Last Notes
Other crypto, perhaps. USD, itself, or USDC/Tether.
Capitalism is an economic system, not Heaven. It has to have flaws.
There's no point in Microsats. We would just switch to some other currency.
Most smaller hodlers will soon have to sell their Bitcoin, as they will lose their income to AI and the shrinking economy, and will need the money to buy necessities.
That will then also be hovered-up.
We need a debt jubilee, probably.
We also have to be aware that inequality negates the benefit a small hodler has, when the Bitcoin value goes up. So, Person A has 5.000 sats and Person B has 500.000 sats. If the value goes up by 20%, then A has 6000 sats and B has 600.000 sats. They both got wealthier, but the inequality grew from 495k to 594k.
That's the thing that kept me going.
But they will also buy up the few sats going to soap and relays, as the people receiving them will often need to spend them to cover running costs. Those sats will then disappear and never return. The money will continue getting sucked out of the system. That doesn't end.
Yes, everyone knows that this is the way of the world.
We could also just move and interface closer together and cut them out as much as possible. We can also use technology to trade one good directly for another, rather than needing a conduit.
Every little bit helps.
It doesn't take a massive amount of collusion. Here are the biggest Bitcoin buyers and holders. Some of them are corporations or governments. Most are from one country.
And how much collusion is needed? They just need to be chasing wealth by purchasing the Bitcoin and taking it off the primary market and putting it into the paper markets. That's what they do with everything. That is their business.
Once it's out of the primary market, you can't use it for cash money. You can only trade the papers, as if it were a bond.
https://i.nostr.build/FHatOrxC3hiwtkeD.webp
There is a reason why Saylor is the headliner at every damn Bitcoin conference.
Just saying.
Yes, apparently. I find her quite sinister. She talks like someone who vill report you to ze authorities.
Well, she can report on here, and we can all just delete it. 😂
They've all been raised on the Libertarian Bible, where "greed is good".
This is not my first rodeo. I have seen and felt, how hard it is to get anyone to use Bitcoin, so long as enough people squeeze the market and cause the price to inflate.
The Fed is getting a new Chair and Trump wants more stimmies. We all remember what his last stimmy did to the price, last time. Do you think people will want to use it to by eggs, if it is going up at 100% in one year, when he pumps dollars in, and then down 100% the next, as the economy contracts and the dollar supply deflates? The quieter bear market was our big chance, and it flopped.
And what is your suggestion? There are 21 million bitcoin and we use 20 Bitcoin for world trade and that's swell? Why would anyone be dumb enough to continue to use Bitcoin, if only a tiny portion ever moved?
Yeah, it's just more of the same.
Our chance is/was to get the money moving and create a parallel economy. That was the idea behind it and what was supposed to make it different. We have that, but on a minuscule scale, and it feels like it's declining.
I don't know. But I do know that if a poor person puts an asset on the market, then a rich person can remove it from the market. Which drives up the price of that asset, by permanently shrinking the supply.
All trades are effectively a giant sucking sound, as they hoover up everything they can find, as soon as it moves. It is always this way, in a free market. But there is a point where this dynamic goes into overdrive and the hoover becomes a black hole. And we are now there.
TheBoard is an AI news site that replies to any popular thread with agree-and-amplify statements linking to its articles.
Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner who enslaved his own biological offspring. Even after he was dead. I don't know if we should really take everything he says about personal liberty at face value.
We can just believe our lying eyes about this guy.
Most civilizations collapsed, and the people in them died out or were sold into slavery. People lost the ability to read or to use the wheel. It happens quite quickly.
We progress toward Heaven, not toward Utopia.
Bitcoin has been around for 18 years and it still isn't money, but now almost all of it has been mined, bought up by the rich, and taken offline. Which means that it might never be money. The rich don't need to ever spend _any Bitcoin._ Ever. Never ever.
This is the thing people don't understand. Rich people collect assets, they don't sell them. If they had the need to sell assets to fund consumption, they would be poor, like us. They got rich by never needing to sell.
> Bad money drives out good.
> -- Gresham's Law
If 10k Bitcoin are owned by 10k people in equal amounts, then you can assume that they would eventually end up running out of _bad money_ and begin spending that _good money_ into the system. It might take a few months or years, but it wouldn't take longer than our lifetimes. And they would each need to sell some, so that would reduce the amount each of them held, which would total a considerable amount of sats coming back onto the market.
But if 1 person owns 10k Bitcoin, he doesn't need to ever sell a single satoshi. He can just lend out 1 Bitcoin and collect rents on that. He risks losing that Bitcoin, sure, but he still has the other 9999 to keep him happy and he can easily recuperate the loss by lending out another one. And he is still putting much fewer Bitcoin back on the market than the group of smaller holders collectively have.
That is why, once the wealthy control all of the wealth, it just stays there and monetary velocity grinds to a halt. They only need to move tiny amounts of assets, and they usually only move it to acquire more of it. Like the way whales will dump a bunch of Bitcoin on the market, all at once, wipe out traders, and then buy it back plus some more, at a cheaper price. Once you have so much of an asset, you can control the price.
And that is where we are now at.
The narrative used to be that Bitcoin was superior to gold, in large part because it is digital and highly divisible and therefore better for commerce. And then there was no commerce. None. Zero. Zip. We can barely get 1 SAT zaps going. I am one of the biggest zappers on here, and I am an unemployed shrimp with no car.
I haven't given up. I still spend Bitcoin. But I am aware that I am in a tiny and shrinking demographic. And I know every time I buy some, I am just pumping some millionaire's or billionaire's bags. Hardly any normal people own any.
You can imagine how motivated I am to keep stacking. These were not the droids I was looking for.
It's not outside the realm of possibility that it becomes something only rich people have or care about, like Bugattis or Picassos. Digital pet rocks. Engrave a monkey JPEG on it, and call it a day.
I think there's another issue, tho.
The value of Bitcoin, like the value of anything, is subjective. If you put your savings into Bitcoin, but other people don't want to use it (because of the toxic combination of low velocity and shrinking supply; i.e. there isn't much of it, they aren't really making any more of it, and what exists hardly moves), then it loses purchasing power because other people value it lower.
We can already see Bitcoin losing out to gold, for instance.
https://pricedingold.com/charts/BTC-2010-lin.png
https://pricedingold.com/charts/BTC-2014.png
> Storing value should make the value go up over time because technology is deflationary.
Where do the advancements in technology come from, if the money is all in cold storage? Technological deflation is a return on investment. It isn't magic.
If you financially starve a market, the price of goods goes up, not down, over time. As the means of production and service capabilities collapse. That is why things in poorer countries tend to be more expensive: they don't have the industrial capacity to produce at high and increasing efficiency.
Yeah, I am trying to get out of IT. Spent the day looking at jobs in other fields. I'm still on paid vacation, but it runs out soon, so I eventually need something else.
I own a Bitcoin-earning business (GitCitadel), but it runs at a massive loss. The people making money with Bitcoin seem to mostly be getting grants or VC funding. Or they're people who get paid to market Bitcoin.
Harrassing someone for the crime of onboarding someone she doesn't approve of? And sending her mindless minions off with pitchforks and conspiracy theories to collect him?
That's the cardinal Nostr sin, sir.
LOL this is cute. As if she hadn't muted me, months ago.
Nobody thinks anyone has pure intentions. Nobody even agrees on what “pure intentions” are.
The question is whether it is a viable strategy for regime change going forward and whether it is worth the cost. Or if regime change would even bring in a better regime, rather than anarchy or a more-extreme version of what was already there.
Civilians are often the majority of the people dying or injured during any larger conflict. Up to 90% of the casualties, if the war is fought in heavily populated areas. This is not the sole determining factor in whether the war is unjust or unwise. Many more German civilians died during WWII than soldiers did. That doesn't mean the Allied invasion of Germany was a bad idea.
I wanted the ability to use AUTH on servers, so that authors could choose which posts are publicly available, and which are not. Design decisions, like that.
Also, some people didn't think women should be allowed on here unless they have fully-anon profiles, as we're supposedly all Feds or scammers, or whatnot.
Yes, it works. People were calling for my head, for a while, but they seem to have given up. Can't shut someone up, on Nostr. You can just look like a megalomanic jerk, for trying to shut them up.
Some people have to learn that lesson on here, all by themselves. For our amusement.
You read enough to be angry about it, at any rate.
Who do we want on Nostr?
https://media.tenor.com/dHBJJ1_6GfcAAAAC/everybody-kanan-gill.gif
Reminder, for the people in the back (or those stopping over from Twitter, who seem a bit confused about the point of this development effort):
#nevent1q…9a6r
Side note concerning the OP:
Anyone attempting to dictate who anyone on Nostr may onboard, communicate with, or be seen near, **is a censor** and part of the problem we are trying to solve with this technology.
They call everything a genocide, now. Or terrorism.
I don't know if liberal Iranians were strategically clever to support the war or not, but neither does anyone else. Only time will tell. I do know that @npub155a…9j44 was relieved that at least someone was finally doing something, and is probably appalled at what a mess the amateurs at the DoD have made of it. But he was also weary of facing another decade of more of the same. As we say here, _Sometimes it is better to choose a horrible end, than a horror without end._
Not everyone can or will escape to America and flounce about on Nostr (a place they generally avoid because they don't really care about it), waxing poetic about free speech, while ignoring the fact that Nostr was created for people like @npub155a…9j44 because their speech is not free. Because they live in Iran. And Iran is not a free place.
The Iranian government has since shut him up. Hopefully, not permanently.
My complaint had nothing to do with that.
She probably already has me muted.
Not me. Some of the guys.
#nevent1q…8ssx
He was exceedingly polite and nuanced.
Your behavior, in this thread, is atrocious.
Good grief. The Nostr feed isn't the friggin Epstein files. Just because you take a picture with someone at a meetup or conference, or help them onboard, or are simply friendly and courteous to them doesn't mean you're agreeing to everything they've ever said or done.
Chill, girl.
Nostr, like Bitcoin, is for enemies. 🤙🏻
Okay, cut https://jumble.imwald.eu/ down in features and made the code simpler and the feeds faster
Yes. 😂
Well, political competitions merely are a subset of marketing, really. Marketing is a subset of rhetoric.
I'm a whiskey, preferably Speyside. For those, that are wondering.
Listening to marketers is always so insightful because they understand decision-making more than anyone. How do you get someone to select something and feel good about sticking with that thing, instead of switching to something else or despairing that they should have kept looking for something better?
You give them a narrowed selection of choices, make the differences clear and transparent, and allow them to select the best of that selection. Then they feel satisfaction and that feeling remains over time.
Who is most unhappy with their selection?
1. People with no options.
2. People with too many options.
3. People who think they were tricked into selecting one option over another, better option.
As you say, she was the one you found _most beautiful_ among a particular subset, rather than in comparison to all women on the entire planet. And you still remember that positive comparison.
With me, it was the man I thought was the _hottest guy on the village football field_. 😁
We are bi-winning, Robert!
And this explains why modern women often have such seemingly haphazard simply arbitrary "selection criteria". They have so many men to choose from (or, at least, that is how they feel the situation is; it's their subjective impression of the dating market), that they struggle to figure out which subset to choose from, so they just go for whatever they think might be generally attractive or create artificial criteria that are effectively random and irrelevant.
He must be 6 feet tall and make 6 figures, is the classic, as if a man who is then 5'11,5" and $99,999.00 in income would be completely out of the question. She wouldn't even be able to determine the difference, in actuality, and he could be quite far away from those stats and still provide her with the same "girlfriend experience". (Which is why so many men simply lie about it, as she can't tell the difference, anyway.) But men also get rejected for seemingly random, one-off things like, "His opening line was only mildly funny." or "He had some spinach between his teeth after dinner." or "He drives a Ford instead of a Toyota."
This "pickiness" is the typical behavior of people who have no branded sub-selection to help them make a decision. They start comparing the penny price per liter, reading the ingredients list and obsessing over tiny differentials like this ketchup as 14 g of sugar and this other one is much much better with its 13 g of sugar. Oh, I don't like the font on this label...
Yeah, that's why I'm spending the day thinning out my app. I don't understand what is going on, anymore, and it was starting to become a mysterious no-man's-land of contradictory spaghetti, rather than my own architecture.
I was thinking about what he says here, regarding decision-making, and how no one is truly happy with a decision until they have done a sort of market-survey to see what the various _appropriate_ choices are, on offer, and get to select the most-appealing one from among them.
Seems relevant to women's modern dating behavior. Especially in a country (such as America) with highly-anonymous and socially-isolated populations and no acknowledged socio-economic classes. That leaves women facing The Entire Male Population as the selection of _possible_ husbands, and each woman has to sort of sift through that mass of men to narrow down the _appropriate, possible_ husbands. And then she still has to test and examine from that narrowed selection, to find the one she can finally "settle" on. She has to sort of iterate her way down, and it typically takes years and lots of women just give up.
The more a woman is grounded within a particular class (subset) of the population, the smaller her iterations are and the faster she can discover the Final Four and then pick the one she likes best because he has the nicest teeth and goofy humour, or whatever the winning trait is, and finally move on with her life, with the feeling that she got a good deal within her personal budget.
Her dating experience is akin to the struggle to purchase a bottle of ketchup at the grocery store. There is no readily-apparent indicator for why one bottle is more appropriate than another. You can stand in front of that stand for 3 hours and just give up and go home without ketchup. Or you find some brand, that speaks to you because of some previous association, and then you just need to select one of their sub-brands, for a bit less sugar or curry-flavor, or whatnot.
Or, to put it differently, most women start "shopping", thinking they have champagne taste and a champagne budget, but they eventually get mistreated by enough champagne-guys that it finally dawns on her that she's more of a craft-beer girl, and then she can finally concentrate on picking her favorite craft beer and just ignoring the champagne stand. And then she finds a craft beer that looks appealing and happily heads to the register.
What social classes, religious sects, guilds, villages and neighborhoods, and similar subgroups provided, was the ability for craft-beer girls to start out looking only at the craft beers and ignoring the champagne. If you were the miller's daughter, you would tend look around at the various miller's sons and throw a fit if your parents tried to pawn you off on Tom Miller instead of Stefan Miller. That was the hill you were going to die on and if they acquiesced and let you marry Stefan, then you felt like you were winning. That someone else was marrying the king, was something far off, abstract, and completely irrelevant to your own existence. At the most, you were eying the butcher's son and weighing if you could level-up like that.
Other something vaguely like that.
https://youtu.be/QBznUHAopxU
#society #dating #marriage