 2) fidelity to Luhmen. Specifically he took issue with / deviated from much of what was in “how to take great notes”. However I did find “great notes” to have an interesting premise- that writing and thinking and learning are intertwined / reinforcing and orientation to writing ensures thinking and learning. For me this *may* be the real key to analog versus digital- digital is so easy to collect there is no refinement into my own thoughts and words for much of it hence the collector (hoarder) takes over. Handwriting may have neurological benefits - but even just fatigue makes distillation mandatory.

2026-02-23 02:00:23 UTC

- reply

I sort of understand that the original was maintained with extensive interlinking but I think that can only work when you have intimate familiarity with the system, and even then proponents seem to gravitate towards index cards for just that more freedom over bounded journals in terms of establishing the links and working through them. But it would have to be something you worked with daily in order to keep up and maintain the extensive linking. I think, digital linking and cross linking is a lot easier, but I think that sometimes for me, perhaps, always, leads to overlining and note “ collecting” rather than effective utility.
It would be much harder to have to open up three or four journals, even if entries were linked through some sort of marginal notes, then it is to pull out 10 or 15 index cards and sort them on a desk and rearrange them. But what you are describing is more of a hybrid were you trying to get the best of both worlds.

2026-02-22 19:12:47 UTC

- reply

Did you find obsodian superior to analog or never tried analog ? There is a book “antinet” that is adamant about analog systems. I think there is appeal to analog but never committed to a true one as it becomes unwieldy.

2026-02-22 19:04:40 UTC

Thoughts about #ai anyone?
Is #maple worthwhile?
Mostly talking about it as a sounding board to develop thoughts and arguments and research medicine and science
I have used #grok because I thought the tie into X would be helpful for contemporary things but honestly I have trouble keeping it consistent on easy tasks - I’m not pretenting to be brilliant and grok cannot keep pace- i am saying “draw this free body diagram for this torque equilibrium problem for freshman physics and get the vector arrows correct “ and it doesn’t ….

2026-02-19 19:10:18 UTC

- reply

No you are not. If you put ‘effeminate cringe’ in telepod 1 and ‘absurd horror’ in telepod 2 what do you call what comes out of telepod 3? Because this is what it might look like.

2026-02-19 18:55:14 UTC

- reply

Well for what it’s worth - you (among many) that helped me get from sub-zero to say Mazlow level 2.
Not competent in any way to help your struggle.
But thank you for the education.

2026-02-19 18:16:57 UTC

- reply

Agreed. “To be fair” is good advice, it seems easy to read into this tweet different things than he actually wrote. That is a bit of injustice, no?
If Saylor or any company or any person can introduce counter party risk into the bitcoin “protocol”, just by buying bitcoin, then would that not render bitcoin by definition futile?
(He did not suggest buy MSTR; he did not suggest “buy bitcoin and custody it the way MSTR does if you think the world order is breaking down”, and he did not affirm, at least here, that he himself believes the world order is breaking down. I have no idea if he really thinks it is outside of this.)

2026-02-18 21:19:21 UTC

- reply

Thank you. It does confirm my belief.

2026-02-17 22:10:44 UTC

- reply

Thank you. For the human intellect to grasp immaterial it then must be a part (or at its core though parts and cores are just analogy) non-physical, immaterial (and indestructible) soul. Which is why we must treat people with such profoundly more respect than mere physical beings or things.
However, we can create, through seemingly mere physical means, the combination (e.g. In vitro fertilization) of substances (at least transiently perhaps even themselves organisms - sperm and egg, though that may be incorrect it does require viability which implies internal organization to work) that combined allows reception from (in your essay Source) and instantiation of a soul.
Said more simply man cannot manipulate the soul but man can make IVF “work” and the resultant substance formed can evidently receive a soul because the babies have evidence of intellects just like non IVF babies - and thus somehow acquired a human soul (and the resulting profound respect it calls for).
Whatever AI is or is meant by it, it would seem determining whether it is always and inevitably never itself a substance (never even an organism) or whether it is possible, somehow, in analogy to IVF, to Frankenstein together a collection of AI things that can receive a soul. Which would have heavy ethical concerns.
I apologize as this has little to do with time and your essay but the AI negative case you mention is incredibly important to get correct.

2026-02-17 19:53:56 UTC

- reply

“ The fact that the intellect can grasp infinite and uncomputable things says something about the intellect, but it does not make infinite/continuous things physical. “
It would seem, if followed, to say the intellect can receive non-physical things (I will label spiritual for ease).
But physical reception of a spiritual thing would require either the spiritual is made physical (which as you observe isn’t seen) or the receptor have at least some core part of (him/her) that is itself spiritual.
Which would mean some part of the intellect is spiritual (infinite / indestructible).

2026-02-15 13:24:19 UTC

- reply

True. It is strange. I occasionally come across people who articulate that they:
1) support abortion aka a parent* and doctor* chopping off parts of a child in utero en route to destroying the child’s life. All sanctioned by the state and often paid for by the state.
2) oppose transgenderism on minors aka a parent and doctor chopping off parts of a child ex utero en route to destroying the child’s life. All sanctioned by the state and often paid for by the state.
These same people do believe that they themselves do not undergo a substantial change when they change place, say merely walk 3 feet to the left or change in time, say age 3 months.
And yet, without articulating it, they must believe a child undergoes substantial change (so profound that it goes from mere stuff into personhood) not at conception but rather during the slide out the birth canal. How that slide, a mere change in place, how that slide confers such tremendous magic is never questioned. No one ever even seems curious what other trans-substantiations occur or could occur by means of transit through this powerful canal.
They act as through the physics that occurs in what appears to be merely a change in place are so miraculously transformative as to be responsible for all personhood throughout all history and yet nary a physicists seems to be interested in this miracle.
(titles I use loosely here only for clarity)

2026-02-10 13:41:52 UTC

- reply

But is your analogy correct?
It seems like you mean:
Agent + Value => sats => persistence => more AI value => more sats…..
Would not that view of natural selection collapse into:
Agent => sats => persistence….
In biology some are say producers of biological utility from inorganics (say solar collectors like plants) and some are extractors.
Extractors “earn” meals +/or persistence from many avenues, predation, parasitism, subterfuge, theft, mimicry, “social” clustering… value to the extractor need not imply value to anything else.
Why would value creation “for people” emerge for AI agents over say more direct theft or mimicry ?

2026-02-07 20:53:36 UTC

- reply

It seems to be true of the adoption of any knowledge or technology, and also in the victim chain of any Ponzi.
It doesn’t seem to have any discriminatory value?

2026-02-06 21:32:14 UTC

- reply

Which AI are you using ?

2026-02-03 23:04:54 UTC

- reply

Sounds really interesting - and way outside of my competence - hope to hear more and hope you learn a lot of truth !

2026-02-03 17:05:57 UTC

- reply

Did you reveal the side hustle ? Assuming this is EM / photonic based ?

2026-02-03 16:20:39 UTC

- reply

The only reference I saw verified to Saylor was that he went to an independent film gala and one of the handlers of the pedo rapist Epstein did not like him.
Was there more than that?
If that’s it, at least right now*, it’s simply not fair to lump him with others just because a pedo handler didn’t like the cut of his jib.
(*I have no idea how many terabytes haven’t been released yet so who knows).

2026-02-02 04:27:02 UTC

- reply

Seimi is correct

2026-01-31 04:12:19 UTC

- reply

Meh. I can assure you these repulsive child rapist pedo Epstein sycophants would have a very, very unpleasant time around me and anyone I hang with too. Odd to think that failure to get a pedo sycophant to fawn all over him is somehow being presented as a burn on Saylor but I guess some people just love to please everyone.

2026-01-29 04:26:54 UTC

- reply

Mleku- I don’t remember a giant rabbit - just a really fast one that jumped like 100 yards with vampire teeth…. Also I’m pretty sure the holy hand grenade did kill the rabbit? But it’s been a long time since I saw it.

2026-01-03 14:51:00 UTC

- reply

Thanks
I am assuming there are a lot of already KYC bitcoiners on Coinbase.
Google cannot verify but says Coinbase holds 1 million. Add owners from whatever other kyc places (PayPal?) and it must be a lot.
I would imagine (I do not know I am just speculating) that once person A is known to have _had_ bitcoin then chain analysis is just one technical way to find coins.
Extortion would be more direct.
I think the boating accident phrase is funny but fragile and unlikely to endure under pressure.
It would seem there is a role for openly - even on chain - formalizing some process like the above whereby the owners demonstrably lose all access now with intend of slow recovery across time and space.
Extortion seems to be an impatient process.

2026-01-03 02:41:12 UTC

- reply

Understood- I am just veering off from the privacy and into what can be done in a KYC world.
Assuming all KYC transactions can and will be linked to person A’s initial buy as you stated.
Is it still possible for person A to easily divide the coins then ….
1) render themselves presently unable to access the coins (such that they honestly cannot access and no state actor pressure or other pressure can change that)
2) yet ensure they will recover that access over time incrementally
3) and similarly grant that future access across space to heirs or friends?

2026-01-02 17:55:49 UTC

- reply

Should be clear I wrote cypherpunk above referring to the generic self described term many use - not referring to the particular poster.

2026-01-02 17:53:52 UTC

- reply

Thanks. I am not critical or defensive of any approach I am trying to figure out what would really work for real people. It seems to me the most private cypherpunk (a word I parrot without pretending to really know) solutions are labyrinthian tech solutions using tech that probably was not available 5-10 years ago and may not be available 5-10 years from now. Seems unrealistic for almost everyone across space and time (successors need to be also expert). Again not trying to be cynical but there is hand waving towards free and open source software as if that’s a guarantee it will be usable and maintained into the future but I have no idea if that’s really more trustworthy than the alternative of profit motivated companies.

2026-01-02 16:34:40 UTC

- reply

Understood but basically need two computers, one which you had somehow made sure has no networking hardware, some OS that you also have and trust, a USB you also acquired and trust and even then it’s minimally paper and sounds very hard to do with any privacy. I am not trying to just complain and maybe this is all simple to more tech savvy people but my guess is like 99 out of 100 people would read that explanation and have no idea how to even start. And buried in the lines is a bunch of other stuff (just downloading without being on the network confuses me and sparrow isn’t so straightforward iirc comes with other steps like verification of keys and then will say you have to run your own node to really be able to trust sparrow anyway again iirc…. So I bet I’m being generous thinking 1% can handle all that). But even with all that, you have a wallet which is sort of 2 computers and a USB and some passphrase on paper, and you have some dollars, but still no bitcoin right? How do you cross that bridge? Literally once read to wear a disguise and find some sort of shady ATM somewhere (but somehow find these without using any internet search or maps that can track you) and expect to put in cash and get something out while getting photographed but just pull the brim low…

2026-01-02 16:08:16 UTC

- reply

How do you just “use”
A #paperwallet ? Asking as a newbie and a genuine. Setting aside all the angst about “you will lose it etc”. Assume a competent adult that can keep a handwritten pen and paper document (and a copy remotely) and has dollars and wants bitcoin and only wants to use paper wallet or wallets. How would this happen?

2025-12-25 14:31:19 UTC

- reply

Setting aside physical risk of losing the analog paper what if you use cold card, generate a “paper wallet”, #paperwallet, write down the paper wallet details, and send bitcoin to that. I believe the cold card generate paper wallet creates a single public and private key. If you did this would the funds sent there be completely safe from even quantum attack? What if you sent a test (small) transaction to the paper wallet - to make sure you had no typos - then confirmed the transaction went through using the public key before sending the balance in a larger transaction- does that sequence reduce protections ? Or is it still safe until you sweep it ? I understand that the keeping of analog paper wallets introduces a myriad of new risks and generally thought a bad idea but I am asking more if this is a conceptually solid protection against quantum attack. Merry Christmas and thanks for anyone’s input in advance. (Not sure if there is a good way to tag this I think paper wallets are obsolete but cold card still offers the option to make them which somehow fascinates me). ? #wallets

2025-12-04 11:12:41 UTC

- reply

This is my impression too.

2025-11-29 03:53:03 UTC

- reply

Is there any good strategy for ending mental looping? In the past I think I remember reading about the Zeigarnik effect where we supposedly remember tasks we haven't finished better than those we have completed. I wonder if I physically wrote out these recurrent loops of conversations where I am micromanaging responses I got wrong it would close these loops out. After all - almost always - I know intellectually no one is thinking about me or what I said / did / wore for more than 5 minutes after I am out of sight.

2025-11-29 03:34:01 UTC

- reply

Sorry to read that. Stones cause a lot of suffering.
https://www.lerner.ccf.org/news/article/?title=First+full+characterization+of+kidney+microbiome+unlocks+potential+to+prevent+kidney+stones+&id=b3031108fb05bda66f7debc895b48f00f6f73894
Cleveland clinic was looking into this.
They may have trials or pre clinical data. I think it’s a fermented food microbe.
But not sure this is ready for prime time as a treatment (kidney stone formation is fascinating. It’s not entirely clear things to me that prevent stones before osteoclast like transformations will work after. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5683182/) .
(Plus it’s in healthy women’s reproductive tract. So comes from mom- like mitochondria, gut microbes, and early immune components).

2025-11-27 22:48:31 UTC

- reply

With respect: crotch hair probably doesn’t seem to serve a purpose only because of clothing; interestingly clothing is both highly tied to Genesis and, if you believe Wyn Hoff, possibly not healthy?
Appendicitis is such a common childhood (pre reproduction) emergency that evolutionists struggle with how the organ could persist (modern surgery being a blip). Some think the organ persists as a deposit and repository for bacteria to reconstitute the microbiome (>90% of which is unculturable and cannot exist outside the human gut) in the event of a challenge. That’s a cool theory. I believe it.
The truth is probably something even more strange, even deeper, and something I could never guess

2025-11-21 04:01:10 UTC

- reply

Thank you
Often it is said before sending a sizable transaction to send a small test transaction.
Doesn’t such advice require using the addrsss at least twice?

2025-11-17 01:07:31 UTC

Catholic readings today at
https://bible.usccb.org/daily-bible-reading
My take:
1. Do your job.
2. Keep working.
3. You eat what you earn.
4. War will happen. Do not let wars you cannot influence distract you from those things in front of you that you can change or improve.
5. Even if you do all God asks, do not expect it to be easy, you may be betrayed by family and friends.
#catholic

2025-10-30 01:25:07 UTC

- reply

What, pre bitcoin, served that role? What does Bitcoin replace, simplify or clarify that was previously more complicated? Forgive me as I do not understand. I do not understand why there could not have been, pre bitcoin, a proof of work calculation that creates a ledger (but doesn’t solve the Byzantine general problem). Why must they be tied together ? Sorry I am sure this is me just being really naive but curious

2025-10-29 17:48:20 UTC

- reply

No worries - I wrote that very poorly and created the confusion

2025-10-29 17:46:23 UTC

- reply

Agreed. But I have to be careful not to lead others astray, and I’m Sometimes caught between eagerness to keep conversations going because I think it’s healthy, but also the admonition that it’s better to be silent and thought of as a fool than to open my mouth and remove all doubt

2025-10-29 17:44:22 UTC

- reply

I tend to think of the kingdom of God as being a little bit more overt. I think we are creatures, subject to creator, and I think at some point that will be realized more clearly.
I think service, in as much as others are Gods children, is justice.
But to borrow from psychology, there is a hierarchy of needs. We have to spend some of our time in some of our places attending to the basic needs of others, food, shelter, etc., but we also have to be working towards giving them truth. It’s complicated but I think that’s why we have community. People have different skills and different abilities. We have an obligation to Steward that community in the best way possible. To meet all of these needs. Which we could never do in one lifetime. Which is why we are also compelled to steward in the next generation. And the generation after that. And there are plenty of passages talking about your grandchildren‘s grandchildren. So we don’t all have the ability to give every resource away during our own lifetime Because that may be shortsighted.
Ideas are that by which we know things. We are made to conformed the truth. It is probably a discussion an order or more past my capability but ideas as non physical , to me, are untethered to the physical world, and therefore there would not seem to be any need for ownership or concept of ownership of the idea? There is nothing precluding everyone apprehending the same idea at the same time in the same way because it does not physical, and so I don’t think ownership the way that I understand it as a necessary component of a physical world applies.?

2025-10-29 17:31:11 UTC

- reply

Just to clarify I meant this note - mine - was the take of an amateur- no one else’s

2025-10-29 17:30:14 UTC

- reply

I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I was referring to my own note as an amateur take - not anyone else’s. I do not have any credentials to interpret scripture is all I meant by that.
I think it’s hard to take things out of context. Just before that passage, is the unusual passage of the dishonest steward where the master commends the dishonest steward and says “I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.”
The more wealth you have – and this isn’t necessarily money, although that is a part of it – the more you are required to steward it on earth towards friendship. In both passages, it’s a given that this wealth is only temporary. In both passages, those who had none were not held to much account.
I think we need the poor because even if their existence is a result of our own fallen nature, it is allowed to persist so that a great a good can come from it. But that greater good involves proper stewardship. It’s not so easy to say give it all away – that can actually lead to worse outcomes. We have other obligations, but besides feeding the poor – we have obligations to know the truth, and our tools for getting to The Truth in this world involve getting closer and closer through uncovering worldly truths. And the more that you have, wealth, however, defined, but most especially monetary because that is the most flexible, the more you have to hone your prudence to deploy that in virtuous ways.
But I think one temptation of material wealth is to delude yourself into thinking that you could do even greater good, if you had even more material wealth, and so you delay action with the excuse that you are accumulating more so that someday you will have more and more leverage. I think that’s possible, but I do think to go down that pathway without succumbing to making it all about the accumulation of the wealth does become more and more like threading and needle.
If you know the poor, if you really know them, if you shake hands are up shoulders with them, it grounds you. It rains you in. If you keep them outside, away from you, away from contact, you can live inside your head, wrapped up in your thoughts, imagination of self glory, and never actually do any good. We need Acts of the apostles more than just grand plans

2025-10-29 17:20:01 UTC

- reply

Funny

2025-10-29 17:04:26 UTC

- reply

One thought. Very amateurish.
In the previous chapter 16 Luke describes the “rich man” and Lazerus. My reading was that the rich man was removed from the world Lazarus lived in, to the point we are not given any indication “Rich” even saw Lazarus (outside his gate). Rich was not necessarily mean or communist. For all we know he was an excellent employer and family man and whatever. We know he lived in luxury and a part of that was precluding interaction with the poor.
I think at every level of wealth or riches, this interaction with the poor (define in any reasonable way you think) becomes more and more narrow.
At a certain point the nature of extreme wealth makes “seeing” extreme poverty so unlikely it becomes impossible without grave.
And yet if poverty is in some way used for our good, and we are physical beings, we have to see / hear / feel the poor to know them.
These make it hard, near impossible in the world without grace for the rich to “see” suffering. And as the chasm gets wider it fulfills the idea that sending more poor or humble will not work.
Akin to this - there are things in the world children see, or hear about, that bring tears to their eyes. There is poverty in the streets that make them want to reach out and help. These same things, that would have made my heart break as a child, I confess now make me check my car lock or roll up my window. However we define rich, it’s created a measurable chasm apart from the extremes.
We have been educated - we need Lazarus much more than Lazarus needs us in this life.

2025-10-24 23:54:55 UTC

- reply

For whatever it is worth kudos to both of you - I do not understand a lot of this but very much appreciate the discussion from the gallery. I expect many other do too.

2025-10-24 12:55:31 UTC

- reply

It’s really amazing to reflect upon this.
Physics is the first science, given that we are physical* creatures created for and in a physical world.
To realize modern physicists are not truth centered should be startling and distressing. In my experience, matches yours.
This is devastatingly bad news for our country and explains a lot of the current confusion over what’s real and what is not. As physics goes, the country follows, and I think physics has been lost for decades in the symbolism and abstraction of math without a discipline to reconcile the fruits of that tool with the real world.
(*but with a non physical essential form/soul)

2025-10-21 23:13:25 UTC

- reply

Agree completely. But we need physicist to start being concerned about the truth to do that. And we will need real money and lots more people especially young people, especially brave people to become Transplant. Fortunately, it’s such an immense amazing optimistic goal that I think we will get them all at some point

2025-10-20 01:48:04 UTC

- reply

5.666.777.8 looks like “Jost” to me ?

2025-10-19 18:05:21 UTC

- reply

But what is inspiring is that if bitcoin is divinely inspired and imitated and if it allows in time a reset of incentives away from lies and towards truth then society may accomplish in much shorter time periods a recovery of common sense and orientation towards true understanding in all the sciences. Converse without a just and righteous money such an accomplishment would be difficult and take forever. So a third option
3) bitcoin is that great, they do not know it yet, but they will, soon, and in time - and once they do their training in rigorous metrics will compel them to come to their senses faster and work harder towards the truth than those in the applied fields of politic, law, medicine etc.
Ie the “still early” option. This is my belief.

2025-10-19 17:46:05 UTC

- reply

I have no disageement. It is difficult to me to think of a better system than the representative republic (because it is what I am familiar with and have faith in the founding of; not because I put the time in to see it as true). I am thinking more and more that fixes to the applied or practical sciences of medicine, politics etc will not work until the pure sciences are fixed first. There seem to be many errors that have become evident and amplified in physics that distort the way physicists view reality and threaten nihilistic earthquakes in the foundation of everything atop it. If / until physics is fixed it will be difficult or impossible to do anything but patch grievous errors in the practical sciences - and each patch will be a vicious fight so long as each side is trying to refer to “the science” and “the science” is headed by the smartest people but they are willing to entertain and express views contrary to common sense. For example - the quote below is one I agree with from an otherwise typically bad introduction to physics book for high schoolers
“As it is our deepest and best understanding of nature, physics should be part of the studies of any well educated person. It has become fashionable in recent decades to think of the sciences and humanities as separate, compartmentalized disciplines with little to offer each other. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
I happen to agree, and yet this leads to the obvious question then of why physicists are not championing the cause for a sound money like bitcoin. If any group has the mathematical chops, reputation, need for funding, appreciation of mathematical purity, and inherent skepticism in artifacts of authority it would be physicists. Where are they? Not only publicly advocating but even privately, behind the scenes, buying up bitcoin and taking over core development. I am no physicist but they are not by reputation a quiet and unassuming group willing to cultivate a great idea in the shadows quietly.
I do not know. Their absence at the forefront of what seems to be the greatest mathematical scam (fiat) ever suggest to me two possibilities, neither exclusive nor exhaustive:
1) bitcoin really is not that great and they all know it.
2) physicists really do lack common sense and a desire for truth in their lives and in general and have no problem carrying around as much - or more ! - cognitive dissonance as anyone else.
I do not have the math chops or contacts to know which is more likely. Neither one is inspiring at the moment.

2025-10-19 16:26:12 UTC

- reply

And to get further outside of any competence, if things like changing op return limits or other changes to bitcoin itself challenge (even indirectly) this essential attribute to finite, then they challenge the good of the imitation. All else equal (which is a very tall order) if a change seems to expand Bitcoin it may undermine this humility?

2025-10-19 16:17:43 UTC

- reply

Would appreciate thoughts on this: I think also it is divine imitation. It took a miracle for the Divine to create a physical world with limits to His limitlessness. It took a miracle to allow free will. There was no necessity for either. As creatures we owe worship not a desire for equality.
Stay humble reflects this to me.
Fiat is - even as a ledger - limitless expansion. As such a ledger it implies man can owe man infinitely; it either bakes in a lie (it will not actually be repaid, an affront to the truth). Or it bakes in an assumption of divine equality- man can owe infinite because man will be infinite. An affront to justice.
Bitcoin did not have to be finite - this was a choice; as such Bitcoin, (even if inspired) as a creation by the flawed intellect in man, was made in imitation of divine creation. Unlike gold which was practically finite - (not via a nod towards humility but in fact as a metal steeped in a scarcity at odds forever with environmental stewardship) - Bitcoin is prescribed finite.
While it can be subdivided to account for *a lot* of transactions, the finite backbone does prescribe limits (if I understand Jack K at all, @npub1838…aslh , and I probably do not) these limits may stretch towards the absolute limits of the material world. As such created in imitation of the Divine as a creator it can be seen as Gods money ( maybe in the solution to the recommendation to give to Ceasar what is Ceasars…)
Stay humble stack sats (which I think is from @npub1qny…95gx ) can be both a personal mantra to overconfidence and foolish pursuits but also maybe a moral imperative in orienting towards ethical money.
I suspect I have made many errors and shortcuts coming to this; to the extent any of this is useful or true it came from other sources I cannot specifically remember to quote or credit and has become inchoate in my head.

2025-10-19 13:06:49 UTC

- reply

Speaking from the USA perspective here.
The complexity of the understanding natural world increases - even if the world itself is finite - because we have limited intellect and can never know the thing itself. We can (just) iterate on our abstractions from the particulars around us towards truth. But that path in (good) science is (supposed to be) ever pointed towards simplicity
If I want to know the essence of what a cat is, what is “ ‘cat’-ness”, I would like to join my intellect with that thing itself. But that thing is non-physical and I’m limited to knowing the world through my senses. So I’m stuck, trying to look at each particular cat and abstracting from each particular towards each other particular in an effort to find “cat”-ness and define it. But I’m not looking to catalog each particular as “cat”-ness. I’m looking for the essence of what a cat is. Of what makes a cat not a man. I don’t want a list of ever growing particulars of for example 252 million individual cat fur patterns as if that is what makes a cat. That’s cataloging (and more like an AI approach of “intelligence”). That’s important, but it’s only the beginning of the abstraction that leads to understanding. In the end truth is simple, towards a unity. Truly knowing “cat” ness cannot leave out such particulars but must eventually collapse them in towards a unity. Otherwise, in an absurd extrapolation, you can never explain to a six year old what makes a cat different from a man because you wouldn’t have enough time in your lifetime to articulate each particular that’s not how we work because that’s not how truth works, and we are made for truth.
In my experience from my perspective, this is not how administration and law are evolving. There is the collection of particulars, but instead of incentivizing towards the truth – you might call this morality or ethics – the incentives are left accumulating particulars. These particulars are called laws, rules, administrative rules, employee handbooks, all based on abstractions from nature that never return to integrate into the truth. My limited an likely insufficient exposure to goedels theorem suggests one such a system of rules is complex enough it cannot be proven to even be non contradictory. And between laws, administrative decrees, etc we are well past that. Rather than incentives towards simplifying this mess towards morals, the self contradictory nature is dealt with by erratic non enforcement and /or selective application. So the same crime in the same way leads to two different outcomes (say a poor person drunk driving versus a rich person who affords high powered lawyers) which is unnatural and untruthful. But because judges lawyers and politically connected / rich people tend to benefit from incentives within this unnatural result, and because in abstract power systems like governments those people create the incentives, there is seemingly no force to turn the tide.

2025-10-18 14:20:22 UTC

- reply

I may be naive but Incentives seem to matter. In science a more efficient solution, a better / faster equation is adopted. It doesn’t feel like legislation works this way. It talking about speed alone rather the amount of time and effort spent deliberating on fundamentally contradictory legislation seems high

2025-10-18 13:25:46 UTC

- reply

Agreed. From what little I understand from studying very primitive but effective “social” groups like insects, in material world, most of the time consensus is the most efficient solution. But occasionally radical and sometimes bizarre departures / abandonment from consensus are absolutely necessary for survival.

2025-10-18 13:07:35 UTC

- reply

My thought: Catholic faith takes grace and hard work which was traditionally built up generationally by extended families able to create a cognitive “endowment” that nurtured each subsequent generation. The disintegration of the family depleted that. Grace still operates, always will, but - my opinion only- some members of the church when faced with harder work chose to abandon the work and lean mostly on grace. Fulton Sheen used to give prime time tv shows on the evil of communism, on economics, on science etc.
Any scones text with an ounce of honestly is littered with discoveries made by Catholics . But who are the scientific thought leaders now within the hierarchy of the church? Who is the top physicist Cardinal or bishop with MD? Indeed I have very limited exposure to the heart scientist, but I’ve noticed so many popular press “hard scientist” or a massive cognitive dissonance. They say things they can’t possibly believe because they don’t act that way in real life. I almost can’t think of a popular press scientist who hasn’t written or spoken absolute nonsense. A random aside. recently someone asked me if the book slaughterhouse five was anti-religious. In my opinion it’s mildly snarky towards Catholics in particular and a devastating kick in the crotch to humanists and ethical atheists. When I read it, for the second time, I assumed the mindset of someone who had not done the work to prove to themselves God exists; I could feel the humiliation and hopelessness crystallizing. Yes, obviously, this makes sense, but that is an opportunity for the salvation if and only if the church is willing to do the work to reestablish truth, not only in doctrine, but in the basic sciences, mathematics, chemistry physics, etc. The church is probably 100 years behind Where it needs to be at least in terms of turning out priest, bishops and Cardinals, who can truly integrate truth in science and correct the errors that have led to the fiat mindset in science. Catholics have to re-build physics based on truth first and then reintegrate that into all of the hard sciences. That’s a task that’s much harder than convincing people that the Fiat dollar is a lie, and yet it’s a task that no doubt cannot occur unless or until or in conjunction with fixing the money. It’s a lot of work

2025-10-18 12:47:14 UTC

- reply

With respect Jack K I did not understand; is Bitcoin longest chain a consensus ? If you spliced a thousand blocks together do you mean the superposition would be all the “ties” that are resolved after the moment by longest chain consensus? In physics who (or Who) determines the consensus ?
If physics is fiat what is the non or less fiat path and resources? For example a lot of people in the USA not currently dying of malaria and yellow fever and polio and scurvy and rickets can write “medicine is fiat” but that statement is on surface mostly error. Most of medicine and microbiology and biochemistry is pretty decent at describing and predicting and achieving results. What they mean is the tip of the spear is no longer trustworthy because fiat influences in recent living memory 50 years has pulled the spear in probably wrong directions. Even in doing so they often rely on the tools of modern medicine to critique it. Which is good but they stand on the foundation of the applied sciences of medicine to try to redirect the point of the spear. I am asking you if you can to point to the foundational texts or sources you use to stand on for physics. What would you have high school kids start with? Eric Weinstein is interesting but to me he - intentionally or not- starts and stays 5000 feet in the air and jumps between advanced math and physics too far out of grasp.

2025-09-12 02:22:36 UTC

- reply

1,2,3,5 are different descriptions and degrees of murder. In so much as we people share the same nature as those murdered in those examples, it is unnatural (insane) to murder one’s own nature. So they are clearly evil.
4 is justice and does not fit in my understanding.
One reason, and it is only one of many, is that capital punishment brings the imminent threat of certain death to the forefront of the killer. It imposes the reality of the evil he has done onto his consciousness in a way nothing else - perhaps most especially lifetime incarceration*- can.
This can bring him to the point of repentance and, having destroyed one life and ruined his own in the process, offer the most realistic chance to proximate repentance and salvation of his soul.
Since we people all share the same nature then it would seem to me to be sane to support capital punishment as salvation is a (the only) rational goal.
There is a very rational caveat to say that the certainty of conviction of capital crimes (man is fallible) means that the chance of an innocent on death row is too big a risk thus capital punishment is too unsafe to support. I think this is a reasonable argument to try to make.

2025-09-05 11:43:40 UTC

- reply

I do get that.
At some level, the cannibalism charge is natural from the language and to give credit to those who levy it, it comes from I think a position of taking the seriousness of what is going on into account.
But respectfully, my understanding of the sacrament convinces me that to try to own the cannibalism charge will permit ignorance of the basic physics of the process in those levying that charge.
Taking the body only, the transubstantiation is a piece of bread into the whole living body of Christ. Consuming the whole, living, body of Christ is just not the same as chewing a piece of flesh.
Not only would it be completely inappropriate to tear up the Christ with our teeth, but any regular piece of flesh has truly ceased to be a substance (and becomes a collection of bits of different, substances) once “bitten off” from whoever or whatever it was. And soon those bits of substances- muscle, sinew, etc will be substantially changed into the eater- and cease to exist as substances. That is cannibalism- and that is not happening in churches.
In the Eucharist (again just considering the body) Christ is not wholly present at the consecration moment but then mechanically transformed into a bunch of different body parts and substances by chewing.
Rather His whole living body becomes present at consecration, remains whole at consumption, still the same whole substance in/as each particle of the consumed species, and for as long as the underlying species exists. And whenever all particles of the species cease to exist inside the consumer, Christ whole living body is entirely gone from the physical place it had been (but Christ has/was not substantially changed).
This is my understanding.

2025-09-05 02:09:34 UTC

- reply

Apologies ignore that “read more” link- it was the source but I didn’t intend to include it

2025-09-05 02:06:54 UTC

- reply

Thank you. It looks like you are correct, the part I was wondering about was cnbc, fast money- Guy Adami, 2020, “Prominent trader and CNBC host Guy Adami opined that Bitcoin (BTC) was "the victor" in the world of fiat currencies during a recent "Fast Money" episode. "In a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their currency, Bitcoin wins. In a world of fiat currencies, Bitcoin is the victor."
Read more on U.Today https://u.today/bitcoin-btc-is-the-victor-in-a-world-of-fiat-currencies-cnbcs-guy-adami%E2%80%9D

2025-09-05 01:24:00 UTC

- reply

Apologies but can I clarify who said it? Was it Marty Bent?

2025-09-05 00:15:02 UTC

- reply

No it’s not cannibalism. That’s just not the right way to think about it at all.
And while the transsubstantiation as a specific word referring to the catholic sacrament is a triple miracle mystery, substantial change in and of itself is pretty much part and parcel of life as physical being right?
I do not think you meant differently but I did not understand the frankenstein reassembly reference so I wanted to clarify as it might give the impression substantial change itself is exotic.
After all even a non sacred piece of bread eaten as a remembrance started as its own substance, bread, and then substantially changed into you. It ceased to be bread and became the substance that is you soon after you ate it. And you are not some frankensteinian assembly of substances of all your past bread pieces eaten, you are just you.
The substance that is a human has that transformative power over bread, bread does not have that power over humans. Nor can bread resist being substantially changed into you. Bread cannot resist the transformation once you consume it.
“You are what you eat” is thus quite often used wrong; rather what you ate “are now” you.
So (mere) humans can effect substantial change all the time. That power is evident within us (albeit with limitations).

2025-09-04 23:19:52 UTC

- reply

Respectfully, equating the Eucharist to cannibalism is naive.
A woman giving birth is nothing at all like a woman menstruating even though a naive view might somehow equate both with “human tissue goes through the canal”.
Cannibalism is not eating a living being and in cannibalism the (collection of) substance (s) that is dead physical flesh becomes the physical substance of the eater. In the Eucharist the Christ does not die, He does not become the eater (if anything the opposite), and He persists after the act.
The whole idea of it is fascinating and raises a number of questions and discussions as to why it is necessary, but this exploration cannot happen if it’s labeled something it totally is not.

2025-08-22 19:57:16 UTC

- reply

It would seem like a great idea to fill a demand for asset protection, future pension provision, pre nuptials, inheritance - if I understand it conceptually. It would seem a service to the field.

2025-08-06 13:18:34 UTC

- reply

Respectfully is there a simple nostr answer say a 55 year old uncle, convinced at Thanksgiving dinner bitcoin is great, how to just go buy some bitcoin and use it to support the bitcoin economy in a digitally private way (free of disclosure / kyc / a centralized issuer)? Set aside the sold storage issue - assume the uncle has that down pat. How does he get the digitally private BTC?
Saylor can tell the uncle in 10 seconds how to buy MSTR or FBTC shares and how to sell them for fiat later on to support whoever and Saylor would not need to recommend wearing a mask, turning off his phone speakers or location service, or include tips on avoiding wrench attacks. I really do not mean disrespect. I am not trolling. I do think my question explains the view discrepancy though.

2025-08-06 11:18:43 UTC

- reply

The Alexandria is much appreciated

2025-08-04 22:16:54 UTC

- reply

I should.
Any recommendations?
I had WoS once but things did not work out there.

2025-08-04 19:06:18 UTC

- reply

I wrote “Fails” which is not really correct at all; sorry; I meant the strategy worked (you gave) but the outcome was a surprise (you had more in the end)

2025-08-04 19:03:46 UTC

- reply

I think the poster was just making an observation - “looking back whenever I have given more I seemed to end up actually getting more”
I think the strategy is to be generous (give it away) but the outcome may be the strategy fails (you receive more than you gave).

2025-06-16 03:21:16 UTC

- reply

#asknostr #nostr #bitcoin

2025-06-16 03:20:13 UTC

- reply

@asknostr
@nostr

2025-06-16 02:20:24 UTC

Respectfully - what is the best plug and play way to run a full node if a pleb wants to support Bitcoin but has no time, inclination or technical background to dyi a solution? If non economic nodes are useless it’s OK to say so. Ideally would allow plug and play of knots or core depending on philosophy.
I have found the “use an old laptop” does not work. It shuts down no matter how often power or battery function is set to “do not sleep”.
Literally happy to help if it’s actually helpful and easy to do. Also happy to leave to others if it’s not actually useful to set up a node
Much thanks

2025-06-16 02:13:50 UTC

- reply

Thank you bitcoin Ollie

2025-06-09 17:46:50 UTC

- reply

Much appreciated.
@npub1s05…eyhe if you have a minute.
You spoke about your transition outside of the control system. Wondering if you have a primer on what you find now are better tools than before. For example you chose Nostr over X in the interview. What about things like 1) computer operating systems 2) cell phone 3) Note taking systems 4) credit card (or completely abandon that?) 5) AI system of choice? 6) anything else ?
Understanding some choices are geographic and not asking for or interpreting as endorsements - just interested in what you recommend friends to do or what choices you see now would improve the odds of the future you described arriving sooner.
— in any case with gratitude!

2025-06-03 02:37:37 UTC

Is there a better private open source note taking app than standard notes? Is there a nostr approved decentralized project? What do Nostr users use for journaling, note taking etc ? #asknostr Thanks