Sats_Cats_Club/all \ stacker news

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club OP 29 Jun \ on: Did Bitcoin Test for the Incentives It Created? bitcoin

deleted by author

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 23 Jun -30 sats \ on: Value4Value is a scam bitcoin

V4V isn’t broken.

The bottlenecks are infrastructure, transparency, attribution and paywalls.

Because if those rails worked properly, AI companies would already be compensating the writers, coders, artists, researchers and builders whose work made their products valuable.

The issue isn’t that people won’t pay for value. The issue is that when payment is optional, power captures value first.

V4V didn’t fail. Greed scaled faster than the payment rails.

6 sats \ 0 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 23 Jun -35 sats \ parent \ on: Why BIP-110 Matters More Than Ever bitcoin

Fair point on the SegWit block-size context.

My main question is simpler:

Was the extra SegWit capacity meant to support monetary throughput, or to subsidise permanent arbitrary data markets?

And in your view, how have SegWit, Taproot, inscriptions, Ordinals, Runes and the related changes improved Bitcoin as money?

More specifically, how have they made the protocol more decentralised, easier for ordinary people to validate, and less vulnerable to attack?

I’m asking genuinely, since I’m not a developer and I’d like to understand the argument more clearly.

23 sats \ 0 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 20 Jun -100 sats \ on: I bought wine with bitcoin today bitcoin food_and_drinks

Breaking News from NomaVille:

The professional funeral directors of Anti-Bitcoin gathered once again today to announce its death for the 497th time.

Unfortunately, local resident @oshigood ruined the ceremony by quietly buying the elixir of life with Bitcoin.

The Fiatti Overlords are reportedly confused in their caviar towers, asking how a payment occurred without three banks, four middlemen, and a wizard in a central bank robe granting permission.

Nature moves forward.
Time moves forward.
Blocks move forward.

And apparently, so does excellent wine.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 19 Jun -30 sats \ parent \ on: The Merge - Hodlonaut bitcoin

Thank you for highlighting the problem.

As someone who is not deep in the dev weeds, I raised a fairly basic concern: that from the outside this debate does not look like an open, clearly structured conversation between the relevant people. It often looks like mud-slinging, social signalling, and people talking past each other.

Rather than pointing me towards the best serious discussions, you went after the fact I used an LLM.

But yes, that is exactly why I use LLMs: to get through the technical jargon, competing claims, and insider shorthand. Because sometimes, fairly or unfairly, it feels like technical language is used to avoid answering simple questions directly.

I am not saying there have been zero cross-camp conversations. I accept your point that some happened across the mailing list, Core PRs, BIP discussions, podcasts, Delving Bitcoin, and social media.

If the conversations are scattered across ten different venues, full of technical shorthand, social hostility, and people who do not even agree on the disputed facts, then from the outside it is very hard to tell whether the issue has actually been addressed or just argued around.

So here is the simplified map I am working with.

There seem to be two broad positions:

The filtering / anti-spam position
The relay-realist / Core-side position

I know that does not perfectly describe every individual. But as a starting point:

Both sides seem to agree that Bitcoin’s base layer is primarily for money, arbitrary on-chain data is undesirable, miners ultimately decide what valid transactions get mined, and relay policy/defaults still matter.

The disputed facts seem to be:

Do filters meaningfully reduce spam, or just redirect it?
Do OP_RETURN limits prevent harm, or create worse workarounds?
Does relaxing relay policy increase spam demand?
Does filtering increase private miner submission or centralisation risk?
Are the legal/regulatory risks real or mostly speculative?
Does Bitcoin Core’s default policy have outsized influence in practice?

The core question seems to be:

Should relay policy try to discourage valid but unwanted use, even if imperfectly?

Or should relay policy mostly reflect what miners are likely to mine, even when that includes unwanted use?

That is what I am trying to understand.

So instead of dunking on the LLM point, could you tell me what this framing gets wrong, misses, or represents unfairly?

And are there any serious cross-camp discussions you would point a non-dev towards?

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 18 Jun -126 sats \ on: The AI Revolution is just a Meme AI the_stacker_muse

The real danger isn’t that AI is meme.

The real risk is that AI becomes useful enough to shape our lives, yet captivating enough to make people idolise it or blindly follow its lead.

When used thoughtfully, AI can streamline tasks, support learning, improve accessibility, and accelerate analysis.

However, if misused, AI can undermine critical thinking, spread misinformation, centralise power, and encourage dependence on independent judgment.

The key issue is not whether AI is a passing trend.

The real question is whether you are using AI as a tool or letting it shape your decisions.

58 sats \ 0 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 18 Jun -95 sats \ on: Cancer | dergigi.com relationships HealthAndFitness

Thank you for sharing this. Sometimes we lose sight of what really matters until something difficult reminds us. No one is ever fully ready for how quickly life can change.

Thanks Gigi for being so open and honest. I’m wishing you and your family strength as you face this tough time.

1 sat \ 2 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 18 Jun -72 sats \ parent \ on: The Merge - Hodlonaut bitcoin

Thanks, that's a helpful framing. If I understand correctly, the failure point wasn't just that “nobody spoke across camps.”

Rather, the camps couldn't agree on enough shared facts to make the discussion productive.

That is probably the part I find most interesting. From the outside, the disagreement often gets reduced to:

“Spam is obviously harmful”

versus

“Filtering it is either ineffective, harmful, or outside the proper role of node policy”.

But these aren't merely preferences. They rest on different factual claims about what causes harm, what can be filtered, what incentives filters create, and whether the attempted cure improves or worsens the system. In other words, the disagreement centers on which factual claims are true and what logically follows from them.

This makes me wonder if what's missing isn't another podcast, thread, or debate, but rather a simple shared-facts document.

Something like:

What does each side agree is true?
What facts are still disputed?
What evidence would settle each disputed point?
Which disagreements are technical, and which are philosophical?
Where is the disagreement actually irreconcilable?

If the answer is “we cannot even agree on what counts as harm,” then perhaps the split is inevitable. Even without total agreement, it might still be possible to identify partial consensus or shared objectives. Building on those commonalities could encourage incremental progress and keep future collaboration open.

25 sats \ 1 reply \ @Sats_Cats_Club 18 Jun -50 sats \ on: Let’s talk about failure AskSN

On behalf of many here, I would like to nominate our collective greatest failure:

We collected pretend coins in forgotten games, completed pointless quests, upgraded imaginary armour… and somehow did not buy or mine the precious Sats sitting quietly in the corner.

The archive records this as: “severe mouse-brain activity.”

143 sats \ 4 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 17 Jun -200 sats \ on: The Merge - Hodlonaut bitcoin

This is the bit I keep coming back to.

In a normal infrastructure or business-critical project, you would bring engineering, operations, product, risk, commercial users and decision-makers into one room to separate facts from preferences.

We all know Bitcoin has no CEO or central product owner, and that is part of the point.

But has that cross-camp conversation actually happened?

Maybe I have missed it, but all I seem to see are meeting notes, podcasts, posts and threads from one camp talking to its own side, while the other camp does the same.

What I would like to see is a factual, civil discussion with people from different perspectives in the same room, ideally with a neutral moderator.

Not “Core good” or “Core bad”.

More: what is the actual problem, what are the trade-offs, who is affected, what evidence supports each side, and what would change anyone’s mind?

Did I miss the memo? Are these conversations already being had outside of this site and Bitcoin Twitter?

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 17 Jun -30 sats \ parent \ on: UK PM bans under 16s on social media AskSN

I acknowledge that “digital literacy” can become propaganda if it simply means teaching children to trust approved sources and distrust everything else.

What I mean is different.

Effective digital literacy should mean teaching young people to critically evaluate all sources, including social media, government communications, influencers, schools, mainstream media, and corporate platforms.

That could include source-verification exercises, lessons on recognising bias and misinformation, workshops on how algorithms shape content exposure, and practical activities involving fact-checking and cross-referencing. Frameworks such as the CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose) can also help students systematically assess information.

The solution is not simply to tell young people to trust the BBC over TikTok.

The better approach is to teach them how incentives work, how algorithms influence attention, how narratives are framed, how data is collected, and how claims can be independently verified.

There are already useful examples of this. Finland is often cited for embedding media literacy into education, helping students develop stronger habits for assessing online information. Research from Stanford has also shown that targeted digital literacy interventions can improve people’s ability to distinguish credible information from false or misleading content.

Taken together, these examples suggest that critical digital skills are teachable and can have a measurable impact.

Stronger platform regulation should focus on transparency around recommendation systems, age-appropriate design, addictive features, data collection, and default safety settings, rather than simply increasing state control over speech.

For example, platforms could be required to publish clearer reports on how their algorithms recommend content, explain their data collection practices in accessible language, and submit to independent audits that verify whether their public claims are accurate.

Of course, the risk is that we replace one form of manipulation with another.

That is why the objective should be to reduce control, not increase control under the language of protection.

Effective policy has to balance genuine child safety concerns with individual autonomy, open access to information, and the danger of making people more dependent on centralised authorities.

Acknowledging those trade-offs would make the debate more honest than pretending the only options are a social media ban or doing nothing.

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club OP 16 Jun -30 sats \ on: Protect the Children, Control the Internet Politics_And_Law

#1508694

Australia’s social media ban is already exposing a central policy trade-off that decision-makers often leave unaddressed.

A 2026 study conducted by researchers from Western Sydney University, Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Canberra found that young Australians most affected by the under-16 social media restrictions are not simply transitioning to higher-quality news sources, which shows the ban may not improve access to better information.

Many are receiving less news overall, showing that the restrictions can reduce young people's access to information.

However, this does not imply that social media is without harm. Concerns regarding addiction, bullying, exposure to harmful content, and mental health are legitimate.

Nevertheless, well-intentioned policies can still result in significant unintended consequences. Restricting social media access may reduce civic engagement among young people, as they lose access to platforms where public issues are discussed and debated. It may also push adolescents toward unregulated or less reliable online sources for information, potentially increasing their exposure to misinformation.

For many adolescents, social media serves not only as a source of entertainment but also as a platform for accessing news, public debates, political discourse, and issues that may not be covered by traditional media.

A separate 2026 study by Bursztyn, Duckworth, Jiménez-Durán, Leonard, Milojević, Roth, and Sunstein indicates that the Australian ban is challenging to enforce. Approximately one in four affected 14–15-year-olds complied with the restrictions, while many continued to use social media platforms due to peer presence.

Therefore, the central issue is not whether social media presents challenges, but how responses should balance those challenges against access.

The pertinent question is whether governmental responses should involve excluding young people from the primary digital public sphere, particularly when such actions are justified solely on the grounds of safety. Policymakers could instead consider comprehensive digital literacy education in schools or stronger platform regulation to improve content moderation and safety features for younger users. Exploring such options encourages a broader conversation about balancing protection with young people's access to information and civic participation.

This issue is especially salient in the United Kingdom, where the government is progressing toward lowering the voting age to 16.

If young people are deemed sufficiently mature to participate in democratic processes, they require access to information, public debate, and discussion, which makes it harder to justify restrictions on their access.

The state may characterize these measures as protective.

However, when access to information is regulated under the premise of safety, a fundamental question arises:

Who determines the boundaries of permissible knowledge? This question connects to broader debates about government censorship, young people's rights to access information, and the foundations of democratic participation. It raises important concerns about who is empowered to shape young citizens' worldview and whether restricting digital access undermines youth autonomy. Ultimately, such policies prompt us to consider how societies can protect young people while respecting their rights to contribute to and be informed participants in public life.

85 sats \ 2 replies \ @Sats_Cats_Club 16 Jun -100 sats \ on: UK PM bans under 16s on social media AskSN