I've been going to all the Bitcoin meetups in my area after getting inspired again and my experience last night was a little intersting going to a new meeting. There were 2 speakers and while both said BTC was probably the safest bet they were shilling alt coins saying that if you wanted to get some crazy gains you gotta take risk. They had bought FART as well as TRUMP coin and were pushing something called hbar. At one point someone said that McDonalds was gonna start hashing because hash power is all that is gonna matter to stock investors and we will hit 1 million in less than 2 years. I think there was like 15 people there and only time the speaker got some push back was when he said AI coins are the real future. I guess just watch out where your getting your information from. I was live reacting in our friend signal chat it was pretty painful at times

unfinished portrait of my cat shaping up pretty well! using a large brush so I have to make imprecise decisions

I only eat once a day. My eating window is 5-7. I've done this for about 5 years now.

I don't think I will ever return to 2 or 3 meals a day.

In general my energy levels are much higher than before and I just feel better than I used to (less brainfog, more energy, weigh less, etc).

Beyond the health benefits, there is also the question of time. When you only eat once per day (or once every few days), you start to realize the incredible time-sink that eating is.

Multiple that by 3 meals instead of 1 and stretch it out over several months and you will see the incredible amount of time eating / digesting takes in your life.

Even if you are very conservative and assume eating Breakfast / Lunch is only adding 45 mins per day total, thats still 12 days of time per year....

this week's zine cover

I'm finishing it rn anyone have something they want to add? whatever you say in reply I will be compelled to print

Because we (software engineers) are much better at providing the necessary context (both technical and business) to LLMs. We are also much better at breaking problems in smaller sequential steps because we (sort of) understand how the machine works

So this was written by Barry Eichengreen, a fellow economist... and I'm fairly disappointed with the opening paragraph, since it's entirely reliant on A) a Hollywood stereotype of the wild west, and B) an anecdotal accounting of crypto kidnappings, with zero statistical evidence regarding the magnitude of the problem in either case.

Leaving that aside, I find his concerns about WalmartCoin and AmazonCoin to be unconvincing. We already have dozens of privately issued currencies, from Robux to Cowboy Credits. Moreover, how many millions of dollars of Amazon gift cards are floating around, redeemable only from Amazon? I read that Starbucks is actually one of the largest custodians of funds due to the number of credits people have in their Starbucks account, but Starbucks isn't regulated like a bank. So whatever his concerns about WalmartCoin and AmazoinCoin are, they seem to be already present with or without the Genius Act.

I will say, however, that he's right to be critical about the reliability and transparency of stablecoins as they currently exist. As far as I can tell, stablecoins like Tether have not demonstrated proof of reserves that we can sufficiently trust they are fully backed.

That being said, if such were the case--why would he be so critical of putting a regulatory framework around it? If we take what he says at face value, that the states with more highly regulated free-banking systems did better, then shouldn't we welcome a regulatory framework for stablecoin versus letting it persist in its status quo?

The piece just seems a bit off in terms of logical consistency.

This is how I've felt about everything Israel does. It's all funded by Uncle Sam, and thus there lies the power to stop the aggression. Not with Putin, not with the CCP, but - utlimately - with the American people:

There is still a fundamental difference between key material that can be imported into multiple different wallets and the design that is move to a new wallet by sending your coins (signing a transaction).

If I am in a country that gets sanctioned by the US and I use a Bitkey, I will likely no longer be able to connect to any Bitkey server. Okay, this is fine if I can turn on the app and get to the point where I can select a different electrum server.

However, if there is any point during the process of creating, signing and broadcasting a transaction that requires something from a Bitkey server, then I have to rely on the emergency recovery kit.

Seeds, though they carry other risks, do have a great advantage on this. I can stop using whatever wallet won't work for me and import the seeds into a different wallet pretty easily. This seems valuable to me. I wish the Bitkey design made it easier to export my keys if I really wanted to.

Fair enough. I suspect if we surveyed average bitcoiners, they would have a sense that the Bitkey model is like Bank of America saying, "look, just wire your funds to Chase. You aren't locked in."

I like the idea of my wallet software being easily replaceable. If I have to sign a transaction to do that, I am to some extent reliant on the software to allow it to happen.

To me, this doesn't feel like what most other wallets support (much easier restore to a different software provider). I don't believe Bitkey can claim equality with this property in other wallets. It's a trade off, sure. I get more reliable backup for foot gun situations, but I lose easy wallet recoverability with different vendors.

I'm fine with you calling it FUD. It's on me to make my case. But it's not a lie.

I'm thinking of the scenario where I'm just a normal Bitkey user. I don't know much about public electrum servers. But I happen to be in a country the US suddenly picks a fight with.

If I haven't preplanned for this scenario, will I be able to still sign a transaction?

In the case of seeds words, I don't have to worry. Lots of wallet software supports the standard.

Bitkey's solution is not so much like a standard. It is unique to Bitkey and telling users that there's no vendor lock in because they can send their coins to a new wallet is very tenuously true.

In general, users have understood bitcoin wallet lock in to mean you can only restore the wallet with that specific vendor's software. This is true for Bitkey.

Spend your coins to a new address is a new definition of not being locked in.

Dude, they aren't the only ones fucking around and finding out. Have you been living under a rock for the entire disastrous War on Terror?

This was an unhinged and completely unnecessary act of war. Only weeks ago, the Trump administration confirmed that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons. Just because Bibi gets out his 30 year old diagram of a Wile E. Cayote bomb and claims Iran's "weeks away" for the 50th time doesn't mean anything.

What is this imperialistic garbage where America has the right to tell every nation on Earth that they have 60 days to comply with anything?

Repairing and patching clothing is rebellious as fuck. So good.

Well... I'm back. Let's see what changed and what was left after all this time. I missed you, guys

That's a decade more than me, but like @Aardvark I intend to live forever.

It worked. Thanks k00b!

I've been watching what some pro-Israel media are saying, and it's wild that some are claiming that Israel is finally secure because the last remaining existential threat has been wiped out. That just seems so crazy to me... if I were Israeli I would feel less secure than ever right now!

But, maybe that's not fair--I'm not Israeli and I can't speak for them.

Fuck yea man. Let's get a beer on the day the last bitcoin is mined.

I wonder how and why you’d play Dungeons and Dragons on btc wallets

Have a source? I'm trying to get the larger video because according to some sources he added "and address Israel's concerns", but my extreme basic Russian skills feel that that's not in this clip.

It definitely does. I probably dropped 10lbs pretty fast. I prefer it mostly for the fringe benefits though tbh; lower body temp, no midday nap even if sleep deprived, cost savings.

My biggest problem is probably sleep atm.

I guess I was technically obese even when I was sleeping 8 hrs/night, doing power yoga 4 days/week, walking >3 miles 5 days/week, because I was 235lbs.

The alignment problem is undefined. See Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. If it's undefined, it's unsolvable.

So, leaving aside the definition of "good to humans", which is undefined, we're left only to ponder more concrete possibilities, like "destroy all humans."

I put the probability as low. My reasoning most closely aligns with "intelligence is inherently moral." In the sense that whatever objective the ASI is seeking to maximize, it will likely recognize that humans have utility towards achieving that goal, and that attempting to wipe us all out will cause barriers to its objectives.