I don't think you need that kind of faith, I think you just have to have faith that a healthier more coordinated minority will dominate society. If you have poor digital hygiene you should bare the consequences yourself, and not able to offload the negative side effects on the rest of us. If that means kicking over our nation state democratic system in favour of a more devolved governance system built on hierarchy then so be it, we need to topple the bankrupt gerantocracy somehow.

Bottom line: majoritarianism and healthy digital spaces are incompatible.

Ads already killed the web. There is a narrow window to use LLMs to resurrect it while behavioural modes are liquid and we can finally aggregate all of the real world events and tie online identities and reputation to participation in physical communities, thereby allowing people to enforce moral norms within distributed and decentralised networks, to sanitise digital public spaces without centralised control systems.

AI-slop is an opportunity to convince people to finally defect from the dominant ad funded paradigm, to disconnect to reconnect.

Maybe we can even kill the ad model entirely by creating a service that is monetised in a manner that aligns with user-purposes and make the use of apps that serve ads into a lower-class or socially disapproved behaviour, like smoking or pissing in the public square. Ads and the engagement model has to be associated with dirt, poor digital hygiene. With a sufficiently powerful alternative you could probably propagate that idea to nurture a vibe shift, starting with women and parents, who would then enforce it on the rest.

We're probably too late to save Gen-Z from the worst effects of the ad funded internet and the bunk ideology of 'revealed preferences', but maybe we can prepare the road for Gen-Alpha.

I wonder if I territory can have reduced permissions, so you can't see it unless you've signed up with a lightning wallet.

I know it's not much of a filter for someone determined, but if it's successful then maybe it could be moved to a domain like stacker.exchange on the same auth system with more advanced features that help to foster Bitcoin as a medium of a exchange.

Fair enough, but there are subreddits that do the same, but are full of scams. I don't think it's much different.

Why would this require hosted wallets? Again, I'm not talking about an escrow service. You zap the bitcoin-buyer directly with a message attached to the zap that allows them to send the voucher to you.

SN would not be an intermediary. The person doing the work would be the person who puts up the bitcoin to start the territory and then moderates it.

If you did that you'd need to restate the rules repetitively, and different people would set slightly or dramatically different terms.

Simple protocols for conducting these exchanges are useful because they can be argued about until optimal terms and processes are agreed by the widest group of people, and thus rough consensus reduces friction. Basically people know what to do and what to expect without needing to read the entire post, and if one party deviates from the protocol and there is a mix-up that results in loss of funds they can't claim that the other party was wrong, whoever deviated from the terms of the territory is by default in the wrong.

Name the existing territory such a bounty would be posted to.

I'm not proposing that SN become a middleman, no more than Facebook or Craigslist are middlemen. I'm not describing or proposing an escrow service or system of dispute mediation.

It could be cheating on tests in general

This is, for better or worse, where every Western country is going. Its being legitimised as a participation income, but basic income is a more popular term.

In other words its a basic income for people who participate in society without being supported by the market.

Its not permanent in the sense that the people receiving the payment permanently get the payment, they have to continue being artists, and when they are added to a list its a lottery system for 2000 artists.

Some people are not included, like comedians (thank God, because government funded comedy would be the worst).

Its terrible because it means artists can't express any political opinions that deviate from the deep state line.

Carer's allowance is another kind of participation income that is seen as legitimate, although the state doesn't want to go there because it would bankrupt it, there are too many kids with autism that cannot function without full-time care. Their parents get almost no support, its a life sentence. But to give them an income that they could use to pay for care would open the door to a wide variety of carers, including those who are only nominally carers but in fact live off the pensions of the people who are supposedly being cared for, such as elderly people.

Really the schemes should be devolved to local communities, distributed to the greatest extent possible, and experiments conducted in narrow districts before rolling them out to "all artists" which just breeds resentment.

We do need a revolution in the idea of a welfare state, if jobs are decimated, and if money has to be printed for redistribution then I'll happily buy bitcoin and leave the system entirely, but I would like to see that money distributed in a decentralised way to people who participate in communities in positive ways.

But our society and elites are just too stupid for this kind of careful exploration of the problem.

I hope one of you has ovaries!

Because they want bitcoin to support the dollar, not the other way around.

Ok I think you're just trying to win a debate instead of thinking objectively. Systems and incentives are complex. KISS doesn't apply even if you'd like it to.

Although it's very simple that being paid and paying are not the same thing, not sure why you can't wrap your head around that.

Ethnically homogeneous and elderly population thinks government has their best interests at heart.

I don't think that gerantocratic fascist ethno-states are anything to aspire to, even if they output these kinds of polls.

No it's the opposite, fundamental distinction. The future is paid-to-post (proof of work), not pay-to-post (proof of stake). Its a distinction as basic and obvious as the distinction between a pro gamer and a pay-to-win game.

SN is just a basic rudimentary version of pay-to-post, like social media back in the innocent days, you have to carry things to their limit, imagine what they'd be like as the dominant paradigm.

Pay-to-post necessarily amplifies the content of the people who can afford to pay more rather than the content people want, the best content within a domain, topic, space, or discipline.

That's not pay-to-post, it's earned reach by gathering patrons, it's demonstrate value by getting paid.

Pay-to-post is pay for influence, and influence generates income. Its proof of stake when scaled up.

Peer verification is nowhere near as hackable if tied to verifiable content (events), and it's far more robust than pay-to-post if the highest layer of peer-endorsement is patronage (monthly donation).

Compared to what I'm describing (a proof of work system for nurturing social consensus within domains and geographic spaces) pay-to-post is just proof of stake.

I think peer-verification tied to verifiable content (events) and backed by a contextual follow and endorsement system and the Pagerank algorithm is the ultimate solution.

Pay-to-post relies on a level of private key literacy that we are decades away from, if the amounts are meaningful at least. Even creating an anonymous account here on SN is beyond the capabilities of most people.

Granted, most people do not want KYC'd social media, but they are comfortable with the process due to online banking, which is not true of private keys.

You really need a bridging solution that combines the positive features of each solution, even allowing KYC-style verification as an option where there is demand from people who don't trust any other type of verification. They can then choose who to engage with, setting their own social filters.

It means it's universal.

Yeah I was thinking that it could be prized open with a blade and screw driver, and broken in such a way that means accessing it is destroying it.

I feel like someone could also steel this and replace it with an empty key set, if they could forge the label on the tamper proof tag.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but only the paranoid survive as they say.

Multi-sig is one solution, but I don't believe it's appropriate for most people because it's easy to fuck up.

Also, I suggest adding another piece of metal for accompanying details, such as derivation paths or whatever. This solution should be accessible to non-Bitcoiners for inheritance reasons, and basic things like not being aware of derivation paths can trip people up when they've never recovered a wallet before.