There never was. No government is good but some are particularly criminal. Like the one responsible for Ukraine - US of fucking A

I find this article uninformed and fairly misguided.

first of all there is no such thing as bitcoin jobs. Half of the article is dancing around the fact that most "bitcoin" companies are startups. some might have some of their treasury in bitcoin. Some offer payment in bitcoin. All of the have the same problems as every startup under the sun. And most have more problems due to the cyclicality of bitcoin.

The only difference (potentially, its far from the only industry where people want to work in it due to being passionate about something) is that a lot of people in this industry and either already independently rich and have companies because they want to do something in the space since they are bitcoiners or people who take significant pay cuts because they want to work on something they believe in vs random corporate job.

Also the insistence of "it needs to be a real job" is laughable. If anything the thing that could really enable cool "bitcoin" jobs is novel ways people could cooperate and coordinate without the need of permission of the state. the need of some bureaucrat telling you how a commercial transaction between two willing parties must look and what a company looks like. It is basically saying "i'm disappointed because I cannot get paid market rates in bitcoin while having all the social security and other nanny state benefits and promised income until I retire".

This article should've been one paragraph at best if at all exist.

I'm surprised you havent come across it before, its hard to have a company in this space and not be somewhat affected by it

https://archive.is/vQrhd for the nonpaywalled version

how do you define reasonable scarcity? We don't live in reasonable scarcity, we lived in imposed scarcity because we are enslaved by the governments and interests that those enable.

we could reasonably produce A FUCKTON more energy than we currently do, but we are trapped in our minds and way of thinking from 3 centuries ago.

If only we can free our minds and ourselves from the shackles put on by our "society" we have limitless opportunities and then scarcity looks a lot different than it does now.

generally the idea is that LSP commits to the fee structure at the time of the purchase (lets say i'll keep the fees at 100ppm for the duration of 1y). None of it is really enforcable so its more of a promise and reputation of the lsp to keep it.

In reality you want the LSP to be making money from your channel as that incentivizes it to keep it open forever. Of course how much and how is up to the market to figure out - maybe you prefer to pay a larger sum upfront for the opening and have zero outbound fees for the duration of the contract, or maybe you prefer to pay a fee every time you use the channel but have cheaper upfront payment (mostly to onchain fees otherwise the lsp is exposed to an attack vector)

if the channel is economically productive there is little incentive for the lsp to close it. if the channel is dormant then capital allocation is very poor if you don't close the channels after the duration for which you were paid for (1y in this case). Of course there is also the opportunity cost of closing the channel - will the onchain fees be higher than potential revenue from capital reallocation

another thing to consider is that users go away so you don't really want to keep the channels who are not doing any traffic since its also a high possibility that the user stopped using the wallet/lost keys/forgot about it. but this goes back to the efficiency of capital allocation from before.

I don't particularly care to explain the nuance of all the things you've just hand-waved away as your comment is very naive and simplistic.

point of my original comment was that bitcoiners for all their suppose believes in freedom and whatnot quickly slip into a very prescriptive mode of "i know best, you should do as i think". You keep going on with "everyone is free to do whatever they want" and "i know whats best for everyone" at the same time, so I'll stop wasting my time with this conversation now.

Savings is a use case. Its economically irrational to spend the hardest asset you own instead of shittier when possible.

I understand the sentiment but I think its also very contradictory to everyone being free to do as they please without people trying to bully them into spending their hard earned sats.

this is voluntary by you, you can walk away any moment (at least theoretically, then given the horrible nature of the nanny states theres potentially 100 laws preventing that and forcing both you and the employer into god knows what, but at least you've agreed to it when you agreed to the employment). With state's authority you really can't. You're born into servitude and it takes extreme measures to get out of it, and that will limit your freedoms in other direction (if you give up your passport/citizenship) and live in the wilderness somewhere you will likely have a very hard time traveling to other places that have boarders and require you to have permission to enter them

Voluntary organisation selecting a leader for a project is not equal to someones authority over you.

Its almost like you are saying bitcoin should be a cbdc where you could control what ppl do with it?

I have been eating eggs for breakfast for years now. Depending where I am I will throw in platano if i'm in the tropics. Or a leftover piece of steak or some other meat. I also just throw in some ground beef if i feel like i need variety. But its always 3-4 scrambled eggs. But I'll eat bacon or prosciutto with it if its around.

Occasionally I make them sunny side up. All the variety needed.

its a first event in a long time that i'm feeling a bit of fomo for

juggling my time between consulting gigs that feed my belly, freedom tech projects that distract me and long term projects that should replace the consulting ones at some point