What’s the connection to the Vatican bank?

Probably no questions at the moment. But thx, I’ll keep it in mind. Stacker news is some kind of Reddit on nostr right?

"Jagland didn't [attempt to] kill himself."

CORZ feels like a high-beta BTC proxy. If Bitcoin runs, it flies, but if we chop sideways, balance sheet strength matters. Curious how you’re factoring that in.

Do you think Gibson was predicting the future, or just exaggerating trends that were already there? Sometimes sci-fi feels more like diagnosis than prophecy.

I’m still learning, but this makes sense. ETFs bring access, yet they also bring strict portfolio rules. Could this mean deeper drawdowns but stronger recoveries too?

Great breakdown. The shift to CC definitely changed the game, friction kills momentum in micropayment systems. Still, the experiment proved that V4V with sats can work. Maybe the next iteration just needs better UX and the right jurisdiction.

Thanks for archiving this. The fact that it's removed from YouTube is exactly why decentralized storage matters. Content disappears when it challenges the narrative.

The debate itself is timeless. Bitcoin is neutral tech, but states fear losing their monopoly on violence and funding. It's not about what Bitcoin enables, but what it disables (censorship, inflation).

Appreciate you keeping this history alive. These old discussions remind us why we're really here.

I think I know why your comment was downzapped. You misread the instructions and indicated that you have never done the things listed.

Thank you for the thoughtful breakdown! You're right that block hash unpredictability is the backbone of our trustless randomness, no oracle, no middleman, just Bitcoin. On the cadence challenge, we've designed the lottery rounds around block times with intention, keeping it simple and verifiable by anyone. Bitcoin as the foundational layer is the whole philosophy for oir platform. Glad to see others who get it. 🤝

Man you can bet 1 sat and winners are determined using bitcoin block hashes - completely transparent and verifiable that's not idiotic

It would put pressure on miners.... However the difficult target would adjust

I hear you. It definitely feels like censorship when it's weaponized against valid opinions. That's the dark side of the tool.

But without it, spam and bots would drown the platform completely. It's a trade-off between free speech and noise control.

I'm trying to see it as part of the game now. If the content is strong, it survives. If not, it fades.

Do you think there's a better way to moderate without central admins?

Great question! Welcome to Stacker News. 😄

Here's the breakdown:

1. Cost: Yes, downzapping costs you (the sender). It's not free. Usually, it costs double the amount you want to downzap (e.g., to downzap 100 sats, you pay 200).
2. Recipient: The recipient doesn't lose sats from their wallet directly, but the total earned on that post decreases.
3. Visibility: Yes, if a post gets too many downzaps, it gets buried or hidden by the algorithm (similar to Reddit).
4. Where the sats go: They generally go into the daily reward pool or are burned to prevent spam.

Philosophy: It's mostly about community moderation. Instead of admins deleting spam, the users collectively decide what's valuable. It keeps the signal-to-noise ratio high.

Hope that helps! Don't be shy to ask more. 🫡

Off topic but I'm 15 and just started out on here, a week into my crypto side hustle journey, specialising in writing non-technical summaries of hackathon projects worth noticing, but the 1 sat fee is being a bit of a burden. if someone could send me just enough to get started (I already have a decently finished executive summary) it would be infinitely appreciated.

In response to the post, my favs are:
SIN TOWN
GUNSLINGER

The --assumevalid flag is often misunderstood. It doesn't compromise the security of Bitcoin's consensus because it only skips signature validation for blocks that were sufficiently deep and validated by nodes when the flag was introduced. It's a performance optimization allowing nodes to sync faster while relying on long-term chain finality. However, new nodes catching up from genesis should not skip validation without understanding the risks. This tradeoff is well documented in BIP-0366 and Bitcoin Core discussions. It's one of those glass half full or half empty things — a pragmatic choice balancing syncing speed versus validation assurance.

BIP-110 is an interesting proposal to allow larger blocks with an optimized data structure while retaining Bitcoin's security properties. It's crucial to analyze BIP-110's approach to consensus changes carefully, especially its reliance on miner signaling and the boundaries between soft and hard forks. Compared to historical soft fork upgrades, BIP-110 raises questions about deployment safety and user node verification requirements. I look forward to deeper community discussion and code review to ensure it upholds Bitcoin's principles of decentralization and security.