No, Space Chains for life 💪

I read some tweet that it's paternalistic (read: coercive). Dude, I don't think you know what coercion means if you think this voluntary software offering and option to default to helping protect you is coercive.

I'll turn it on, but one shouldn't rely on unconfirmed transactions anyway. It's like not wearing a seatbelt when driving a car. Full-RBF, is the seatbelt. I can see times where this is necessary if you're 007 or something and need to lean out the fire a gun (not show how this metaphor translates to Bitcoin anymore, lol), but wearing a seatbelt will save you in real life, if not from yourself, definitely from other drivers.

E.G. Before gold had an explanation for its value as an abstraction for rarity (as well as a useful base metal, for say, blocking out ultraviolet light), it was useless. I'm sure the cave men would rather have had a steak.

Because market price is a measurement of knowledge about utility, not the utility itself.

Here's an actual Japanese news source for the news

They're working on policy for extending life while simultaneously creating rules for next-gen plants (e.g. NuScale, TerraPower).

It's weird to me that more energy companies haven't gone Bitcoin first, like simultaneously deploying Bitcoin at a new energy site as backup for over supply situations. There's no reasonable explanation for it happening soon or ever, but imagine if the policies that Japan was working on forced contingencies for oversupplied situations for new power generation projects. This sort of policy would be especially applicable for Japan considering how much the population is supposed to decline in the next 20-30 years.

Let's hope so.

This guy is a tool. Figuratively and literally. I avoid Snowden content like the plague.

Race to secure uranium stocks, too. Check out Sprott Physical Uranium Trust

Yeah there's a beta iOS app too called Damus, I've played with the astral.ninja instance, too it's fun to play around with that's for sure. I'm there at: 27da3f032e0fea007947b0da12f1183630c5a2da79d7202b96f35f16ef6ce48e if anyone wants to add me, but I don't post much.

Also just analysing the cost. 115 credits is 15 bucks. And there are 15 free credits every couples weeks. 13 cents an image, that's about 657 at the current exchange rate. Pretty good deal, tbh! Like the business model!

This is cool but it needs to be expanded to include all the tools (incl. MidJourney and StableDiffusion), for variations, and it needs to add outpainting and the breadth of options of StableDiffusion. Cool idea though!

The justification has, until recently, been that people need to be protected from themselves: they underestimate the amount of stability and buffer they need in times of economic exuberance and depression.

Also, it has, until recently, been very difficult to coordinate price changes across an entire economy in a quick efficient and automated fashion. Also, it's a lot of cognitive load to, while at the supermarket, calculate expenses for, say, a month in sats alone.

This is all to say "stable coins" have real utility. Bitcoin is what it is, I'm sure most on here who read this will have very complex explanations in their mind for what it is and how it works. One great thing that can be done on Bitcoin is to iterate and improve upon stablecoins in the way that your post suggests. It makes it much easier to coordinate a market for stablecoins. I'm personally really excited about Chaumian-mint, Taro and Spacechain based stablecoins.

Hopefully this comes through before the next cycle. As it is corporations are taxed on crypto for unrealized gains, even if you doN't sell. Not the case for individuals, I think.

Have you ever read The Beginning of Infinity (or The Fabric of Reality)? What do you think of Deutsch's knowledge based definition of wealth? ("[non-parochially] as the repertoire of physical transformations that [people] would be capable of causing.")

Welcome! We all have different perspectives and different journeys. Regarding the token issue you mention in bold: Check out Ruben Somsen's spacechains!

Those were indeed disasters. But fear of disaster used as justification for preventing progress (eg regulation and moratorium on nuclear energy, like happened in Germany and has lead to the situation in Ukraine) is extremely myopic thinking. Besides fusion (deuterium and tritium), Uranium has the second highest energy density of substances we know of, and we already know how to use it. How energy dense is it? Check this out, a picture of how much Uranium is needed to produce the equivalent energy of 4,400 gallons of petrol.

Geothermal energy is not accessible everywhere (eg. volcanos are not everywhere, and they are also not without danger). All renewable energy sources are sporadic and unpredictable, and therefore dangerous to stability of an energy grid. There is no one size fits all, of course. And a variety is the spice of live. But, nuclear IS getting safer, and supporting that progress, for example by buying stock and supporting research and outreach, is the way to go.

I see a lot of misconceptions that organizations like Greenpeace have been pushing since the 70s still pushed today. These are mostly mesofacts.

For a theoretical basis of the nuclear argument, this is a great analysis of a chapter from a book I'd highly recommend: Unsustainable

I also recommend checking out Meredith Angwin and her book 'Shorting the Grid'

Very interesting. Without nuclear no grid will be stable long term. It's the greenest, cleanest, most dense form of energy we know how to use--and we're only getting better at using it. As for the weather, it's going to be extremes, which is unsustainable, unpredictable. So it can never be just renewables, alone.

With that in mind, there's lots to be optimistic about, just check the nuclear news on Google.

Stay optimistic, and i'm with you on the health and safety! Problems are inevitable, problems are soluble.

お疲れ様でした。

It really depends if we die and on how our children's children view Bitcoin. It's code, it's an explanation of an voluntary economic system, literally any part of it is subject to change given adequate reason. Never is only useful for physically impossible things, like light going faster than the speed of light. It is possible that code changes, for example, give satoshi's coins to miners as the block reward starts to decline for some security related reason and enough people in a hundred years agree to run the software. I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm just saying that it's not outside of the realm of being a solution to some problem in a future which has infinite unknown problems.

If we're talking theory, let's start with why regulations exist and why Bitcoin was created.

Regulation requires enforcement. Enforcement requires authority. Reality has no authority greater than the individual person. Any person is capable of understanding anything that is understandable. Thus, there is no way to, for example, communicate in such a way as to not be misunderstood/misinterpreted--because theory creation happens in individual minds. All observations are theory-laden. There is no "authority" that has some magic ability to understand something that any other human could not in principal also understand.

So, back to enforcement: Force and coercion are always impediments to creativity and understanding real explanations. If the explanation is understood, for example the risk with buying Bitcoin, then there would be no need for regulation. Kids ask for bumpers at the bowling alley, sure. Sometimes, perhaps, people will ask for 'bumpers' at their shitcoin casino--but there's a difference between an option and force. Regulation isn't about optionality in principal.

Bitcoin is a way to do what rich people have done for ages. Move between regulatory games (read: governments). If you buy Bitcoin once, and you have enough money to travel and get around, that means it's possible to choose any jurisdiction you want.

The underlying theory behind regulation is something like: "people are too stupid to understand something and/or control themselves, so we will force them to do something until they either adopt the behavior without understanding it, or understand it to the point of not questioning it." Regulations change when disobedient creative people break the rules to solve problems. In this war regulations are always a parochial solutions to long term problems.

If you stretch the definition of 'regulation' to encompass 'explanation' (reason), then Bitcoin itself always has its own regulations which users agree do when they use the software. Regulations about fees, where the fees go, when transactions will occur, who gets to make those transactions, etc.

Is it useful, then, to add extra analog regulations on top of Bitcoin's coded 'regulations'? Why? I'm not sure it is. However, I think the way to do that, for example solving the long term problem of digital stablecoins, isn't by going backward. It's by going forward. Something like Somsen's Spacechains which create anti-speculative one-way-pegged sidechain tokens directly on Bitcoin. But try explaining that to "regulatory authorities".