Yeah I don't like throwing that card around tbh. It's authoritative and a +1 to reasons-to-burn. Many people are on SN on burner nyms though, so we don't always know who we talk to. But that's ok.

I think that that's another point of misunderstanding tho: I read that post as OP being on the same side of that discussion as we're agreeing to be on right now; actually most of the stackers are, if I look carefully at the responses. SN is lower on NgU fuckbois than any other Bitcoin discussion platform I've hung out on, which is a massive +.

Well yeah - they can issue their shitstonks all on their own. The plebs and no-coiners are who need support: because if the bitcoin bubble pops the former are effed, and if the fiat bubble pops the latter are effed. I'm currently thinking these would happen in reverse order: fiat first, or at the very least housing first. There's a lot of potential trouble ahead.

As for the empty blocks; I think it's solvable, but idk how it will play out. It doesn't really matter if a block is half full or full because half is ordinals; both are not sustainable long term. But who is going to invest in developing L1 apps if fees can go insane again with Casey 2.0 doing astrology with block numbers? This is a problem that I don't have an answer to. Maybe we do need to work a bit on b2b solutions per Justin - I worked with a team on that in '14/'15 but it was way too early. Maybe there's something there to revive and build upon - I'll check that out.

The name-calling isn't cool. Kudos to you for sticking around despite it - I mean that. Flip-side: if people go through the trouble of doing that to you, at least you're doing something right, but probably not everything ;-)

I'll admit though: I don't read every single comment of yours because they feel a bit repetitive sometimes. I often stop reading those where you start with "USA already failed" or "China already won". I don't mind hearing and thinking about your perspective at all, but I know that this is your analysis for a while now so it doesn't add much new perspective when you repeat it.

But also, one of the - what I believe to be - underlying principles that you raise regarding China confirms one of the issues I still have with the "Bitcoin standard" narrative today: when facing a powerful outside collective - be it a nation or a huge corporation- defending that standard can potentially be very costly. I'm since 2.5 years reading as many biographies from government leaders around the world from 1950-1970, to try and get a glimpse of their thoughts and actions around the gold standard (as that's the closest comparison I can think of) and thus far it looks like the combination of printing "alt coins" and ever shrinking fractional reserves of the USD is what killed it - but I'm not done yet because finding translations is hard, so my opinion is premature.

I did think that the discussions in #997414 and #998112 were going pretty well - when ignoring the ad hominem and other attacks that weren't based on the actual text your wrote - because that triggered more diverse viewpoints than I expected there would be (though the median is still "it'll be sorted out" by my count.) That was a great contribution and it was awesome that 0285 picked it up that way.

It helps when the topic is non-ideological, I think, because you can't really argue someone into your views when it comes to ideology. People adopt ideologies mostly from experience, bad experience in particular. I also believe that this is why politicians always fud, lie and overpromise.

I started with "those you disagree with", then shortened it to "opponents" but that didn't sound right so I changed it again. Call it a failure of vocabulary on my part.

Thanks for (partially) addressing - that was really all I was fishing for. No need to mention me on SNL: I don't need mentions because I'll burn this nym the moment I feel like it - burner nyms are my life now.

Note that I don't mind your original p.o.v. at all, but, if you want to dunk on everyone in #997414, please don't make the people that don't agree with you complicit in what's going on. Because the failure of those that tried isn't complicity, it's just failure, for now (at least that's what it feels like to someone like me that has been contributing code to this space since over a decade.) What's way more interesting is how we're going to turn that failure into success.

Therefore, I'd happily reverse my previous decision about dropping it, if you're truly going to use it as a vehicle to post about great open source projects, because I'm a fan of promoting open source projects. It would be a great "conversation" that way.

We're definitely talking past each other here. But whatevs amigo, I'll drop it. Save us all the headache. You've lost a loyal SNL listener now tho :-/

About a decade ago I had a thing going on (where I was a "dreamy" designer) during a 6-month gig turned 18-month-gig I didn't even really want to do, at an international business where my antagonist was working in isolation in an office 10hr worth of flights and a 3 hour drive away: it wasn't easy to just go drop by his office and be like "sup, let's fix this". It was slowing down the project we were both working on and I hated it - deliveries that I was ultimately responsible for got de-prioritized in favor of endless refactoring and "productizing".

It got resolved by me taking the flights, the drive, having a beer, planning out the follow-up phase of the project the next day, have another (couple of) beers, drive back, fly back. All that was really needed was the mutual idea that the other was not a threat, and face to face contact helped a lot with that; the beers weren't really needed but may have helped in opening up. This ended up that we both did some concessions in our wish-list, made it work. And 4 months later we delivered, transitioned the customer deployment to service, and funnily, we both left around the same time.

De-escalation is important.

I'm doing nothing? Ok boss <3

The SN equivalent being: interacting with posts through "chatgpt, answer this for me so i can milk some sweet sats"

Why does your embed say that the referral comes from chatgpt.com? lol

Interesting! How do you deal with that?

Absolutely. It's big business though: we all know this company we shall not name that is currently valued at $300bln that has this as their primary business model too.

Can we still fight it? I'm fighting the tron scammers, but the big fish? Are they immune?

This. Unfortunately, the scammiest scams I've come across this year thus far are all "social justice" apps promising that you "get paid by the services that harvest your data", (and post-signup: "congratulations, all you need to do to start earning is send 100 USDT to <tron address> to buy a package").

Social skills is tough... #999369

My best buddy since like 30 years calls himself "the glue", so I guess he's a perception engineer (or a "smooth, sneaky mf", lol). I often disagree with him philosophically but when we get to agree on a plan, we get things done. The disagreement most often helps fine-tuning the plan, because arguments are fine as long as there's respect. You can hash things out.

It's much harder to respect random people on the internet though, but it can definitely be done.

be right there; picking myself up

Day 2 of reminding @Car that I did NOT vote for scammers: Saylor the fiat scammer, Mallers the fiat scammer, Trump the fiat scammer, Blackrock the fiat scammer.

Appendix of the day: You don't get to vote in a permissionless system. So your premise that "everyone voted for this" is fundamentally wrong. They're here, but not with my fiat. Parasites be parasiting.

Yes, but Hostile Attribution Bias is a tool in Bitcoin. It's reinforced with our beloved don't trust, verify. This is literally what anyone that values verification over trust has asked for and - I think - for good reasons.

It kinda sucks to be subjected to it because people often forget to respect the subject of their verification, and then can easily turn into ad-hominem slinging outrage; it has happened to me personally many times and cannot (and in my opinion should not) be prevented. I think that the trick is to minimize it on pointless things, which is why "our users" should have been changed, because it distracts from the discussion to be had.

I agree with @k00b that next time we should help out more intensively. Propose the fix ourselves and/or tag involved people that we know are here. The discussion may have gone unnoticed.

Let's see if there's outrage or that we're too skeptical ourselves

Hi? lol

All that matters!

Sounds kinda healthy to me!

The most reliable people I know operate like that. Perceive things from a do rather than a leech perspective. It's amazing that you found SN so fast though - took me a year after launch to find it and another year and a bit to not just read but actually sign up.

You could try. In case of FL, see https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2021/48.193

I think it's possible in theory but in practice you'll need a FL lawyer and they will not be cheap. Maybe @siggy47 has some thoughts about this? I'm not a lawyer, just work with them sometimes.