For the most part CDBCs would be indistinguishable to existing systems to an end user. 

 A centralized currency is "controlled democratically". Bitcoin is not democratic, no regular person will have any say in how it's used on a societal level. 

 As I said: "Right now it's an idea they are bouncing around at most."

It's funny because you seem to think that means they'll adopt bitcoin and throw away laws that you dislike. If anything the future of money is more under state control, and the more pedos like you push back against it the more I believe they are right to tighten control. 

 Doubt that will happen and if it does it'll be centralized and seamless to the end user. It'll be an implementation technicality of banks. 

 Is that not beginning on this platform? There seems to be a large number of bots on Nostr. 

 I was wondering why people were suddenly noticing this 🤣 

 So you believe central banks should continue to exist and should continue to underpin the trust in the finance system, that sovereign fiat currencies should continue exist and that CDBCs are the place for crypto withing the financial system? 

 You don't need a quote from some rando that happened to be elected president to understand that in a largely capitalist system the people with the most money control most of the power.

Cryptocurrency doesn't change that, in fact cryptocurrency as crypto fanatics want it to work further concentrates that money as it rewards people far more for being able to save. Poor people generally can't save because the rich people controlling prices of necessities ensure they are living on the edge of their means. 

 You can keep posting links, but I get it, you look up things you broadly agree with then listen to them.

It would be simpler for you to just state that you engage in confirmation bias as a general rule. 

 Wait, so do you support fully regulated cryptocurrencies that require KYC and the removal of anonymized transactions?

It's weird because that would seem to go completely against your idea that everyone should be able to post anything they want, no matter how illegal, and be safe from repercussions. 

 🤣 The irony of you linking to some tenuous link between a bank and a rich pedo, given that you have defended pedos being able to spread child sexual assault material on Nostr. 

 He died in prison, that's a pretty odd maintaining of power. What's funnier is that you're going "look at this evil bank, doing business with a millionaire who turned out to be a pedo" and yet the bank you're calling out is one of the few banks that have tried to use crypto as part of their business.

When you stop defending pedos and stop approving of child sexual assault material being posted, I promise to try to take you more seriously. 

 So I'm a fascist because I don't agree with how you want to force the world into using a single currency and be completely unable to enforce the rule of law. A view you hold no less based on your flawed understanding of economics and your belief that you'll stop being a poverty-stricken incel if it takes off because you're "early". 

 I'll continue to use fiat thanks, as will all nations while your ponzi scheme coins up and collapse.

Except they don't "rule over everyone". An remember, you the one that wants to give pedos more anonymity and a safe space to distribute and pay each other for child sexual assault material. Let's be honest, you're a fucking pedo and you're protecting your own interests. That's why all you have in response is whataboutisms about a dead guy.

Oh yes, that's right, I'm an establishment mouthpiece because I don't subscribe to your psychotic view that 100% of everything governments does is wrong. What I actually believe is that we as a society have agreed to live by certain rules and one of the strongest of those rules it's you don't sexually assault kids. The fact that you don't like that law does not make me an establishment mouth piece, it makes you sick little freak.

I absolutely support some degree of censorship, yes. I do not support propaganda, which funnily enough is one of the reasons I support censorship, because dangerous propaganda kills people. I absolutely abhorr wars, not that I'm sure how they fit in here, since bitcoin doesn't create world peace.

I don't think you can live in a society and have full bodily sovereignty because the whole point of society is that we all make compromises. You enjoy this when society prevents someone being allowed to bash your head in with a brick and take your stuff. Maybe the solution is with ship all you nutjobs off to an island and you can have all the sovereignty you want, outside of society. At least I know kids would be safer if you weren't around. 

 All banks aren't adopting crypto, not even CDBCs. Right now it's an idea they are bouncing around at most. I'm sure in the long run most banks will have some form of interaction with crypto because it's a great way to part idiots with their money, but it's never going to replace the financial system and fiat. 

 I'm not sure how forcing people onto a single currency and making it impossible for countries to control their own currency on a national level is inherently beneficial.

Let's be honest, the people who want BTC to be a single global currency want that to be the case because they feel they are "early" and will massively profit from that happening. Pretending it matters to poor people living paycheck to paycheck for whom money is ephemeral is top tier cringe. 

 Not without measures that would be seen as censorship. The relays would need to agree to remove events and relays that refuse would need to be removed from the network.

On an application level the applications could filter things out too, but even that would only be client side and would be seen as the apps applying censorship across nodes.

The thing is, decentralized zero-censorship platforms have been tried before and they all end the same way. Normal people leave because they get tired of muting abhorrent content and don't benefit from the zero censorship, and platforms distributing the apps pull them for failing to adhere to ToS (Both Apple an Google stores require apps to be able to moderate user-generated content for example).

The thing is, I don't think Rowan Atkinson is a complete free speech absolutist. I think he accepts that some things are too abhorrent to be allowed. I think like most sensible people he believe there's should be balance somewhere he's just not supportive of what he sees a government overreach.

I think in general people should have free speech, but I think there has to be a line, which is usually defined in law. If we want more freedom of speech we should challenge unjust laws as Rowan Atkinson did. I don't think that platforms that simply ignore all the laws and try to help people get around them help the situation at all. 

 Two fish bumping heads #InkblotArt 

 "Peer reviewed" by an antivax journal no actual scientist would take seriously.

Do you guys just google things you agree with then post is as if it's factual without doing any research into it at all? Do you know what confirmation bias is? 

 I'll accept evidence that is verifiable and based on facts, not propaganda. I certainly won't accept a medical study performed by an antivax economist, paid for by antivaxxers, then peer reviewed by anti vaxxers and yet rejected by every independent scientist.

What kinds of crack do they put in the water in Slough? They've found numerous faults in his study and they have been widely documented. The core one being that the source of his data was misinterpreted data from VAERS, a database that anyone can contribute to without verifying the claim. It should be noted that using VAERS to back antivax studies long predates COVID.

Even the data he presented showed that you are 4 times more likely to die from the vaccine if you were republican supporting than if you were democrat supporting. How does that not highlight to you that the data was not objective? The reason for political affiliation being a major contributing factor was that the "data" he used was based on people making the claim that someone died from it, not based on any actual evidence of people dying from it.

I certainly know about confirmation bias. I don't engage in it because unlike you I don't form a conclusion then religiously stick to it regardless of what the facts show. If the actual facts showed that there was a high likelihood of death from the vaccine then I'd accept that, but realistically COVID vaccines are rejected by the same luddites that make up crazy conspiracies about 5G.

I get that scientific advancement is scary to you, but that doesn't mean all advancements are out to kill you. 

 Just for those who might believe this, this is a paper written by an antivax economist, paid for by an antivax campaigning group and peer reviewed by an antivax medical journal. It should in no way be taken as fact by anyone who takes science and technology seriously. 

 Are you at all concerned that bitcoin is increasingly associated with conspiracy theorists and propaganda? In the early days I was on board with the idea of crypto becoming a big mainstream thing but the more time goes on the more it's becoming the domain of lunatics and regular people are bailing out.

Pretty much every crypto based social media platform devolves into antivax, climate change denial and other such crazy nonsense.

It then doesn't help that if you try to have any conversation around economics with a crypto bro they pretty much regurgitate the same unfounded claims about the economy and the finance sector and some massive conspiracy against crypto, usually with a strong dose of "they're printing money!" with clear indicators they don't really know what that means or why it happens.

Then it all tends to boil down to them not liking to have to abide with rules of the society they choose to live in, and thinking that any taxes they have to pay are unjust. Though in every case they seem to be glad that society protects them, which is weird. They want societies rules they just don't want to contribute to them or be bound by them 🤣 

 That is indeed how the economy is structured, yes. Money gets printed and wages go up, ideally resulting in a unit of work continuing to hold the same value while the hoarding of money is discouraged. This in turn stimulates spending which enables producers to keep producing.

The other option is that everyone just tightens their belts and stops spending, which means producers downsize their capacity and let staff go and the economy contracts while a whole bunch of people lose their ability to keep themselves housed and fed. 

 How will decentralization fix it? Like if a country has no control over it's own monetary system and a major event occurs that causes a massive drop in spending, how does a country keep its economy afloat if it no longer has any controls over the economic levers? 

 Ahh yes, another bitcoin fanatic using reductio ad absurdum to support his point. People won't intentionally stop buying food, no, but as is actually evidenced by historic trends people do cut back on luxuries.

And guess what? Luxuries are also produced by companies that employ people, so a drop in demand means they start cutting back on the employees they need, the hours the employ or the pay the offer. That in turn drives people to cut back on essentials due to sheer necessity.

I absolutely support poor people which Is why I don't support ponzi schemes that offer people the ability to get rich by doing nothing which inevitably lead to the majority of poorer people losing out. When bitcoin crashed, who do you think had to sell their stake? People who were sitting on piles of excess money, or poor people who had invested but couldn't keep the cash locked in for several years?

Seriously kid, you need to grow up and embrace the real world. 

 It doesn't require new debt. It requires luxuries because people like luxuries and so a lot of industry has built around that.

In theory if people wanted to we could remove luxuries from the economy over time to the point that everyone only works in industries that produce essentials and people only buy essentials, but that would be pretty terrible all round.

The problem is that if there's an economic event that causes people to stop buying luxuries suddenly, those industries contract and everyone in them loses money. The rich ones aren't overly affected by this, but all the millions of normal people working in those industries suddenly lose their primary source of income, and that' a pretty huge problem.

The funny thing is you keep telling me I support the billionaires but you're the one supporting a situation that would overwhelmingly hurt poorer people more than anyone else. In your fantasy and billionaires would just buy a shit load of bitcoin to hedge against economic hardship, but poor people living paycheck to paycheck who suddenly have no income would be fucked.

The funny thing is that every time you BTC maxis tend to think you'd be on the OK side of it, more often than not because you're supported by your parents dumping all of your burger flipping money into crypto. Reality isn't something you strive to understand. 

 That's not what you were alluding to in your previous comment though, this is you trying to wiggle out of being wrong. You've also failed to address any of the other points.

I'd like to say it was a surprise but it's pretty much the standard for BTC maxis, as soon as they start needing to understand more than first grade economics they just star going "lol, you're so wrong it's funny" with no additional explanation. 

 Users on this platform have told me that they believe terrorist propaganda and child sexual assault material are protected by free speech. I'd be interested to see if Rowan Atkinson agrees with you guys when that's how far you're going. 

 Anyone who states that removing CSAM is censorship is saying that free speech protects CSAM.

Do you believe that absolutely nothing should be able to be removed from the Nostr network, or do you believe that there are limits on what should be allowed?

Here's one such example where the person believes everything including CSAM is in scope of "free speech"

https://void.cat/d/UQrEHp7D2TbX8MeqUSPKRv.webp 

 It's certainly being served up by Nostr applications, distributed through messages and allowing the tipping between pedos on the platform. Most of the services also use some form of image proxy too, which means that every time they serve a CSAM image they are "making indecent images" as under the law, creating and serving a copy is making an image.

By the way, it's funny how a minute about you were going "this is bullshit" but withing one post you've already turned into a pedo apologist, trying to justify why CSAM should not be removed from the platform.

You're sick. Seek help you fucking freak. 

 I'd rather child sexual assault material is removed from the network and pedos are not able to use it to distribute and tip each other for content. That means going after hosts of images, relays serving the content (oh and FYI, it is entirely possible for relays to host images directly).

Not only have I reported apps to the IWF and seen multiple people supporting it, you took all of one comment to shift to a position that you're defending networks distributing it.

I think all networks should abide by the national laws in the jurisdictions they operate in. I think that by refusing to censor anything, the future of Nostr is at threat because no normal person is going to stick around contributing to platforms that enable pedos and other abhorrent users. 

So I think that ultimately if you stick to you "censor nothing" guns then this platform will do the same as every other decentralized platform and end up as a circlejerk of a few hardcore supporters and a bunch of people too abhorrent to go anywhere else.

Remember, normal people don't have the same incentive to seek out a zero censorship platform because most of them don't have a problem on regular social media platforms as they don't spread illegal content. I've never once been banned from any social media platform.

I think the state will kill clients and relays anyway, and when you support them distributing CSAM you make it significantly easier for government to do so. If you really wanted to stand up to government overreach you'd try to stay within the law so that at least you can get public support. But if Nostr relays and apps get pulled into court for distributing CSAM don't expect people cheering for your side besides NAMBLA supporters. 

 You are shockingly delusional 🤣

If anything the desire of you people to seek more and more extreme positions as some kind of way to shock people is driving people away from supporting you. The problem is that you position yourselves inside echo chambers so you think you're gaining a lot more traction than you are. 

 🤣 Imagine being a crypto cultist and believing you understand what having a personality is. I read a variety of media sources including some mainstream sources and form my own opinions. You on the other hand receive instructions on how to march in lock-step with your cult and reject any information sources that don't agree with you. 

 That remains to be seen. He want's to remove people's right to choose to have an abortion for a start, hardly a "pro-freedom" position.

He always wants to prohibit certain forms of speech, anything he feels is pushing "pollical correctness" which seems to include anything feminist.

There are also indications from what he's said himself that he intends to use the law to restrict protests against him.

I think he likes to paint himself as pro-freedom, but he's just a standard dictator that only likes freedom for people who agree with him. 

 Sarcasm detected. No I'm sure you read a whole bunch of "independent" news sources that all say the same things and reinforce your preexisting bias.

Unlike you I don't seek out news I agree with, and if anything I try to read more counterpoints that I do those agreeing with me. Unlike you I'm capable of independent thought. 

 Based on your posts your bias is anything that says the state, the existing economic infrastructure or anything related to mainstream media is terrible and bitcoin is the future. That's why you openly demonstrate a complete lack of economic knowledge while trying to pretend you're actually the one that understands it.

Basically anything that support you circle jerking with the rest of your maxis. The sites you get your new from probably all have "coin", "chain" or "crypto" of some variant of the same in their name. 

 Sure, happy to see what you believe qualifies as a new source. 

 If you're not engaged in criminal transactions then does it really matter? 

 Same applies to the apps though, if the apps allow access to illegal content then the apps are also liable. Which means ultimately the apps end up having to either apply censorship themselves before it reaches the browser or they have to only operate on nodes with censorship.

At that point, what's the benefit of the protocol, other than being a really slow way to send information? 

 Second test 

 It's not an authoritarian talking point, the fact is that we can pick a platform in part based on how that platform deals with abhorrent content.

Historically when platforms go with the "zero censorship" approach, abhorrent content starts showing up and since it never gets removed people just remove themselves from the platform, skewing the ratio towards abhorrent content. Before too long it's just mostly just the people who post abhorrent content.

And bear in mind, most normal people don't get censored or banned on traditional social media platforms, we can discuss pretty much everything we want to in the terms we want to without getting banned. So even the concept of a censorship resistant platform is primarily marketed towards people who are abhorrent and lack self-restraint. 

 Whether I can control the visibility of it is beside the point, hiding it doesn't mean you're not sharing a platform with it and with zaps and such the likelihood to being a single jump away from contributing to it is high.

It's important to note that most people aren't affected by moderation on other platforms either, so while there's a benefit to a far-right extremist who has been banned from twitter coming over here, there is no such similar benefit to a normal person.

If I see enough abhorrent content and have to hide it, I'm just going to exit the platform. Most normal people will do the same, rather than constantly chasing everything with a filter, and so the ratio of abhorrent content will only increase. This happens to all zero censorship platforms in the end.

Out in the street there are laws, so it's not a particularly strong analogy.

I haven't had a chance to look yet, but I assume that when I mute someone they can continue to tag me in things they post, is that correct? Meaning that people who are targeted with hateful abuse will carry that around with them with no recourse. 

 You have engaged. You haven't engaged meaningfully since you've just insulted me for holding an opinion you disagree with, but it's engagement nonetheless.

Your analogy is flawed in that you are suggesting private homes in general are within the platform. The most likely outcome is after seeing abhorrent content not be dealt with, normal people will leave the entire ecosystem, not just one "home" or relay. If that's what you're aiming for by all means continue to dismiss legitimate concerns with personal attacks. 

 You can do that on any platform but most normal people will only put up with having to keep blocking abhorrent content before they move on. Ans since normal people don't get censored on traditional social media platforms they gain very little from coming to a decentralized platform.

Also when I've tried out the muting it appears you still see the notes just it says "this has been muted", so when there are people being bombarded with abhorrent content they'll just be bombarded with little hidden note notifications.

Sure, I accept your premise that you believe people can make their own decisions. But what if the decision most people make is to leave the platform and go elsewhere, so it just ends up with a few die hards like yourself then a large pile of abhorrent crazies? Surely at that point there will be little reason to stick around.

The problem is that your ideal is based on the idea that people will make the choices for themselves but not ever choose "leave the platform" as an option, and every zero-censorship platform to date has devolved into just the worst elements because everyone else ultimately leaves. 

 It's not a lie, I've never had a problem. It sounds like you lack self control and are unable to control yourself in public. It's just like how you'd get kicked out of a pub if you started screaming abuse at someone you disagreed with.

And that's fine, you want zero moderation. Most normal people though won't stick around on a platform where truly abhorrent viewpoints are openly tolerated, so ultimately you'll be sharing a zero censorship platform with a bunch of extremists and noone else. You'll have inadvertently created an echo chamber anyway by alienating normal people. 

 Which is fine but most normal people will only put up with it for so long having to see the abhorrent content them mute it before they leave the platform. If I see even a single post from a pedo with illegal content I'll drop the platform in a heartbeat as would most normal people.

Will you still think it's a great idea if the platform ends up being a handful of die-hard supporters like yourself alongside a bunch of Nazis and pedos with everyone else having left? 

 I haven't said you can't have it, do whatever you want. Just ask yourself if you'll really be happy if this platform devolves into the same abhorrent mess all of the other zero-censorship platforms turned into?

Because I guarantee the result will be the same. First off people will see the content and mute it, then it'll keep showing up and they'll leave. Then it'll be reported widely and app stores will drop the apps as they can't be moderated. Then hosting providers will push back on people hosting the front ends and nodes.

And at each step trying to appeal to a wider audience will get hard and harder and harder until only the most abhorrent people and the die-hard supporters remain. 

 You overestimate people's desire for an absolutist view of free speech. I guarantee you that if you asked people if pedos should be able to post child sexual assault material without it being taken down that the vast, vast, vast majority would say they absolutely should not be able to.

On these platforms nasty stuff always starts out as an exception but as those people realize they can stay on the platform their content increase while normal people pull the rip cord and bail out. And as the content gets reported, other platforms such as the app stores pull access to the platform making it even harder for you to reach normal people. 

 I'm not dead set against it, I just know that free speech absolutism will not work the way you expect. It'll be you and a bunch of pedos and Nazis while all the normal people bail out and app stores pull access to apps serving the networks content. Seriously, a single child sexual assault image reported to Google or Apple with no ability to be removed would likely lead to an immediate purge of the platform and a legal case against the developers of the app. You may think free speech guarantees people the right to post any abhorrent shit they want but the law and the platforms enabling you to reach a wide audience will strongly disagree.

I'm here to see what the platform is like to see if there's any likelihood of it becoming a big thing. Based on the complete lack of ability to remove illegal material and the fact that the vast majority of the current users are bitcoin maxis who throw a full on tantrum when you challenge any of their opinions that it does not in fact have much of a future.

It's ironic that you think it's my world lacking truth 🤣
Reality is going to be rough for you my friend. 

 It really depends on what you want from the platform though. If you want a platform where no normal people frequent, the apps all have to be installed manually and you have to use dodgy relays and DNS servers and it's just you an a bunch of illegal abhorrent types, then the way it's currently going is the path to that.

But if you want broad reach then you have to be able to keep the platform within the law, and unfortunately for you (not me because I don't actually subscribe to the cult of free speech absolutism) that's going to require censorship to some degree. 

 I have to say by the way that you guys need to find better examples if you want to convince people that censorship is a bad thing. Saying "I wasn't allowed to spread dangerous health misinformation during a pandemic" isn't really a strong selling point.

If anything many normal people don't think governments went hard enough or fast enough at cracking down on misinformation and that resulted in a great many deaths. 

 So your response is to post more antivax propaganda? He may have skated by on the "unethical practices" claim but the paper is still retracted from real journal. The journal is has been published in is an antivax journal and so no objective peer review has taken place. Just a bunch of idiots nodding along with each other because the paper pushes the narrative they want even though to call it "factually inaccurate" would be a massive understatement.

Ultimately if what you want is a platform that allow Nazis, pedos, antivaxxers and conspiracy theories to circlejerk and cheer each other on, then congratulations you're getting that. But normal people will only see it as further evidence that cryptocurrency is designed to benefit the most abhorrent parts of society and will push back against your platform and the causes you are pushing.

And if you're such a luddite that you don't want to understand the actual science then you do you. But you choose to live in a society that has rules and will protect itself so don't expect the rest of us to allow you to put people in danger without repercussions. 

 An Arachnid from Starship Troopers #InkblotArt 

 I made an account, because hey why not, remains to be seen if it'll stay active.

First impressions (using Snort) is that it's a little slow and conversations I've seen trending all seem to be a bit one dimensional (I get that it's crypto based but there are other subjects 🤣).

Werid thing on Snort too is that when I post a message I get a box pop up on top of another one, I assume one is trying to tell me about relays.

https://void.cat/d/B8kZo4UdyH5rsz1k764HHx.webp 

 That's awesome. 

 The fact that you think there are no valid criticisms of your beliefs suggests you are part of a cult. 

 As I understand it the requirement is for them to include it in their privacy policy, which I believe they do.

What is your ultimate goal here though? At most it would result in Google adding an adblock detection popup, or a clause on their cookie consent popup related to it. 

 You are supporting it. It's already on the public relays people are using.

Nostr instructs that the content is not removed though, because removing content is apparently "censorship". As soon as you start saying it's fine to remove content, the purpose of the protocol ceases to matter and you may as well use http.

And so as a result the relays are used by the existing apps are not moderated and so you literally share a platform with illegal content. This is not theoretical, illegal content exists on the platform and short of only using moderated relays that remove content, nothing can be done to stop it.

It should also be noted that from a legal standpoint it's not just the relays at risk, if the front ends and apps support access to the it then they also have a legal duty to remove illegal content for any jurisdiction they operate in. I doubt "it's a protocol" will carry much weight in court when developers are defending their apps allowing access to child sexual assault images. 

 Nostr isn't Tor. And even then Tor nodes can and do make it difficult to access some illegal services.

But it'll be funny watching the devs trying to claim "it's just a protocol, we can't be responsible for what's on it" when the services they operate are being used to distribute child sexual assault material. 

 No, Nostr app devs bear the same responsibility that app providers share. Snort for example is a social media platform. Anything shown on it is legally their responsibility. The law won't care that the owners try to claim it's just a protocol to get around having to take responsibility. 

 In some cases they are. Snort I believe is deployed operated by the developer for example.

It's not hard to find but node operators do try to keep the worst stuff harder to access and there's plenty of cooperation with authorities.

It would be hilarious. I actually think it's a good thing when people who help distribute child sexual assault material are charged. Even better if they get full custodial sentences. So if you operate a relay that doesn't remove that or you run a website where relays that provide that content can be used, then you should be jailed. Preferably with a massive angry guy on a triple life sentence. 

 Holy shit, your level of pedo apologism is way higher than I thought. 

 Apparently all you support is pedos. Bear in mind your arguments so far have been that you don't think censoring illegal content is a good thing and then that you think pedos should just be allowed access to child sexual assault material. To me it sounds like you're just trying to protect your own sick interests at this point.

And to be clear, people don't have to subscribe to free speech absolutism to be free. We choose to live in societies and we agree to abide by common rules. In the same way you can't bash someone head in with a brick without repercussions, there are some things you can't spread without repercussions.

The problem is that you free speech absolutist types take a broad concept of being able to say something out loud then you try to apply that to publishing and data transmission, things it was never designed to apply to, and you apply it to any company rather than just the government which is what free speech laws apply to. 

I'll make it clear. Free speech does not include the right to distribute child sexual assault material. If you think it does then you are a pedo and should hand yourself and your computer into the authorities. 

 🤣 Reality really upsets you, huh? 

 Good luck in court with that one. "Nostr services only distribute the child sexual assault material, technically the original copy is stored on another service".

It's not really hard to understand. Anything you see on a social media platform is a liability for that platform. If as a platform they shrug and say "not my problem, we don't moderate content" then they're gonna get crucified in court. 

 Understood but I think you'll still be affected as it's an existential problem, the same problem that destroys all of the zero-censorship platforms in the end. The platform devolves into only the worst elements.

The problem is with the absolutist idea of allowing anything and everything. Most normal people don't want that so it's impossible to gain broad appeal without some level of censorship.