What I'm realizing is that those JPGs and crap are expressions of individuals and companies who have their own goals. And they are entitled to do that.
But in the end what we can ALL agree is that money is not spam. Money is a tool to fight information overload, hence we gotta keep Bitcoin focused on being money... we don't want it to become a decentralized database of various types of information.
Well said Uncle!
The culture is deteriorating.
Incentives are being upside down.
We need more true bitcoiners.
A knot a day keeps the spammer away
This is very basic in the design world, the FLEXIBILITY vs SPECIFICITY principle. The more flexible something is, the less specific it can be by definition and vice versa. We want Bitcoin to be the OPTIMAL money, therefor it can't try to do anything else as all of its design's encountered trade-offs need to favor the aspect of money for it to be THE best money.
By its technical definition, on-chain Bitcoin will never be the optimal money. Lightning is much more aligned with that goal.
Agree that L2s like lightning network are needed to make bitcoin faster and convenient for everyday use. But I would argue that even if we didn't have L2s bitcoin would still be optimal money in relation to everything else. It may be slower but still operable for wealth management or big purchases while not needing a third-party custodian which wins over gold and it holds its value over time which beats fiat. But, yes for everyday micro/small purchases we do need L2s that focus on optimizing for speed and security of transactions while L1 optimizes for decentralization and security.
Which is to say something true but not specific - the right thing to do still depends on the details. That this principle exists, relevant, but it shouldn't be a foot in the door for rationalizing what is not a good choice on its own merits.
Could you elaborate how specifically? I understand what you mean but don't see how this principle fails in this context as I think you are alluding to (?).
I agree we should aim to optimize as the best money, but would by default assume any concession of principle that aims to do so to be most likely to be short sighted. After all, we have principles because they predict outcomes better than forecasting. As to context, I'm not actually being adversarial to the specifics, only highlighting the generalized counter point for edification:
When 'rigid axiomatic rule prohibits' I agree let's not 'let perfect be the enemy of the good', but I would simply add that the cautionary counter point to *that* then is 'system failure and injustice often begin with rationalized concessions of principle'
This is very basic in the design world, the FLEXIBILITY vs SPECIFICITY principle. The more flexible something is, the less specific it can be by definition and vice versa. We want Bitcoin to be the OPTIMAL money, therefor it can't try to do anything else as all of its design's encountered trade-offs need to favor the aspect of money for it to be THE best money.
nevent1qqsqnddnftmful89j0g03j9l4jvlxc7y8p42f5vdrvml6cne4yeg7fcprdmhxue69uhkvet9v3ejumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtmzv4h8xv2qgae
To be a database, it needs to store a specific type of data.
That’s why businesses don’t just have a database for all the business data. There’s a database of customer contacts, a database of business transactions, and so on. Most business also enforce IT and data management policies which prevent people from putting unrelated or irrelevant data into the various databases.
If you allow any type of data to go into a database, it just becomes data storage, which is far less useful.
So Bitcoin is a database… Of monetary data.
It’s the difference between an Amazon warehouse and a hoarder’s storage space.
Thanks Uncle. You’re a real rockstar.
nevent1qqsqnddnftmful89j0g03j9l4jvlxc7y8p42f5vdrvml6cne4yeg7fcprdmhxue69uhkvet9v3ejumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtmzv4h8xv2qgae
