Do you think that pushing large boulders up to a high hill like the neolithic tribes who made stonehenge is the equivalent of converting energy into currency and status, considering what we know about the closest equivalent in cultural memory, the yap stones of Rei? And if so, is Bitcoin the new highest hill, like the ones temples were built on that were used to converge on a place on specific dates in order to come to consensus beyond the limits of the dunbar number?

I'm trying to solve the devilish event aggregation problem using LLMs.

Sometimes these personal things you're dwelling on and not processing on your own or a partner or parents or a siblings or friends are simply due to a lack of iron or some other deficiency like your gut micro-biom being disturbed.

I wouldn't make the assumption that your analogy of offloading hazardous waste to a professional is particularly healthy or helpful.

Sometimes you just need to own your shit.

Yeah I don't think anyone would expose their entire stack.

People advertise their stacks at bars all the time, just not there bitcoin stack. It's easier in real life than online, due to lack of digital scarcity.

What I realised is that the bigger threat is creating a honeypot of Bitcoiners identifiable through their partners, who went through ID verification in the past. You couldn't trust that that data would be deleted.

Of course that would be somewhat obfuscated by the fact that you couldn't conclusively map the chat on the app with a person they met in the real world and married 3 years later.

Contact the guys at Fedimint

I agree, first of all the ID verification, but I agree that people might be willing to present their ID in order to obtain compromising information that can be used in such a manner than is not traceable back to them.

In one respect my response is caveat emptor. Life, including love, is risky. And I don't think it's in the spirit of Bitcoin to protect other people from themselves.

Typically security like this, from serpentine behaviour, comes from networks where repeated interactions around shared activities allows participants to identify habitually good actors or trustworthy actors. This is extremely difficult to achieve in the context of a dating app, where dating is explicitly the goal as opposed to something that happens as an outcome of another goal that is more efficient at identifying good actors.

So in the absence of a good game that users can play, as a proxy for identifying honest actors, the app could identify patterns of behaviour that are often associated with cat fishing and pig butchering, and then warn stackers incessantly.

Big data, AI, wearables, these are the wet dreams of central planners. A percentage of software engineers leans into this for social status within a branch of tech leadership that is in favour in social engineering. It also helps them to disarm women in the field, like the cuttlefish that they are.

Haha, you mustn't know many software engineers :-)

I know plenty who have exactly this instinct, and would do it if they could get paid to do it, and the calamity that ensues would always be other people's responsibility and failure.

DYOR doesn't mean "trust your gut and whatever confirms your biases". It means "you are responsible for your beliefs and their consequences, you will always trust authorities, but you choose the authorities and there is no way to escape that fact, so you are responsible for the choice".

So if a doctor tells you to take a vaccine, you are responsible for taking the vaccine if it was a decision based upon deference to their authority. If you instead go home and watch YouTube videos you are deferring to authorities, or people you perceive to be more authoritative than the doctor, and are thus responsible for the decision, not the person who told you.

The health system used to recognise this basic fact, and hence informed consent was a foundational principle of modern healthcare. But public health, a branch of public relations, which itself was a sanitised propaganda industry, took a different view, that you are just an animal and therefore cannot be held responsible for your decisions or considered sovereign.

DYOR is just another form of NYK-NYC.

I think the first ever non-violent revolution is it's own power move, and trying to hasten things can only set us back.

The housing crisis basically everywhere has nothing to do with a shortage of housing stock or tourists and everything to do with boomers and gen-Xers storing their wealth in property. They do this because they know that the government will bail them out, they won't allow the property market to crash. Coupled with the income and the investment vehicles that allow pension funds and private investors to purchase equities backed by property, it makes investing in property at scale more liquid than simply buying second, third, and fourth homes to rent out.

Spain, Portugal, and Italy are in particularly dire straights due to the wealth inequality between generations. Spain in particular is the worst offender in Europe, where Gen-Xers were the last generation to receive fat pensions. Spanish millennials simply cannot afford the rents charged by boomers who simultaneously import cheap labour to undercut the salaries of other people's children, meaning wealth accumulates in families who were able to get onto the gravy train.

In a free market you'd have a lot of construction, including affordable homes, but the people who vote make sure they don't build enough to bring down house prices, nor to disturb the local scenery around their own homes.

This all means that younger people who can save, locked out of the property market by the scale of the deposits they are required to have saved, invest in stocks and bitcoin because these are assets they can take with them and liquidate in places that make it easier to purchase homes with decent salaries. That's why these Mediterranean countries, although clearly not the only countries experiencing housing crises, are the oldest countries in Europe demographically. The young people are just opting out.

Do carnivores, in the wild, poo?

If He can't sign the PGP key then how do you know it's really Him?

If you believe states will adopt bitcoin then securities regulation will collapse because states won't be able to defend the position that you must have permission to issue a public security. The reason for that is the permissioned system is to avoid an mid-90s Albania scenario where the entire economy is dominated by frivolous securities, and government is incentivised to pump the market be debasing the denominator.

Arguably that is what clown world is, ironically, and Bitcoin is the cure even though it is labelled part of the disease, but I digress.

So what happens when the denominator cannot be debased, and is considered a single source of monetary truth?

Well governments, who are then unable juice the economy with liquidity without spooking their citizens, start engaging in serious cost cutting and efficiency programmes. One of those is to cut legal costs and start adjudicating and enforcing other kinds of disputes based upon private key control. Yes, private keys can be lost or stolen, but the legal system will still be in place to adjudicate where there isn't a clear means of determining who is in control of the private keys.

Obviously Bitcoiners believe that future generations will be perfectly capable of managing private keys securely, and we'll go through a transition.

Now, the nub of the question is what happens when anyone can issue a security without being sanctioned by government? Well in the past they have proliferated widely, even on earlier technology platforms, pre-internet. In principle it would completely change debt markets at a local and global level. People short of Bitcoin, but with other assets like houses, or their skills, or corporate equity. They could go to a notary and sign a contract that associates whatever it with a specific public key, which is controlled by them (this is a gross simplification). Basically they agree to tokenise the asset with a regular contract. From that point the asset's ownership is determined by control of the private key.

Even small items could be tokenised in order to determine ownership in case of theft, based upon serial numbers or other unique identifiers of the object. Yeah, you still need police, but their jobs are a whole lot easier and you don't need receipts. Shops would tokenise expensive items at point of sale.

In this environment everything depends upon reputation, and brand. Companies issue public securities at foundation, so stocks are perfectly liquid. Teenagers issue securities in order to generate the capital to go to university or pursue apprenticeships. Tokenisation entirely replaces credit scores and other centralised trust systems. If investors see you issuing new tokens it'll debase the early issuance, meaning your securities will get sold off without justification. It'll be completely normalised.

I think that Trump and Larry Fink and others understand this. It will take 50 years maybe, but this is the likely outcome of a bitcoin standard.

I think we just have to keep pushing back that bitcoin is not proof of stake and it's literally for everyone, friends and enemies, and that a mid-90s Albania scenario is not possible in the context of a denominator that cannot be debased.

Aside from that you will never win over entrenched opinions where people have staked their reputation in opposition to Bitcoin and so will invent a whole host of nonsense reasons from their desired conclusions. Bitcoin simply doesn't care.

Stay humble and stack sats.

There is one in Brazil that is successful. That is their model at the moment.