Sounds like libre is a problem. Who's behind libre? Surprise, surprise: Peter Todd. It's death by a thousand cuts and Peter is holding the knife.

You made the argument above. You said it's not fair that some miners benefit from high fees from out of band transactions, i.e. the spam transactions that exceed the op_return limit.

"At this point, it seems better to make these transactions available to all miners, so at least the miners benefit fairly from the additionally available fees..."

He thinks it's bad that spammers have to pay typically higher fees out of band. This seems to be the common argument given in favor of the PR.

In reality this is a direct result of the spam filter working. Spamming should be expensive as possible.

They take the desired outcome and twist that to be the reason why we should get rid of filters.

Standardness rules dictate what txs core devs think should go into blocks (if you're running the next release of core).

Bitcoin works if you're trans, gay, a minority, an illegal alien, or all of the above. It's weird that the left doesn't appreciate this more.

It's so wrong that questioning if it's wrong is wrong.

You need to have some Bitcoin on lightning for the fidelity bond, so someone who has zero bitcoin would have to get some from another source first.

Mine likes to sleep in the living room where he can keep an eye on everything. If anyone tried to come into the house he would bark like crazy. The main point is to be a deterrent. If someone tried to get in they would know there's a protective dog waiting for them. Would it stop someone very determined? Possibly not, but I would have plenty of advance warning.

This has been literally every critic's main criticism about nostr since day one. It's like he's been in prison for 11 years or something 😂

In spring a lot of bunnies start showing up, and hens start laying eggs, so people associated the two, and made up the story that the bunnies brought the eggs and hide them around the place.

Get an intimidating dog, like a Rottweiler, and keep them with you at all times.

Reading "The Rational Optimist" by Matt Ridley really changed my perspective on this.

Let Satoshi decide. They're his coins.

I want to avoid wallets that only work when a certain party wins the election.

My pet theory is that dodos were super annoying and our ancestors purposely wiped them out because they were trying to do us a favor. We'll bring them back and find out they make some horrible screeching noise that makes our ears bleed or something.

Instead of punishing greed we can use it to benefit those in need. Instead of FEMA or some other inept agency, government can just pay greedy price gougers and then distribute the supplies in whatever way it thinks is fair. Why insert an unnecessary and incompetent government agency when it isn't needed? The fairy tale is that government does a better job than the free market. Sadly, emergencies are always the excuse for intervention, when the efficiency of the free market is needed most. They used COVID as an excuse to print trillions of dollars. Government is the ultimate price gouger, but no one ever talks about that. Instead they focus all the attention on one guy selling hand sanitizer.

I'm for getting supplies to people who need them as fast as possible. The government (or anyone else) can buy the gouger out, and so encourage them to restock. Other people will see the opportunity and join in, bringing even more supplies to market and bringing down prices. This would be more efficient and cheaper than whatever centrally planned fiasco the government does. I'm all for decentralized solutions, like bitcoin for example.

The advantage of high prices for in-demand goods in emergencies is that people will be less likely to buy more than they need in a panic, and the person who had the foresight to stockpile, or sees an opportunity to bring supplies to an affected area, deserves to be rewarded. This behavior should be encouraged so competition will bring prices back down quickly and people will get the supplies they need.

There is so much incentive is to push USD stablecoins on the world, and the demand is insatiable. We should focus on making the bridge to bitcoin as easy as possible because stablecoins are happening no matter how much we dislike them.

And to be honest with myself, I must acknowledge that access to USD has made my bitcoin journey immensely easier. I can't deny someone else the same advantage as long as it's still possible to buy bitcoin with fiat.

Thanks for posting an interesting philosophical problem! Maybe there is an issue with the word "luck". It seems to be used in two ways. 1) in regards to initial conditions or things outside our control, and 2) in regards to good outcomes of decisions we make in the past. I totally agree with #1 that luck is involved, but #2 is a problem especially when I see people using it to diminish someone's ability to make a good judgement call, which was what I was getting at in my little thought experiment. For #2 I think it's not fair to call it it luck as there was clearly some choice involved. But honestly I'm not totally sure.