I don't think it's right to say "tragedy of the commons is false". It's more accurate to say that the conceptualization of private vs public was insufficiently nuanced.

The kind of community norms and regulation that Oster talks about is functionally the same as a private system where each community member has a sort of easement over the resource. In both systems, it's essential that non-community members be excluded from free access.

The whole point of tragedy of the commons is that scarce resources can't be freely available to everyone, without being depleted at a suboptimal rate. That remains true.

Just accept your fate and shave it.

This has nothing to do with the sort of routing that pretty much any other node in the network is doing.

The c= node has an exclusivity deal with CashApp so all their users's payment have to go through c=.

If the CashApp nodes would be open to accept channels from anyone the c= APR would be much lower because their entire operation depends on the special setup.

It's basically a combination of an accounting trick combined with obfuscated fees for the CashApp users.

CashApp could just charge their users a spending fee but instead they do not and split it of to c= which then claims to earn by "routing".

It’s the hardest thing most of us will ever do and thus the ultimate puzzle. It’s possible, that since human marriage is a reflection of divine marriage, that subjecting ourselves to its fire and learning to navigate wedlock helps estranged divinity itself unite, thus ameliorating what could be the fundamental existential problem. Beyond that, marriage could be said to be the process of alchemical transmutation. the fire and pressure of longterm commitment being the chamber in which base humanity is transformed into something nobler. Finally, marriage and the household as the bedrock unit of social order. Lots of data showing children from two-parent households have better educational outcomes, lower rates of addiction and arrest, all of which place massive strain of social systems individually and in the aggregate. So, stable married household as a meaningful way to contribute to a stable prosperous society.

It's interesting to think about the whole El Zonte -> El Salvador thing wrt its ultimate effects on the fate of btc. Even if everything gets walked back, and the economic impact of btc in ES is negligible, the series of events, from the original people in El Zonte > Bukele's sovereign adoption > the "sovereign adoption" narrative > MSTR activities > Jack Mallers subsequent career w/ this new company > whatever comes next -

taken together, it seems like giant things were set in motion as a result of what happened in ES, and what happened in ES was set in motion by a very small number of actors.

Be the change you want to see in the world, I guess is the lesson.

Maybe that EU law to allow side-loading could ultimately come in handy - despite it being an atrocious law to have to comply with.

Normies may not care. Politicians may not care. Many journalists may not care.

But hey, I care. So does the author and so do many people here on SN. Let's not get overwhelmed by an indifferent world. That's how we make a difference. By actually giving a fuck.

How exciting to be on this list. I feel so happy and grateful that you considered me and read my posts.

I think thats why XXI (21) is going to be interesting.

Jack + Tether have the real ability to create a BTC (bitcoin treasury company) that also has real meaningful cashflow. Most importantly that cashflow will be in actual bitcoin.

Saylor figured out the money glitch, the only negative for him is his traditional business model is both shrinking and has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Whereas Jack + Tether both have bitcoin-native business models.

Gift cards don't always get redeemed, and of those that do get redeemed, many are not redeemed right away.

It varies by issuer retailer and market category, but generally (rough estimates) about a quarter of cards remain unredeemed after one year.

That unredeemed amount is (eventually) booked as "breakage", which is pure profit to the retailer.

So they are getting cash for the sale of the gift card, and booking that as a liability until it is redeemed. So a gift card is like an interest-free loan (albeit with uncertain repayment date) to the retailer.

Why would they give that up? I suppose they could operate an underfunded mint and add funds as needed based on card redemption, but I suspect an electronically transferrable card balance would increase redemption rates. (e.g., due to regifting, as one example. I got a Best Buy card, but I'ld rather have the sats so I trade it online -- and since there's essentially no risk to the buyer I can sell it near its face value).

That's a nice thought, no I have not written anything much like that before and I don't think there are much resources like that out there.

I will start working on writing it. It will be a great educational resource for our users too.

Thanks for the great advice.

It’s way to early. We should check how these companies are doing 3 years from now.

@remindme in 3 years

eagle eyes... Thank you! I wonder how the hell that space ended up there 🤔 the relay should have not been validated and saved in the first place. Anyhow, problem solved

Looks like they're going for using ₿ as the denomination for sats.

I wonder if we end up using different terms for the same thing. Bitcoins, bits, sats. We call our fiat different things too. Dollars, bucks, or pounds and quids, and more slang locally depending where you live.

Sigh, quantum fearmongering again.

Yeah, Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to be more specific.

That is the case for P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH and P2WSH. P2TR outputs (bc1p...) themselves are already the public key, so for those addresses it does not matter whether you spend or not.

Highly doubt it. Right now there is no quantum computer in existence that can even run Shor's algorithm.

That's probably why it's so dead

How is this lazy? I'm actually doing most of the work. I guess the tetris itself is the one being lazy?

I'm working on Stacker News Zine Issue #10 today! Please reply with a list of TEN things. THX

I don't know how to feel about it tbh. Lack of the cypherpunk ethos, it's all so corporate-y and it all seemed so fake and forced. We had cows dancing on there and this woman I watched yesterday she blinked so many times it was so artificial and screamed grifter. no good vibes for me personally.

people would actually talk about their life and be original

Indeed, but this is still an assumption, not proven. And it's censorship-resistant, not uncensorable. The difference being that at some point censorship can happen, but there are good incentives in place that it will be countered.

Also see Eric's chapter on Axiom of Resistance, which basically states that we cannot stop believing this, because if we did, we wouldn't be talking about bitcoin but something else, like fiat or CBDCs.

The interesting question to me is: are the masses actually thinking about this principle at all and have they ever? Or are they just greedy fiat clowns that will gladly throw themselves into the arms of totalitarianism as long as the overlord pretends to be on their side?

If I'm honest, I kind of fear it's the latter.