what's confusing about it?
Discussion
First sentence is clear. No idea what you're saying in the second paragraph.
But based on the first sentence, you're arguing Bitcoin and lightning are only useful so long as the government doesn't restrict our ability to network our devices together. Technically true. Practically meaningless.
sort of - the narratives are easily distorted to create excuses to restrict access to networks. and that's the precipice.
you know what else is practically meaningless? digital assets you cannot access. they're a real bummer... whether they're in a traditional financial institution or any "Bitcoin" holding outside of a physical offline custody.
This is semantic, but probably important:
A) Bitcoin (UTXOs) *cannot* be stored offline
B) Bitcoin (UTXOs) exists on The Bitcoin *Network* (requires network connection)
C) Keys can be stored offline. Keys are not Bitcoin. Keys prove ownership of Bitcoin (UTXOs)
For you to spend Bitcoin you need two things
- Keys
- The Bitcoin Network
Without a network your keys become useless. Whether or not they are "offline" doesn't matter.
you're discussing Bitcoin. im discussing bitcoin per the white paper.
Oh you mean the white paper that literally has a section called "Network"?
From: dan<-JackDorsey at 05/18/23 14:01:28 on wss://relay.nostrplebs.com
CC: #[3]
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
>---------------
Test Ignore
what do you want there bob - ?
I'm testing the reply function of more-speech. I've added putting in CC: for each person mentioned in a "p" tag.
>From: (the_valley) at 05/18/23 15:26:23 on wss://relay.damus.io
>---------------
>what do you want there bob - ?
Here's what that looks like.
From: unclebobmartin at 05/18/23 15:29:37 on wss://relay.nostriches.org
CC: #[4]
CC: #[5]
CC: #[6]
>---------------
>I'm testing the reply function of more-speech. I've added putting in CC: for each person mentioned in a "p" tag.
>
>>From: (the_valley) at 05/18/23 15:26:23 on wss://relay.damus.io
>>---------------
>>what do you want there bob - ?