Think of resolution this way: Do you want to have your eyes process 1/3 more pixels to have the same visual information?
Do you often show schematics or essays on screen that have text smaller than 3/4 the size of the text you are currently reading?
Then no, it doesn't matter.
You literally don't know what you're talking about. Anarchy is the status quo. The governments are just the biggest warlords that masquerade as human rights organizations.
You were talking to communists using anarchy as a cudgel against the state. Anarchy is a relationship not an organization or state structure. Anarchy is the state of the world. Governments are warlords using human rights as a cover. People playing the state's game are LARPing.
Thermodynamics. Violence is more expensive than peaceful cooperation. Free-trade is just a polite reminder that you are destroying yourself by using the state to steal.
You have anarchy at all points (No rulers in a true sense). It is only if you ideologically submit to a ruler that you exit anarchy and become a subject to whatever game you subscribe. Federalism, democracy, monarchy, or communism. Those are all games you can choose to play. But life itself has no ruler. Do you see?
No, I don't need to do anything. Think like this: gravity is the way of the world. Everyone participating else has a wing suit and are flapping their arms furiously to keep themselves 100feet in the air. I tell them I just stand on the ground. I am telling you, you don't need the wing suits. You suggest if we all get rid the wing suits we would all die. It's easier to live on this planet by walking on the ground but everyone just keeps flapping.
Technology creates sovereignty against the mob. This statement is akin to saying "But you don't realize how powerful the federal reserve is. They can print money and make people do what they want."
A bitcoiner can see the flaw in this logic. All you need is an alternative and you make power structures irrelevant. Anti-Gun laws and Gun protection laws are irrelevant when people have 3D printers and CNC machines. You don't need to ask people to leave you alone, you make them. The first step however, is convincing yourself that you aren't bound to them or their rules.
Large scale individual sovereignty is a contradiction in terms. You can only how small communities or individuals in anything. It is me?literally a mental illusion that a country exists in anything more than a mental exercise. You have nothing in common with anybody in your country besides a shared delusion. A Marylander has nothing in common with an Ohioan beside what we all share as humans.
Without those men and women the whims of politicians would be nothing more than letters to Santa. If the purpose of a system is what it does, then those people are the ones DOING the thing, evil. Mere distaste that you were fooled is not atonement for the evil you enact. It is simply a proclamation that you can be fooled into doing the unspeakable. Proud veterans of the state are just as dangerous as they were when they were killing people. Veterans who quietly admit that they were tricked show that they can be redeemed.
The "centralization" versus "Decentralization" dichotomy is permission versus permissionless. Do you need permission to join? No? Then it's decentralized no matter how many participants are involved. If you must be admitted to the system from an authority it is centralized. This is the only distinction that matters.
This is high trust society behavior. The assumption is that no person of moral character would ever take advantage of a system of charity. Look around you, do you see people of similar moral character in your town? Then, this would work. If not, you are actually creating a perverse incentive. Charity, morality, and kindness is for your friends. Never give these things to your enemies. They will destroy you with your own helping hand.
Alternative justice models are not things you can announce. You just do them in secret. It's one thing to open a shop next to Walmart. It's another thing entirely to tell them you are competing directly with them.
Okay, my point still stands. Do you see ads for private arbitration or enforcement outside of state control? No. My point isn't, give up it's hopeless. My point is, for your own safety don't advertise you are competing with the state on force, and justice. They will kill you or at the very least force you to stop.
Contracts are STATE enforced so is arbitration. Just read what I actually said and don't infer my point when I state it clearly. I know things can work without the state, I'm an anarchist.
The thing is, I don't understand if V4V is such a bad idea, doesn't work, and will collapse, why does everyone spend so much time talking about how it won't work as a payment model? Surely you would just not bother because the people implementing it would just not do it anymore.
The thing about decentralized systems is the modularity with which they are build allow for different models to be tested. The reason why paywalls and V4V are clashing is that one hurts the other and people advocating for either are just partisans. If there's a paywall, V4V gives away content for an ostensibly cheaper price. If there's a V4V model pay walls give people FOMO and draw from charitable payments. You are participating in a culture war.
But it isn't completely anonymous... If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bike. Again, I don't understand the aversion beside standing athwart the hill of payment schemes yelling "Stop giving money to each I other all willy-nilly!"
Saying it has no incentives then listing incentives is definitely a new way to make a point.
Is it switching to I2P instead of clearnet or TOR? Because if it's another OP codes discussion about making things easier for devs, we've had enough of that conversation already.
Mix Border wallet, with NFC tag, with hardware wallet, with a paper wallet, to get your multi sig. Everyone seems to be of the opinion that tech breaks or becomes obsolete. But no one seems to think that having analogue backups can be a part of your main security model. Very odd, imo.
Yeah, if it's a single sig it's one point of failure. Multisig with borderwallet or paper analogue back ups is my advocacy. But, in this particular case smaller tramsaction size and open scource vetting or compliling the code yourself is really your only option. Brutal cautionary tale.
Morality is for your friends not your enemies. Make a filter for sorting the people you meet. Politeness used to be as simple filter applied to newly met individuals. Got conflated with morality and thus the filter broke. Many such cases.
Being polite as a filter for who your friends are is broken. People(enemies) will use your politeness as a cudgel against you. I am saying you are running outdated software and might need to patch some parameters surrounding with whom you are being polite. An exploit has been found and running that older code leaves you vulnerable.
Yeah, lets trust the government to unarrest the guy they overcharged and arrested in the first place! If Trump does it, great, but also cosigning a criminal organization like the US Gov't arrests and kills way more people than Ross.
Politics are a mental delusion. Wake up, it's literally a mental game millions/billions play but, realize it IS a game. You can stop any time you want.
I break fast every two days. But today we found out nostr:nprofile1qqsr9cvzwc652r4m83d86ykplrnm9dg5gwdvzzn8ameanlvut35wy3gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwd4hhxarj9ec82cspzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsgewke8 is a somnigastrist maxi.
Being left alone is something to be had. Also, who said libertarians want to be left alone. They just don't want to be forced to do shit. This is like people who say anti-interventionists are isolationists. As if the only thing two places can exchange is bombs. Gtfo of here.
Lol, there are things one must do in this world for one's own survival. Once again, it is your assertion that Libertarians want to be left alone. Either way, "leave me alone" was the warning not an impossibility.
For the simple ones: I say "leave me alone." You say "I'm not going to leave you alone." I defend myself and my property from you. My wants are fulfilled. Yours are not. You think every Libertarian is a loner, you are incorrect.
LOLOLOL, Can no one read? What part of "Libertarians don't want to be left alone" don't you understand? Communities and social clubs are a big part of securing liberty for oneself, family, and friends. Again you all sound like the type to say to a non intervebtionist that they are isolationists because you can't fathom humans interacting without killing each other. Sad people.
This kind of report is invaluable for those not sure if they are doing enough for themselves and their family. Specifically what needs more than a cursory supply or redundancy.
How does anyone have time to be an inventor? I have to spend 60hours a week providing for my family. I get 2 days a week to explore my ideas and then at a moment of a breakthrough it's late on Sunday and If I want to not die at work I go to bed and put off my ideas until next week. On top of that very limited excess captial limits these things even further. I think I will start a Podcast where I just say all of my dumb ideas and hopefully someone hears it and makes it because I am obviously never going to make these things a material reality. Anyone got an opinion here? #inventors #ideas #help
Staggering amout of typographical errors for a QA guy. 😂
I agree with your sentiment of UI design but forgoing wheels because you don't like how the sidewalls look is a bit myopic. Testing is happening by the way, millions of times over but, there is not a readily accessible log of errors and bug for devs to work on. THAT would be good to implement in wallets BUT the optics of:
STORE YOUR MOST VALUABLE ASSET WITH MY PROGRAM! (but also if there is a, "if you found an error or bug you find log that here," button.) People might not use your program enough to test it.
Lol. This is like if you gave primitive humans english language to try to communicate. They would just use the letters as they saw fit. But to an outside observer they might seem to be using english to say profound things but in reality the phrase "I wonder about the nature of existence" meant "I gotta take a shit." To them. But the observer might be tricked into thinking the primitives are very profound because we don't know WHY they use the words they use.
The same with AI. They are predicting the next word that is likely to come after another. And because modern humans have said profound things in their data set, IT says profound things. But for all we know the AI is just saying it needs to take a shit.
Damn I'm pedantic but the infusion of nation and state is a recent phenomenon. Nations USED to be a general cultural and ethnic group not of choice but temperament and moral cohesion.
What is realistic? Basically the contention comes down to nominal versus real "gains" and what can be measured.
Saylor is using the dollar as a measuring stick. That is an impossible, and at the very least innaccurate measure. Saying "5%" doesn't mean anything realistically when you have some sort of ever expanding pizza. It makes no sense to say I want 5% of a pizza that is expanding in volume but becoming less calorie dense with each expansion per square inch.
Saylor is saying people want more pizza and will continue to want more pizza.
Saif is saying people want calories and will make the choices that meet that end.
Which one is the realist? Well, the people who chase the ever expanding slice will STARVE to death and are therefore inconsequential to the future. Those who chase calories will still be alive in the future and thus be important to analyze.
This is the same problem as when people say "The government and blackrock having Bitcoin will be bad."
How?
When they fail to produce value they will have their holding siphoned away but productive people. How will they gather more when they are the least efficient and most wasteful entities? They won't they will just spend their Bitcoin until there's nothing left trying to keep their charade afloat.
Saylor seems to think that the fiat paradigm is just "not efficient." He is incorrect. It is a sinkhole of human production that is only alive through the sheer volume of of social cohesion. Think of a blown tire going 80MPH. The only thing keeping your car from flying off of the road is that this stretch is fairly straight and you have momentum. The moment there is a(n economic) curve in the road, the crash will be quick and it will be violent.
Sorry for the diatribe but the buzz of "Realist" sticks in my brain. The people who dropped bombs on civilians in Japan were Realists. We need to search your bags be fore you get on the plane are Realists. It always seems to give cover to moral misgivings because if we stop the car with the blown tire we might lose control. I reject that.
In this world where does the 5% come from? Why would a bank give you anything to hold BTC? The answer is rehypothication. They loan your bitcoin to others. If you actually care about the value proposition of Bitcoin this is akin to naked short selling. Infinite downside marginal upside. As for the chide about my analogies, remember if you happen upon two people speaking a foreign language and you don't understand them, that doesn't mean they are speaking gibberish. Maybe you might need the humility to realize YOU don't understand something that is clear to others. I am not saying Saylor is incorrect about things that might happen. I am saying they are economically illiterate. People do things that cause market failures all the time. But the Yield paradigm he is predicting is just as foolish as printing dollars and just as disasterous.
Right. And what is that regular course of business for a bank? Lending.
What do they lend? Deposits.
And what did you deposit? Bitcoin.
We're literally reillustrating why gold failed.
If they lend fiat, they can print more.
If they lend gold, they issue coupons in a ponzi scheme.
What do you think happens when they lend your bitcoin out?
Banks are a vestigal contrivance of when they were gold warehouses. Banks don't DO anything. They don't even store an appreciable amount of fiat notes which is their ostensible purpose. So the course of their business is stealing (borrowing without permission) people's money and giving it to others. When they lose that money they just print more. How can they do that with Bitcoin. That is why I ask where the 5% comes from. It's especially farcical when Saylor claims that it would be a "Risk-Free" return. So at the end of it all I know it's not Unique what banks WILL do in the future. I am saying if you value your bitcoin you would never give it to a bank.
More likely a failure of language. I listed several things that banks "do"
When i say a bank doesn't do anything i am referring to value created.
Banks leverage value entrusted to them to bestow value upon others. They nearly never return that value to the depositors because of material inflation. I know there's risk. It seems that is only something Saylor doesn't understand which is why many have panned him for that interview.
Saifedean implied that the appreciation of Bitcoin over time would be the yield. Saylor misunderstood Saifs point because they were trying to compare apples and oranges. Receiving 1 million sats 10 years from now would hold more value than 1 million sats today. Saylor basically said no, that's still only 1 million sats on a balance sheet.
Banks and intermediaries in Bitcoin are vastly different, it's a bit hard to take the suggestion seriously. Fee's taken for literally facilitating a peer to peer trade and fees taken by handing one person's money to another person as a loan are completely different. No bank today puts up their own capital as the liquidity layer of transfer. They literally just edit a ledger and any discrepencies are loaned from the fed. The only value Banks used to offer was holding your gold for you and transferring it to your associate's bank.
I don't use banks. I use intermediaries when I cannot do something myself (which is rare). Zeuspay doesn't hold MY coins. People pay them, they pay me.
I have always perceived morality as the calculation of the consequences of actions that lead to generational flourishing or demise. The things that are morally bad are things that will diminish future generations in their totality. Things that are morally good are things that allow flourishing of future generations.
In this framework stealing isn't bad because you're taking someone's stuff. It's bad because future generations will feel like no matter how many things they have or how hard they worked to get them, those things can be taken from them without repercussion. That persistent idea in a generation is more damaging than the material loss of the object. The reason why societies strive for justice is not that it feels good to punish bad people. It is the generational idea that when someone aggresses against you there is recourse and recompense. The idea of being helpless against those who wish to do you harm, does more damage than the individual harms themselves.
In this framework you can deduce that sexual deviancy is also immoral through the damage to future generations through sheer population reduction. It is not the acts themselves that create the harm. It is the idea that reproduction is something done for fun and has no intrinsic value to human flourishing.
I could go on and on but that framework I see as a good way for those who cannot or unwilling to communicate to a divine sense of morality to compile their morality from source code, essentially.
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by JackTheMimic | export