1510 sats \ 922 stacked

Makes a lot of sense, Bitcoin being a part of a greater scientific revolution. But the issue with Saylor (I don't follow Breedlove) is that he's turning into the same Hegelian dialectic that the creative discovery of Bitcoin itself was trying to subvert. That is to say, Bitcoin was breaking the framework, Saylor is trying to turn it into a framework. Scientific progress comes from creative 'third options'.

Moreover, when Bitcoin was created, what evidence was there that such a thing could help coordinate value? Zero. Data is kind of useless when you are trying to create a new type of data for the first time. It's the same for Bitcoin as science.

Take Black Holes...Black holes were theorized in 1916 after Einstein's theory of relativity was formalized in 1905. The term black hole was coined in 1967 after the first black hole, Cygnus X-1, was observed in 1964, by detecting electromagnetic waves (x-rays and gamma rays) from the gases of a huge blue supergiant star getting sucked into CX-1.

My point is, especially in money, people are extremely mislead by hierarchies created by mounds of "data" and "evidence". BUT, we don't even know what data or evidence to look for until we've already made a conjecture (a guess) to solve some problem in our current understanding. Want a Nobel prize? Figure out how to observe dark matter (besides gravitation lensing).

Anyway, the "scientific revolution," started during the Enlightenment, and continues to this day. It never ended. It ends wherever and whenever criticism stops. Good thing for Bitcoin, it's got anti-censorship, the ability to criticize, built in. you Counterintuitively, that self-inherent function of criticism is what makes it resilient, or "sound" (whatever that means, lol).

See Popper's 'The Aim of Science': https://www.bretthall.org/uploads/3/1/2/9/31298571/karl_r.popper-_the_aim_of_science.pdf and 'The Myth of the Framework' https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=the+myth+of+the+framework+pdf

I haven't orange-pilled anyone that wasn't already sort of looking to be orangepilled in some way. I have tried really hard with the sort of "deep" discussion about money, but one of them turned into a trader/gambler(exchange-only shitcoiner), and another one just treats Bitcoin as the next dogma (people like Saylor really help push this sort of narrative), which is really frustrating. Incredible frustrating. Ugh...

Anyway, RE: the sort of, almost cliche, "What is money?" path: I've done it, and, again, it ended with further problems described above.

Maybe it's better to put it: "What problems did creating each kind of money solve?" and "What bigger problems did that lead to, or perhaps reveal were there all along?". Then you can lead them to what problems Bitcoin solves, and what bigger problems it can (and is) creating / leading to. Then, they'll have a realistic understanding of why and when to use Bitcoin, AND a way to help solve problems that are still unsolved within Bitcoin--which could lead to them wanting to help out.

One thing I like to talk about with technical maximalists is the speed of light. Even in some utopian Bitcoin vision, it leads to interplanetary gatekeepers because of the speed of light limiting how fast blocks could be propagated between planets. Point being, problems are inevitable, problems are soluble, Bitcoin is not exempt.

Hmmm. Which makes me think, maybe when people ask, if you want to orange pill them--tell them how much you have invested (like a rough percentage), but then instead of trying to convince them, jump straight to the problems that need to be solved and solutions people are working on and talking about. More fun that way anyway.

Here's one thing the US can do about: take nuclear power seriously.

Also better for international relations. Control the advancement through US capitalist compan's patents. Distribute tech through deals and subsidies with other allied, like-minded, nations. Secure energy sources (Sprott). Reduce dependence on fossil fuels in allied nations (like Europe and Japan's craving for Russian fossil fuels). Plan A is grow cities and grow wealth through cheaper access to more energy--Use Bitcoin mining as backup for extra power where new micro-nuclear technologies are being tried out as a plan B. Bam, soft power.

IMO by making value predictable and fair; lowering the latency and cost of value transfer; and reducing the trust load we each carry (kind of like a Dunbar's number but for entities we trust).

Yeah, interesting way of putting it, and I hadn't considered Dunbar's number or what that means in the context of Bitcoin. Very interesting. Related: I kinda pressed the guy who's behind "Drivechains" on the epistemology of prediction markets on Twitter and he replied with this:

The current price is the conjectural knowledge and it is maximally vulnerable to replacement by a better candidate. Ultra Hayek/Popper.

I really like this idea that a voluntary market can contain conjectural knowledge, and it's easily replaceable and rewarding to those who create it.

I think this is right. Censorship-resistance is a kind of transposed synonym for free speech where each has the goal of maximal variance in either transactions or speech.

Yeah, what Deutsch calls "A Tradition of Criticism," definitely gets wrapped up in what people refer to as "Free Speech." I heard a Radiolab that kind of came to the conclusion that: "I want the freedom FROM listening to people." Not sure how I feel about that, it seems dangerous to create those kind of bubbles for yourself--freeing yourself from criticism is a great way to stop growing. So the project of, say, a social media site is to delineate good criticism from bad criticismーso as not to waste everyone's time? I dunno.

I feel that this ties in well with what Square is trying to do with their DEX project and decentralized "reputation systems." On page 16 of their whitepaper they kind of get into this: what is a "verifiable credential?" Verifiable credentials are what makes it so hard for people to take Bitcoin seriously, even today.

Inflation and Deflation are monetary tools. Bitcoin is deflationary in the sense that eventually the inflation rate will come to zero, but the inflation rate isn't zero. It will soon be less than the de-facto FED inflation target (2% in stable times). But, that's kind of meaningless. The point is, deflation CAN be a bad thing, that's up to Bitcoiners to theorize about think about, though (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deflationary-spiral.asp).

Buying Bitcoin doesn't make the dollar deflationary. FED policy would. People have explanations that they use to change the rules of the tools they use. If the FED does "tapering" here because of CPI inflation--it's using the data from CPI's explanation of what inflation is and how it affects it's user base (people who use the dollar), and concluding that the best thing for it's users is to print less money. Some people think that's a mistake. Fine, at least now we have a way to make participation in that monetary system voluntary!

But, contrary to what some people on Twitter say, I think it's stupid and dangerous to over extend yourself into ANY one asset (especially Bitcoin). Like "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried." The dollar is the worst stablecoin except for all the others that have been tried. But that doesn't mean stablecoins are all bad. They'e tools. Don't let "maximalist" cancel culture convince you that Bitcoin is un-critisizable--that's a good way to kill Bitcoin long term. All progress come from criticism--finding problems and solving them in creative ways. That's falliablism, that's science.

IMHO Bitcoiners on the whole don't really think that deeply outside of what the major influencers on Twitter are saying (you know who I mean). BUT, consider that the security model breaks down if the incentive for miners to mine blocks is gone (the non-subsidy fees paid per block). That's why some folks in the space are trying to find solutions (Spacechains, Statechains, Drivechains, etc that rely on proposed upgrades like OP_CTV and BIP300/301) to scale Bitcoin while at the same time filling blocks with competitive useful transactions.

What we're arguing about when we talk about "inflation" and "deflation" is security. Craving security is a form of insecurity.

Yes. But solar is pretty inefficient. It's dependent on the weather. It takes up a lot of space, and the energy density of photoelectric solar cells is pretty low compared to other sources of energy we have access to (but perhaps lack sufficiently advanced engineering knowledge to control). Why would use use the sun's sloppy seconds when you can just do what the sun does to create energy (fusion)--that's the dream anyway. Until then, we should just improve nuclear so much that the mistakes of the past seem obviously stupid in hindsight.

Energy density list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table

Advantages/Disadvangages of Solar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Advantages

I'm not saying we shouldn't use it, but if we're talking about things we "shouldn't say we shouldn't use to mine Bitcoin," Nuclear should be at the top of the list.

They support receiving AND sending, I know of some wallets that support receiving but this may be the first that supports sending.

See also: https://twitter.com/murchandamus/status/1462799351525388297 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bech32_adoption Going to post this as a post as well.

I don't think that's always the case. Sometimes people just go with what they're used to and trust. Like Fax machines in Japan.

I use MyNode (and pay for premium), but it's interesting and worrying to me how quickly Umbrel became sort of the de-facto node software for many users. This is the danger of crowd think. There should be no hierarchy in an open society, which means more people running different node software. Safety in numbers is always a parochial solution to the problem of not having the knowledge to actually /solve/ a problem. In this case the problem is easy node onboarding, and the knowledge needed to solve the problem is avoiding a single point of failure. It's bad for Umbrel business in the short term, but very good for Umbrel business in the long term, to, say, create memes on Twitter that encourage people try different nodes.

2 sats \ 1 replies \ @mudl 15 Nov \ on: 489


This is starting to get into the really interesting stuff. I'm guessing there's more projects like this that have been in stealth mode waiting for taproot activation. Very cool.

Exactly, it's the beginning of regulatory arbitrage for all, not just corporations.

The poster memes will get bigger from here on out, harder to ignore for politicians: "No inflation without representation", or, "my money my choice," etc etc.

WHoaaa, wild.

Also cool is finney's also site on archive.org: eeg the site he mentions in the first comment on LessWrong: https://web.archive.org/web/20130617181823/www.finney.org/~hal/udassa/

Felt the same way, all of those rhetorical justifications could also be used to promote Bitcoin--but none of them explain or argue why one option would be better than the other.

archived copy: https://archive.is/5We8X#selection-2009.0-2009.16

It's funny, I think that a lot of elites will read this and think: "Yay CBDCs". But without modifying it basically at all, it's equally a good argument for Bitcoin.

We should do what GitLab did for GitHub to Substack: LightStack. If only I didn't have a full time job that I was supposed to be doing at this very instant, lol.

Interesting, especially for myself. I live in Japan where stagflation has ruled for ages. I think that since 1971 the long term ramifications of stabilizing the global economy using the petro-dollar is reduced global innovation do to the incentivizing static innovation (innovation that favors stasis, faux-novation). Japan LOVES stasis, they don't want anything to change and they will use the latest technology to preserve their way of life. This is fine, for protecting traditions and stuff, but humans need and want to grow--which is why so many Japanese are depressed and don't have kids. Why have kids, that's scary and dangerous and they are hard to control. Education here makes everyone so obedient. No need for mandates or lockdowns (there were none here) when people do whatever they are told by the news commentators. This sort of thing is coming to the whole world, stagflation, lower birth rates, suicides go up--because the leaders are incentivized by the public, whom they scared to get into office, to use instruments that people are unaware of to control them: money. Why force people to do things when you can guide them like sheep. Money is the Shepard dog of the current era. This is all pretty abstract and not the best explanation, but in terms of the article I think there are a lot of similarities with my argument. Anyway, Bitcoin breaks that cycle.

The future is here it's just not evenly distributed yet. The information and knowledge is there, it's just not been accessed by everyone yet. We've already got it here on Stacker News. Good time to make a new newspaper, eh.

The New Stacker Times. A.K.A Stacker news.

Does, like, medium or substack or something take sats yet? If not, we need to make THAT on LN, ASAP, IMO.

In other words, my guess is that one of the first ETFs that got proposed that isn't being told to stop is a futures one?