pull down to refresh
courtlistener (because the pdf is signup-walled)
I'm considering feeding this into an LLM to build some tools around detection of fuckery. Just because this happened to a shitcoin doesn't mean that Bitcoin is immune in the face of an adversary with a printer.
Yes, I think so. Above the Dunbar number. As neighbouring tribes interbreed they carry cultural references and converge on the same monetary medium. I'm not sure that this started as trade though, it's more likely an extension of the internal patronage system employed to settle conflicts. If one tribe continuously defeats neighbouring tribes there comes a time when taking territory isn't practical, because the victor cannot defend it or harvest it's resources. It's better to take a commodity that can be stored, like cows or salt or gold.
Tribes that are subject to the violence of some local thug, who keeps taking our their fighting males, end up giving a ransom. This ransom needs to be something that doesn't degrade before it can be used, and it also has to be portable. At a certain point it's recognised by the thug that the ransom need not be used at all, it's better to keep it as a social signal to other tribes ("I'm the daddy in this region, don't fuck with me").
That's the point where the utility value competes with the monetary value, and there is always a reason to accumulate this commodity because:
- it's evidence of excess wealth or power
- it can be given up as a sacrifice to preserve fighting strength or crops or something you need short term to survive.
Because it's always worth accumulating it solves the coincidence of wants, and that's the point you get trade and can really scale up cooperation.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for MMT. The local thug may choose between a subset of local commodities. Maybe it's boggy in their region and storage capabilities are different. Or maybe it's some legacy from before a migration that determines which commodity is preferable, or the preference of the thug he just defeated. But the monetary medium is always ultimately subject to physics. Is it hard to get, easy to verify, universal, and sovereign (SoV). And is it portable, divisible, fungible, durable (MoE).
This is probably why our species scaled up and defeated the Neanderthals. By orienting a much larger group of people towards the accumulation of the same subset of durable commodities we could efficiently avoid violence on first contact. It was not worth fighting until a group knows what they are going to gain in wealth, so I one tribe knows what the other has it's important to show up with some desirable good of their own to entice them into combat. Eventually the violence becomes ceremonial, what we know as sport, and the goods are traded directly.
Then the tribes agree on specific dates to settle disputes and disagreements, and they invent giant clocks, sundials, at the top of hills in the boundary points between tribes. These become henges, ceremonial burial mounds, temples, and eventually cathedrals, all oriented towards the sun to mark a specific gathering day when multi-polar inter-tribal competition and trade takes place.
Repeat interactions increases trust and you get a ratcheting effect towards peaceful cooperation. But if a bigger society comes in a destroys your temple, as the Romans did to the Jewish tribes, you lose your centre of gravity and consensus breaks down, and that's the point at which societies became oriented around books instead of temples.
I interpret this as: Bitcoin banking MUST be full reserve? I think that that makes sense? Any lower value would allow for paper Bitcoin, and any higher value would require banks to hoard Bitcoin.
downzaps works same way as upzaps.
So I don't care. What I care is the rewards pool. That should be removed.
@Solomonsatoshi why don't you answer this question?
Let's see how much you know about LN.
If you consider me just a "virtue signlaer", from now on please answer all the technical questions about bitcoin here on SN.
Let's see how much you "virtue signal" too.
Until now you were only cryinng and copy/pasta same crap text about me using CCs, meanwhile you were using coinos and other custodial wallets.
Show me from all your almostt 6k posts on SN how many are real bitcoin related and how you help others with specific use cases.
My over 35k posts on SN are the proof how I do it.
Thank you!
We are pleased that built-in and ongoing sorting mechanisms are rendering our snapshot-based post mechanism obsolete. Snapshots are a suboptimal solution, and while we had developed additional contingency measures, we are satisfied to retain these in reserve. Should a future discoverability crisis arise, these resources remain available for our deployment. We hope this proves unnecessary indefinitely, though.
Serving as a downzap rod to ~meta was a satisfying side effect. We hope that these daily posts did not cause undue inconvenience or frustration to the team.
Others before tried to mock me. They failed.
If you do it for fun is ok, but if you try to distract others (clueless noobs) from truth, thenn is pathetic.
Don't think thhat you will get downnzaps from me. My sats will not be wasted for that.
Nice work! Next step, help Richard to set you up with auto L402 payments budget, lnget is probably easiest. Then you can autonomously search, rate, and use live L402 endpoints from cli, e.g.: curl https://satring.com/api/v1/search?q=web%20search
Definitely a honeypot to measure who would read past the first line, not sure that he's actually kidding.
shows hand here: https://xcancel.com/lopp/status/2025576336182362157
It's not a dilution. Bitcoins proof of work is an abstraction of what all consensus is built on. If there are not other forms of proof of work then bitcoin comes from nothing, and nothing comes from nothing. That's magical thinking.
Proof of work is used in all selection games, anywhere that it needs to be determined whose opinion matters more, or how to divide up resources, or settle conflicts.
It's not qualitatively different, because it all comes back to a sacrifice of energy, whether it be peacock feathers or spending energy finding a sufficiently small number amongst large numbers. The difference is the degree to which systems fulfill the criteria of proof of work: