Look, Bukele is a politician, he has an agenda. It may be partially aligned with ours, and sure, good for us while it lasts. But as soon as he gets into some political trouble and for some reasons, staying in power requires him to ditch this whole Bitcoin thing, he won't blink an eye.
Yep. I mean all politician worship, but yeah. Bukele recently gave Binance the only non-provincial Digital Assets License, which is a slightly higher one than Bitfinex's. No mention from Max and Stacy who have had some things to say about CZ in the past.
I remember some more-less 1 hour interview with Bukele long time ago - and my personal feeling after it was that he is politician, but also is Bitcoin Maxi (so he "would blink an eye", imo ;)
Using the word 'revolution' or 'the future' to describe your work. Generally eluding to you personally creating or participating in a historically significant period of time is cringe af broh.
Misleading yourself and others might motivate change, but it has equal power to blind you.
Which is not to say that minimizing trust exposure, and knowing exactly where in the maddening complexity of the world your trust is allocated, are not useful things to do. But the idea that btc is trustless, or that life for a social primate in a society ought to be (or even could possibly be) trustless is absolute horseshit, and an efficient detector for someone with a mind one inch deep.
Might be the only one in this thread I disagree with.
The concept of trustlessness is absolutely central here, even if it's true that people can and sometimes do misuse it.
The point is that in a financial interaction between A and B, a transfer of money does not involve trust in a third party to not block, debase or otherwise screw around with the money being transferred. There's also a simpler variant of course, where A simply holds the money as savings and then it's wanting to not have to trust a "second" party (only difference is there is no concept of censor-resistant transfer, there).
All the other aspects of real life, involving trust, don't magically disappear of course.
But the trustlessness of the type described above is genuinely revolutionary.
You've just picked a very narrow slice -- transacting btwn A and B -- but have skimmed over like ten thousand pieces of trust on the way to realizing that event. Like literally, some electrons get sent out on a line when you're at your house sending your btc tx. Those are traveling over a substrate. They are mediated by a computer, running software on hardware. The btc software itself is absurdly complex. The algorithms that underlie its core properties rely on number theory that occasionally is obsoleted and compromised.
I don't know you, but my guess is that you have audited zero of these elements. Unless you are the world's foremost genius, and learned finite field arithmetic while being bored during high school English, you are incapable of auditing 99% of them. Even if you were capable, you don't have access to the 3Com hardware, or whatever, to make sure there's not some exploit in there.
You (or someone) may accuse me of nitpicking here. But nitpicking is exactly the point. Is it likely that someone has burgled your house, installed a keylogging camera above your faraday cage holding your btc rig? Is it likely an evil made replaced the BIOS at its Chinese manufacturer? These things are not likely. They are absurdly unlikely. And yet entire fathoms of trust are needed to exist in society on the way to making your 'trustless' transaction. Unless you live in the woods, eating grubs and fermented bark, you're trusting SO MANY PEOPLE and institutions and companies and entities of all stripes. You're just not thinking about them.
So yeah, minimize your attack surface. But get over the idea that anything about this is trustless.
-The "bitcoin is invincible" mentality;
-Support for any politician, even those supposedly "pro bitcoin";
-Not understanding that fractional reserve banking is about maturity transformation, not reserves. (I'm gonna take a lot of flak for this :D);
It's a tautological shibboleth that conveys no useful information. All of the information contained in what you say by "understanding what this meant" is the good stuff, not this stupid saying.
I agree that it's tautological, but if stating something so plain and simple can cause people to have a revelation that seems useful. Poetry is made of this kind of stuff.
This is kind of like saying a compressed file is not useful because it requires being decompressed.
Stating something so simple doesn't cause people to have a revelation though. It means nothing unless it's explained, and that explanation should replace its use.
Stating something so simple doesn't cause people to have a revelation though.
I'm not sure we can conclude that. For me, it led to "oh yeah the price of bitcoin doesn't matter if you accept things will eventually be priced in bitcoin." I assume avianoculartissue21 had a similar revelation.
It means nothing unless it's explained, and that explanation should replace its use.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, your argument reduces to an argument against abstraction.
Why write 1 + 1 = 2 when we could explain arithmetic every time instead?
Are we disagreeing or misunderstanding each other?
Who is the message for? Newbies don't know what it means. Veterans know it already.
If it's said to a newbie, it's better to just give them the relevant information so they can learn. If you're saying it to a veteran, it may as well be "bitcoin is awesome" for all the info it conveys.
A=A is universally true. 1 BTC = 1 BTC, 1 taco = 1 taco, and 1 USD = 1 USD. It's impossible for it to be anything else. A thing always equals itself.
This is something I have been thinking more and more of lately. I went cashless before becoming a Bitcoiner, and the thought of physical tender is super rough for me, even though i know it's the right thing.
Publishing an hour long podcast about how someone earned $150 in sats over 2 years of work writing articles. And pretending its revolutionary.
Pretending btc is inevitable or already won the global reserve currency status
Refusing to acknowledge how BTC has been supplanted as free market money for Darknet Markets. But still call BTC freedom money even tho people use privacy coins when freedom is actually at stake.
Overall, anytime bitcoiners act delusional or LARP.
Publishing an hour long podcast about how someone earned $150 in sats over 2 years of work writing articles. And pretending its revolutionary.
I'm not sure why you want to pick this bone. I don't think anyone is arguing 500k sats matters much on an absolute scale for most people. Nor would I ever use the world 'revolution' (speaking of cringe ... the worst) to describe SN along any dimension. It's a strawman.
Most of us are impressed we might have a weak and very early hint of a social media future that pays you something rather than taxing you via data and attention mining. I'm the first person to admit it all might be a mirage though. If you want to argue against something, argue against that. We might all actually learn something.
I don't think any of us (maybe some in less affluent nations) are fooling ourselves into thinking getting a few 100 sats a day is earth shattering but like you say it is a hint that the current model of social media isn't the only way and that there may be a better way fueled by bitcoin. The incentive structure on SN isn't perfect but its miles ahead of places like Twitter/FB. If you can't see the potential of SN and of course of bitcoin I have no clue why you are on this site.
Sorry but this really is a bur in my saddle here. Might have to take my hat off.
There are so may podcasts in the bitcoin realm with BIG NAMES with huge stacks of stats. I really can't comprehend thinking it is cringe that kr has a podcast talking to plebs. I'm not aware of this being a common let alone a trend. If there are so many podcasts like this to make it cringe talking to a pleb about this site then please send these cringe podcasts my way.
What's cringe is the number of bitcoin podcasts that only talk about what the new ATH is gonna be after the next halving. No one has a clue. Some are smarter than others but its dumb.
Kinda surprised by this take. I won't belabor the point but @k00b is right. I will say measuring sats in their current fiat exchange rate value is kinda surprising to say the least. I guess you sold all your bitcoin already at the ath?
@nullcount continuing to tie sats earned to their $USD value. I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say I’m approximately 10x more stingy with 300 sats from my hot wallet than I am with $3 from my leather wallet, explain that to me
If you value your sats today higher than the exchange rate, you are irrational unless trading at the exchange rate would realize a loss for you.
Its also possible that selling BTC "in a KYC way" could pose extra risks to privacy that effectively create a marginal loss depending how you value that risk.
Likewise, selling in a no-KYC way adds inconvenience which has costs as well.
You forgot to account for the time and complication in getting the sats back vs getting the $3 back. $3 ends up in your pocket by itself annoyingly, where you have to do a thing to get the sats in the wallet. In USA doing "a thing" costs more than $3 in fiat. In bitcoin the value of the time is higher. Also the risk in fiat is high, so I think It's rational and to value bitcoin above market offers for small amounts.
No, that's called being critical, not cringe. If nobody had critiques, there would be no improving.
I wish more bitcoiners to criticize bitcoin from a bitcoiner's perspective. Too many critiques are dismissed because they come from "outsiders". But many of their complaints have a nugget of truth to them.
Publishing an hour long podcast about how someone earned $150 in sats over 2 years of work writing articles. And pretending its revolutionary.
Your perspective is all off. The sats aren't where the value of SN is.
Pretending btc is inevitable or already won the global reserve currency status
That's your echo chamber speaking. "Bitcoiners" don't necessarily all agree on this.
Refusing to acknowledge how BTC has been supplanted as free market money for Darknet Markets. But still call BTC freedom money even tho people use privacy coins when freedom is actually at stake.
First sentence is simply false and cannot be proved. Second sentence is HTP thinking.
Overall, anytime bitcoiners act delusional or LARP.
IDK how you can believe it is false that BTC is supplanted in darknets. Everywhere that accepts BTC, puts a tax on it so the admins can pay for the CoinJoins to required to clean it. That puts it a second-rate currency in my book. IF they accept BTC at face-value or at a discount, its because freedom isn't actually at stake.
Saying something is HTP thinking when, in fact, its the way things are right now, is cringe.
Oh man, this is right on. Imagine you think you know more than you know about investment and tell your family go buy this stock. Then they do it but buy a ton. The stock goes down and they panic sell. They loss a ton of money. Is it your fault, not fully but you do have some responsibility. This is the way I think about giving financial advice. I will talk to anyone about bitcoin that is interested but I always tell them to do their own research. Ive seen many people get burned. Sours them on me and Bitcoin if I just say, buy bitcoin. I will tell them what I'm doing but never what they should do.
1 + 1 = 2when we could explain arithmetic every time instead?