Economically Unspendable Bitcoin UTXO Calculator
https://jlopp.github.io/unspendable-utxo-calculator/
Figured its a good time to consider UTXO management. Don't do it now but you'd be wise to think about it now and prepare for the next low fee environment. This is a very useful tool
> This calculator will give you an idea of how much it costs to spend a UTXO with specific characteristics. When that cost is computed, we can determine what the viable floor value of that type of UTXO is for any given transaction fee rate, which means you should avoid receiving deposits below that value.
I think you are confusing a few things.
1. Bitcoin transactions are not nearly free. Lightning fees are reasonable
2. BCH has lost. Its a fork that failed to win. It came out of the block size wars. An attempt by corporations to change bitcoin that failed.
BCH is a waste of time and energy but if you are curious do your own research.
The next logical step in US politics is to run dead men.
Reagan v Kennedy 2028
#plebchain
nostr:npub18kpw3akvdsyk239lx0jgwksr74sq4nlha3r8u9g2rnrhztfpfhysy469c4
Got this up near the school š¤ 
Save the children!
Few
I'm still learning about eCash but this aligns with what I know about the various implementations. I have also heard this from some of the people working on it. The honest ones. The issue in many things and also bitcoin is that people are lazy and mostly repeat second hand info and often incorrectly. These people will may pay a price for their mistakes.
nostr:note1ctlyscyhlde2fyyph2a8k57relagsm57qyt5v2uux8ew08cfc8ns8jnzzv
Smart Contracts? Thoughts from an IP and Contract Attorney
https://www.stephankinsella.com/2022/02/libertarian-answer-man-smart-contracts/
One of the big topics that caught my attention when I first acquired some bitcoin was smart contracts. I didn't hear about this from bitcoiners but rather the crypto crowd. It took years for me to realize what these snake oil salesmen were up to.
As a technical person with no experience in law the idea of a smart contract sounds appealing. Over time though, the idea started to sound far fetched to me. I started to wonder how any of these contracts except for purely digital and simple agreements would be enforced. That's not to mention that vulnerability of the chains themselves. I haven't really thought about smart contracts for a long time but I came across this post from the libertarian intellectual property attorney and author Stephan Kinsella.
I recommended reading the full post but this snippet pretty much sums it up.
> I donāt dismiss it(smart contract) either, just the hype and ignorance around it. I think that over time more things will become automated with forms, AI, arbitration, even automation, but it will develop incrementally and in the end its use case will be very narrow. This is because most people donāt understand a few things:
> 1. most contracts are very complicated and require verbal language (words) to express the terms (and canāt be done with simple symbolic logic; if anything contractual verbiage gets more nuanced and complicated over time, not simpler) and arbitrators/judges/courts to decide when there is a dispute.
> 2. most contracts involve real world assets, not digital ones, so canāt be fully automated
> 3. most contracts do not have an escrow component, that is, what you owe in the future is uncertain and even when itās certain, the thing owed doensāt exist yet and may never exist. So there is now way to automate how to handle uncertain future conditions.
> Contracts just set up a framework for how to decide who owns some uncertain future assets, and who decides it, and how to enforce. This cannot be automatedāor, even if or to the extent it can, it doesnāt solve any real problem that needs solving. Itās just āneatā and might attract nerds who like to watch Star Wars but no one in the real world cares about this shit
~ [LIBERTARIAN ANSWER MAN: Smart Contracts](https://www.stephankinsella.com/2022/02/libertarian-answer-man-smart-contracts/)
Smart Contracts? Thoughts from a IP and Contract Attorney
https://www.stephankinsella.com/2022/02/libertarian-answer-man-smart-contracts/
One of the big topics that caught my attention when I first acquired some bitcoin was smart contracts. I didn't hear about this from bitcoiners but rather the crypto crowd. It took years for me to realize what these snake oil salesmen were up to.
As a technical person with no experience in law the idea of a smart contract sounds appealing. Over time though, the idea started to sound far fetched to me. I started to wonder how any of these contracts except for purely digital and simple agreements would be enforced. That's not to mention that vulnerability of the chains themselves. I haven't really thought about smart contracts for a long time but I came across this post from the libertarian intellectual property attorney and author Stephan Kinsella.
I recommended reading the full post but this snippet pretty much sums it up.
> I donāt dismiss it(smart contract) either, just the hype and ignorance around it. I think that over time more things will become automated with forms, AI, arbitration, even automation, but it will develop incrementally and in the end its use case will be very narrow. This is because most people donāt understand a few things:
> 1. most contracts are very complicated and require verbal language (words) to express the terms (and canāt be done with simple symbolic logic; if anything contractual verbiage gets more nuanced and complicated over time, not simpler) and arbitrators/judges/courts to decide when there is a dispute.
> 2. most contracts involve real world assets, not digital ones, so canāt be fully automated
> 3. most contracts do not have an escrow component, that is, what you owe in the future is uncertain and even when itās certain, the thing owed doensāt exist yet and may never exist. So there is now way to automate how to handle uncertain future conditions.
> Contracts just set up a framework for how to decide who owns some uncertain future assets, and who decides it, and how to enforce. This cannot be automatedāor, even if or to the extent it can, it doesnāt solve any real problem that needs solving. Itās just āneatā and might attract nerds who like to watch Star Wars but no one in the real world cares about this shit
~ [LIBERTARIAN ANSWER MAN: Smart Contracts](https://www.stephankinsella.com/2022/02/libertarian-answer-man-smart-contracts/)
Kazakhstan shines spotlight on nuclear-powered future
> As the world's largest producer of uranium gears up for a referendum on the construction of a nuclear power plant, national policymakers and stakeholders have shared Kazakhstan's vision for a civilian nuclear programme at the World Nuclear Spotlight Kazakhstan event in Almaty.
Best steaks I've ever had.
nostr:note1re3m0j0dj8hgdutfjeyh5wutjt9rkfdzkxfmx0yu9k58gvgc592s9vy7pu
"Great news for people at home, inflation is coming down and food prices are coming down thanks to the efforts of the government."
"Did you mean prices are going up?"
"Sorry, the rate at which prices are rising is coming down."
Idiot.
https://video.nostr.build/426e82bfa0336dcf3b04e4a1f626c5c256fa2d712179ed3616ecbbff2ef81ae6.mp4
Explain to me how you are lying to me.
nostr:note1sstwp36ckdvraf8vd8m3mqncxgh6nqu8nmmpwgt9sqkvcnzrt90qfmrmvw
Study bitcoin
Get stickers from nostr:npub18kpw3akvdsyk239lx0jgwksr74sq4nlha3r8u9g2rnrhztfpfhysy469c4 and spread the word. Stickers are freely available at https://bitcoin.rocks/stickers
#bitcoin #bitcoinrocks #studybitcoin
Bob Murphy's Economic Outlook for the US (Updated)
https://www.infineo.ai/articles/economic-outlook-for-the-us
If you prefer audio, here's [Bob's Podcast version](https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/episodes/ep-317-murphy-updates-his-economic-outlook-for-the-us/).
Hijacking Bitcoin - Review by Stephan Kinsella
https://twitter.com/NSKinsella/status/1780469271144874414
I finally got around to reading _The Blocksize Wars_. I wasn't following bitcoin really closely back then. I did hear Roger Ver talk about it on Tom Woods podcast and listened to some debates at the time but this book has been interesting. This morning I saw this Twitter post by Stephan Kinsella (Anti-IP patent attorney, libertarian writer. Author). I respect Stephan's thoughts on many topics. Don't always agree with him of course but I found his review of this book titled _Hijacking Bitcoin_ interesting.
What follows is a review of Hijacking Bitcoin by Stephan Kinsella
> I just finished reading Hijacking Bitcoin, by @rogerkver with @steveinpursuit, and with a foreword by my buddy @jeffreyrspencer
> I will say that it is extremely well written and organized and well argued and researched. It is a very professional job. I learned some things from it. I appreciate his writing it. I could point to some defects I see in it, some things that were left out--like a definition of "Bitcoin Maximalist" or a few other fairly minor omissions, but I was impressed by the deft way the technical material was presented and woven together, combined with the history, the players, and so on.
> In the end, I am not persuaded by his case, because of a difference in opinion about the emergence and role of money and the idea of what role a cryptocurrency might play. I think the way the argument was presented was biased or weird in some ways. They keep talking about what bitcoin was "meant" to be or what Satoshi's "vision" is. This sounds cultish to me. The tactics of Core/Blockstream -- none of them are rights violations and this is just people with different views of the nature of the system and its purpose. It played out. BCH still exists. They can make their case that people should "adopt" BCH whatever that means. The conspiracy theories permeating the book are embarrassing. Vague allusions to some dude who says he worked in intelligence and and investor who is a member of Bilderberger? Come on. But then I despise conspiracy theorizing; it's embarrassing. There are other criticisms I could make but I do not want to pettifog or be nitpicky or petty.
> I think money solves the problem of barter: double coincidence of wants, and the inability to calculate. Then the state captures it, and ruins money. The promise of a decentralized, peer-to-peer and uncensorable digital asset promises to solve this problem and restore money to its original role and even improve it since in most ways it is superior to gold. All this bullshit about smart contracts, the "promise of the blockchain," NFT bullshit, using a blockchain "as a registry": I think it's all bullshit. I don't think crypto is needed to solve the "problem" that a Venmo has already solved. This is silly.
> Moreover, the (implicit) whining that there was like a 5 year window when Bitcoin could have "gained adoption" for "cheap payments" before Venmo, Zelle, PayPal etc. were in wide use, is just ridiculous. Come on. First, this solves no huge problem. It's minor. Second, it never could have since it never could be "used" for daily transactions in today's world because of capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are the primary barrier to its "adoption" as a daily currency, plus the fact that dollars/fiat work fine for transactions--at the present time. They just are not a good place to store much of your wealth. Everyone already knows this. That's why no one stores all of their wealth in dollars. They chase returns in other assets to avoid inflation. Real estate, stock market index funds, and so on. Sometimes gold, as the relic of the failed gold of the ancient days.
> So I see a digital money, during its adoption phase, as a place to put your wealth instead of more costly and inferior "stores of value" like gold, real estate, artwork, and so on. I can only hope that when it supplants gold and other assets for this function then at a certain point the political climate will change enough to allow it to be used, probably with various sidechain solutions, for daily payments etc.
> I have mentioned some of this previously at https://stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol337-wasabikas-15-you-dont-own-bitcoin/ etc.
> Re the nonsense of "smart contracts": https://stephankinsella.com/2022/02/libertarian-answer-man-smart-contracts/
> So I am glad Ver wrote this book and learned some things from it--while maintaining some skepticism at much of his claims since his bias stands out quite often--but remain unpersuaded by this large-block perspective. I still think it is almost inevitable that we will someday have a decentralized, inflation-proof and censorship-proof cryptocurrency as the single world reserve currency. Which one it will be, I do not know. Of the 30,000 cryptos that exist, my guess is it will be BTC because of network effects and it's good enough and close enough to an ideal money and so far superior to gold and fiat that it will be the one that wins out, at least for some period of time. So that means it's stupid to "use" or spend it at the present time since we are in a unique period of history when we may be seeing the adoption phase of a new money. That means its value will go up a lot. So you hold or HODL it and then eventually its value gets high enough and/or plateaus and political factors change so people do and can start using it more regularly (and after sidechains are perfected). So right now I view BTC as a speculative investment, based on the hope that it will someday replace all world fiat.
> I also don't think of money as wealth, which a lot of people implicitly seem to do. I think this is a big mistake a lot of people implicilty make. So this means that it doesn't matter what is money; it doesn't have to be permanent or stay the same. It's a tool like property rights. There is no reason money cannot change, if a better one comes along. If Money1 is in use for X years and evaporates and is replaced by Money2, no wealth is lost since money is not wealth. The money premium just shifts from one to the other. So what?
> E.g, if BTC is adopted in 10 years and lasts for 30 years, fine, it serves the function of money during that time, and if a vastly improved BTC-Hoppe comes out after that and somehow "dislodges" the first one and the world shifts to it, so what? No wealth is destroyed, since money is not wealth. Money is a sui generis good, not a consumer or capital good, not wealth in and of itself. And for this reason I do not expect Bitcoin Standard World to be one where people keep most of their wealth in cash (BTC), if only for diversification/risk sake. I would keep say 5% of my wealth in BTC for liquidity, and the rest in other real-wealth and perhaps income-earning assets, just in case BTC has some massive glitch and fails or gets replaced by BTC-Hoppe.
> That's my take. I could be wrong about this and do not pretend to be an expert, but ... this is my opinion.
> nb @saifedean
Let me clarify what I mean. I don't need permission to speak. I can do it all day. Doesn't require any permission. But the state could come and censor my speech by force.
The reverse example would be bitcoin. Its permissionless but very hard to censor by design. I could copy bitcoin code and run a miner and some nodes. It would be permissionless too but it wouldn't be censorship resistant unless it was to big to censor.
Speech is permissionless but alone I'm not as strong as I am in a group of like minded people. The network adds strength. Weapons also add to the censorship resistance.
Even some permissionless things are censorable so being permissionless is just the starting point.
Norway's New Legislation Targets Bitcoin Mining Operations
Got Inflation? Get stickers and spread the word. Stickers are freely available at https://bitcoin.rocks/stickers
#bitcoin nostr:npub18kpw3akvdsyk239lx0jgwksr74sq4nlha3r8u9g2rnrhztfpfhysy469c4
@bitcoin.rocks #bitcoin
Fix the money, fix the world
Food can mask other deeper issues it seems.