@abetusk

4163 sats \ 3431 stacked

All very awesome improvements. And also glad to hear about investors!

Can you talk a bit about some of the new ideas?

I try and post things that I think this community will find interesting, even if it's contrary to a "pro-Bitcoin" narrative.

I don't feel I have a deep understanding of Mina or the underlying mathematics so I was kind of hoping someone more knowledgeable than myself could weigh in on why it's good/bad.

In particular, Mina is trying to solve the "large blockchain" issue via zero knowledge proofs (or SNARKS?) (I think). Does this approach have a fundamental flaw? If so, why? If not why not? Could the ideas be incorporated into Bitcoin? Are other people looking into it?

Part of my understanding of the fundamentals of Bitcoin are having an idea of it's limitations and why other solutions can/can't be used to overcome them.

TLDR; posted here to provoke interesting discussion, not to shill for altcoins.

0x is a convention of starting a string representing a number in base 16, otherwise known as hexadecimal.

I have some Dogecoin that I'd be willing to send your way, if you set up a Dogecoin wallet and give me your address. I know Dogecoin is an altcoin but it's what I have available. I think it's pretty easy to trade Dogecoin for other cryptocurrencies.

If you'd be open to art commissions that would put your art under a libre/free license (one of CC0, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) then I might be willing to send more. Feel free to email me at abetusk@mechaelephant.com if you want to discuss it more.

Ha, so basically tie an actual energy cost to the whole "programmer speed" vs. "execution speed" graph (see).

I think the paper is exclusively talking about execution of the program and not the resources in creating it. Considering programmer time is measured in individuals or small teams and execution is measured in millions of executions/uses, my bet is, for the most part, any cost associated with program creation will quickly get washed out by execution cost. Notice how many Python libraries are created in lower level languages with hooks into Python for exactly that reason.

Both of the reasons you state have been things I've heard, so it seems reasonable but I think there are many other factors and I would hesitate to waive my hands and declare those as the biggest two.

For example, Bitcoin Beach was pretty influential, providing advocacy and a test bed for Bitcoin usage and adoption. I imagine they also did quite a bit of lobbying. Maybe they even were listened to more because of their economic success?

Also, from reading Wikipedia, it looks like El Salvador was the worlds leader in remittances (per capita) from abroad, which is a major use case of Bitcoin in its current form.

So, just as likely as reasons #1 and #2 listed above, there could be a "Reason #3: Strong Lobbyist Presence, Including A Community That Is Piloting Adoption" and "Reason #4: Substantial Remittances From Abroad".

I certainly don't know and I feel pretty ignorant when it comes to how adoption actually played out in El Salvador. I would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable than myself on what actually happened to make it a reality.

In terms of other countries, there's been quite a few articles. Here are a few that I've found just Googling:

Some countries that keep coming up are: Brazil, Panama, Cuba, Ukraine. Countries that have high adoption that I don't hear about so much: Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines (src).

There were rumors of Brazil making Bitcoin legal tender, but it looks like those are mostly false and they're just trying to just regulate Bitcoin.

Vietnam is apparently extremely high in adoption and I'm failing to see why. Maybe something about China banning mining and miners moving to Vietnam? Some other reason based on mining and cheap electricity with access to hardware? I really have no idea.

This always runs the risk of diverting your attention too much by implementing too many features but, if done, can offer a good avenue of experimentation. This is kind of the best of both worlds.

If the unmoderated subs become a cesspool, we know moderation is needed. If they flourish, we know moderation isn't. This also gives a testing ground for other "economic policies" to iterate through features that will mitigate problems that come up.

Thanks for the update!

This revision does look a lot more concise. I think it gives a good overview that stands on its own but can also serve as a good backup if you were to do a verbal presentation with it.

It kind of hits all the points:

  • A concise description of what stacker.news is
  • Problems with current solutions and how stacker.news solves them
  • User/community testimonials
  • Addressable market
  • User growth
  • Business strategy
  • Personal credentials
  • The ask along with why and what it'll be used for

I have some conceptual issues, which I'll discuss below. The only real suggestion is a very minor one in that you might want to turn the saturation down on the lightning bolt in the background of each of the slides so it doesn't clash with the text so much.

Here are some conceptual issues that I see:

  • It's not clear that you won't need moderation, in some form (even if you don't call it moderation). Figuring out more of the specifics of which economic policy would specifically help prevent the need for moderation might be good to think about
  • It's not clear to me how to get a decentralized stacker.news. Is there some sort of sharing of stacker.news content between different nodes (an API?)? Does stacker.news publish content on the blockchain somewhere?
  • Maintaining discourse at scale (pg 8) is more than being Sybil resistant. I don't claim to have any deep insight but I think it's a balance between being accessible to a wider audience but still having enough specificity to have engaging discussions. I've linked them before but I'll link to Clay Shirky's "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy" and kuro5hin's article "Attack From Within"
  • I still disagree with "exclusivity -> more desirable". Lowering barrier to entry and making it more accessible to people is more in the spirit of why I joined this community and in line with what I associate with a "Bitcoin ethos"
  • Referral rewards can be abused. So long as you're on top of it, it's not a big deal as you're essentially trying to promote user onboarding, but that can blow up if you're not careful.
  • What's this "native ads" business with boosting posts? (pg 7)

All of the above points are really about a vision of what stacker.news is and where it's going, so I hesitate to call these problems as we might just have a difference of opinion. Even if there were more to say about each subject, in terms of a specific roadmap to implement them or experiment with them in this space, it might not even be appropriate to put in the pitch deck.

I would suggest at least having a rough idea of how to solve these problems that's has a bit more specificity. For example, if an economic policy is going to solve the moderation problem, figuring out which economic policy, even in broad strokes, would probably be beneficial. Figuring out a roadmap for P2P stacker.news. Figuring out how to keep quality discourse at scale (which might overlap with moderation or lack thereof). would probably be good. Etc.

As always, thanks for being so transparent, it's really nice to get more insight into how these things operate. And please let us know how it goes!

Good luck!

Or someone provides an open standard on top of Bitcoin which then eats the banks lunch.

Without cryptocurrency, your path for Stripe or some other equivalent service seems reasonable. With Bitcoin, this might be another use case where it could have been possible in fiat but cryptocurrency is able to execute on the idea because it's a better fit with the ecosystem and Bitcoin doesn't have all the baggage that comes from perverse incentives that the banking industry has.

The LIghtning Network is not generating any coins. It's locking funds between two (or more?) parties (on chain) so they can transact between themselves and settle on chain at a later point.

Proof of work is doing work to win the lottery to get the privilege of furthering the blockchain with the added benefit of allowing the winner to reward themselves with coin.

Proof of stake is staking already generated coin to win the lottery to further the blockchain (and give themselves a reward).

Good god man.

"I've just received 1000 sats from @k00b, ask me anything"

For the last point, I understand the value of the substack but I was asking what the "value added" was for the person creating the substack. For example, why not just have anyone be able to create a substacker community without the reward structure for the creator? Maybe offer some "bounty" whereby some group of people can give the 10k sat threshold required to create the community (like a "Kickstarter" like thing or sort of how the area51.stackexchange voting works) if you want to only create communities that have actual buy-in.

Giving 50% of sats earned to the creator in the substack is kind of weird, especially if the creator doesn't do anything but create the substack and leave. In some sense, this is encouraging rent-seeking behavior. I can imagine that practically, the creator would be invested to drive content, especially if there's some 10k sat to recoup (say), but if a savy substack creator finds a good topic, all they have to do is sit back and let other people do the work to earn 50% on all proceeds.

More importantly, from my point of view, the creator's only real contribution to the substack was to create it. All other power, assuming you don't want any type of "admin/mod" behavior, isn't present.

If you don't give any real power to control the content in the substack to the creator, then why give them 50% of profits, why not just let the community create substacks and have at them? If you do imagine giving some power to the substack creator, what is it? That is, what "value add" does a substack creator give to the substack they create?

I hope people don't mind me posting so much [Molly Rocket] interviews, but this one I thought had some interesting points.

[Amaury Sechet] has some interesting points about Bitcoin volatility:

  • As miners get more Bitcoin, they need to exchange it for fiat to cover real-world expenses of office space, rent, etc. This has an effect of driving the price down because there's more demand, so this has an "amplifying effect" in the negative direction
  • Conversely, as Bitcoin price goes up miners can hold onto their coins more, choking supply and driving the price up, creating an "amplifying effect" in the other direction

In other words, swings up and down get amplified. [Sechet]'s point is that using the Bitcoin as an actual currency has a stabilizing effect to counteract the volatility from the miners.

I don't know if it's true or even how to verify it but, if true, is a good counterpoint to a lot of the critiques of Bitcoin only being used as a store of value or not being used in any meaningful sense.

Wow, apparently 65-70% of El Salvadorians disapprove of Bitcoin adoption (AP news)?

This sounds like a cool experiment.

Here's my 2 sats:

  1. Cool
  2. Substacker is a good name (is "subreddit" any better?)
  3. Why not make it stacker.news/s/<substack_name>? Also, while you're at it, why not make stacker/news/u/<username>? the /s/ and /u/ clearly deliniate what item it is we're looking at. If you wanted to be really clever, you could do a search over users and substack names (with some preference for breaking ties) that doesn't have the prefix.
  4. Maybe a later feature, but it might be nice to have pools of people getting some stake for the substack, instead of just one person. It also might be nice to set the percentage the creator gets from the substack instead of fixing it at 50%. Some other questions:
    • Will other users be able to create sub-substacks whose parent substack is not owned by them? If so, how do you allocate sats that are in the range of (0,1)? Also, does the parent user/owner have power to delete the sub-substack and/or set policy to allow users to create sub-substacks?
    • Does the owner/creator of the substack have permissions to remove posts and/or comments in their substack?
    • What's the main "value added" to the community for someone creating a substack?

GitHub link.

This is quite old, like 10+ years ago?

Jeez, kind of hard to understand what's going on.

Their site has some better pictures of the actual device.

Anyone have experience running agora? Could you share some thoughts?

There's a thread with pictures embedded in the comments here.

The following markdown snippet:

1![flammarion](https://github.com/abetusk/2d/blob/release/3rdparty/Flammarion-color-1.jpg?raw=true)

Will produce:

flammarion