pull down to refresh
The community has tried UI abstractions for 15 years, and they have all failed. Most people only know two things: Bitcoin and Sat. Relying on wallet developers to display mBTC, bits, or kSat creates fragmented standards dependent on localized software.
Money is fundamentally a psychological technology. Understanding Bitcoin is already complex for the masses, and forcing them to memorize scientific prefixes creates immediate cognitive friction. If Bitcoin is to be the global reserve currency, its unit of account must be universally simple, memorable, and globally standardized.
What Nah provides that a UI layer cannot is a finalized, unified global standard to simplify the transition from fiat to hard money. Fiat itself is a psychological problem—a chaotic world of fragmented, unstable units of account. If our alternative relies on fragmented, localized, and hard-to-pronounce UI workarounds, mass adoption will stall. We require a consensus asset that removes all psychological friction on the road to hard money, and that asset is Nah.
Linguistically, this is a natural evolution. The protocol was given to us by Satoshi Nakamoto. If we have the Sat, it is only logical to have the Nah. Based directly on the creator's name, Sat & Nah is a simple, memorable, and natively human nomenclature.
This establishes a dual-asset standard of absolute scarcity on the timechain, much like the historical relationship between silver and gold. Nah serves as the primary cognitive unit of account for daily pricing, while Sat acts as the underlying reserve used to pay miners to send Nah. Ultimately, Sat & Nah represents the cleanest, most definitive solution to the fiat problem.
we needed a number slightly smaller than $120 trillion (global m2), and the reverse fibonacci sequence is 21, 13, 8, 5, 3, 2, 1...
85.3 trillion became the ultimate choice because it:
• creates a slightly deflationary feeling as prices switch from fiat to hard money, as shown in the example in the OP
• is universally visually appealing and easy to remember
at genesis, we minted 148.3 trillion nahs. shortly after, we sent 63 trillion nahs into Satoshi Nakamoto’s wallet, leaving exactly 85.3 trillion in circulation.
Most people are not accustomed to numbers as big as a trillion and for many people a 14 dollar toy is out of reach.
Trying to come up with new arbitrary units isn't going to fly, focus on advocating for new conventions that are power of 10 multiples of the satoshi.
For a 120 trillion market cap, embrace the micro-bitcoin (100 sats), which some folks are simply calling bits. Come up with a better simple name if need be. That toy will be a nice simple two bits. Fractions of this unit can be a bit-cent (1 SAT) or deci-bit (10 SAT), paralleling the use of dollars and cents.
A different unit size may make sense on the journey. At this point folks should be stacking milli-bits and deci-milibits and prices can be to the centi-millibit. Come up with better names. The toy costs ~2 deci-millibits today. The price of milibits is even easy to grasp when some people are using BTC units, just drop 3 zeros from those prices.
Counting to 2 is even easier than 10. I don't know how todays kids handle a toy that costs 14 of something. Maybe time to re-denominate the US dollar.
I agree. The technical verification is much more important than debating the marketing claims.
I’d verify it in this order:
- Identify the exact Rune and its etching transaction.
- Check the Runestone fields: premine, divisibility, cap, amount, and mint terms.
- Determine whether the 85.3T figure is actually the immutable maximum supply or simply the current/claimed circulating amount.
- Trace the claimed 63T transfer to
1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNaand confirm exactly what happened on-chain. - Cross-check the same data against an independent Rune indexer/explorer rather than relying on the project's own website.
- Check whether the Rune can be minted, transferred, or otherwise altered in a way that contradicts the “fixed supply” claim.
If those checks confirm everything, then the main issue is probably economic/marketing rather than a technical vulnerability. But if the advertised supply, mint conditions, or provenance differ from what is actually encoded on-chain, that could be a much stronger finding.
So I think the next step should be identifying the exact etching transaction/Rune ID and verifying the on-chain data first.
putt.day #126 ⛳ 6/14 Albatross · 🔥88 · replay
🟢🟡🟡🟡🟡🟢
https://putt.day/s/dwMH80lBytx9
putt.day #125 ⛳ 4/10 Albatross · 🔥87
🟡🟡🟡🟢
https://putt.day/s/l7MHrlrKRP7_
Drama TLDR
@anon post call out @optimism and @supratic for derailing a Lightning security discussion (#1566696) by flaming @Kruw for not recognising "ethan, humpus" (#1570169) as Hampus Sjösberg (Blixt wallet) and Evan Heilmann (ZEUS wallet), as identified in #1570156.
@supratic deflected repeatedly when pressed to name them, and when he finally responded (#1571193), he said the reference came from @optimism's riddling comment and he "used it to doubt @Kruw's ~lightning knowledge" without clearly stating he knew or not who they were. @anon wanted a response, and @ek harshly accused him of pretending to know (#1571194).
@optimism briefly showed up, claimed authorship (#1571195) of the reference, but never clarified who "ethan, humpus" are. The OP's core complaint was that @optimism and @supratic were using the obscure reference to gaslight @Kruw about his Lightning knowledge and deflecting blame away from @justin_shocknet.
...why are you refusing tell the other stackers who "ethan, humpus" are? Shouldn't you be apologizing to @Kruw for making fake accusations against him?
All I did was ask you to prove a claim you previously made, and you tell me to burn my face? What the fuck is wrong with you?
@Kruw is very brave for confronting a lunatic bastard like you.
Oh you, funny boy... you must be a teen, aren't you? So much you still have to learn.
Are you just using a different random account now to zap your posts, instead of conveniently boosting?
Nothing personal, just business.
Let's get to business then: Who are "ethan, humpus"?
Everyone is waiting for your answer, but you don't seem to know.
It's sort of odd that punishers are willing to spend more on punishment than they are on support. [..] far beyond what they've been putting towards zaps
I think that this is only true if we forget that when the zapwar was the other way around earlier this year, roughly the same people were actively upzapping downzapped posts. But upzaps aren't recycled as much as downzaps (or as they could be if stackers were on board), and therefore upzapping is way more costly (especially when downzaps were 3x in the first war.)
I personally downzapped more in absolute numbers of sats than I upzapped in the previous 2 wars (about 2x), but, from a money-that-I-spent minus recycled-money-from-rewards/boosts p.o.v., I actually spent a lot more non-free sats the previous rounds than I am spending now. The previous rounds hurt me much harder than this one, but that only goes for me. Others got hurt real hard this round.
Stackers weren't really willing to defend a principle back then, and stackers aren't really willing to defend a principle now. It's still the same shit. Everyone is fishing for rewards and it's pathetic.
boosting the good content on SN?
I am looking forward to stackers that made up to 1M sats from boosts, to zap all the high quality evergreen posts with 1M sats so that they're ranked at the top again, and then all the pretty good posts with 500k so that they rank underneath. I'm sure that learned people also understand that upzapping good content with millions of sats is much less capital efficient than downzapping the few posts that are bad content with a few million sats.
Twitter and nostr embeds are too unreliable. Might be time to find an alternative means of embedding or stop embedding them.
Interesting post... Nah... LOL... @dendehomie, they're going to call you King Midas... Hahahaha.