By the way, I was going to send you a zap, but you don't have a wallet set up. Might want to set one up so you can hear a few sats.
Thanks for the heads up. I just noticed and fixed it and then saw you're note, but thank you.
I blog over on the Hive blockchain and made a little game called "Wusang" (World's Ultra Simple Asset Numbers Game). It's a stupid-simple game with a pirate treasure story. A bot generates a random number, you maybe find a hidden treasure token.
This week I added #cashu #ecash as a "treasure chest" to be found. There are hidden bitcoin sats out there in the wild to be discovered. Find the ecash token, get the sats. Simple.
Info on this simple game: https://hive.blog/bitcoin/@crrdlx/bitcoin-ecash-comes-to-wusang
#bitcoin #plebchain
I tried to read the Minneapolis' Fed's [paper about bitcoin](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/working-papers/unique-implementation-of-permanent-primary-deficits). I made it through the first sentence before I said, "Forget this."
)
The paper reads:
>Imagine and economy, specified in continuous time, in which the government issues stock and pays a flow of non-negative dividends.
Three phrases stood out to me in that sentence.
1. "Imagine an economy" - I actually like this start. I'm nerdy enough to enjoy a good though experiment. And, "imagine an economy" is pretty good bait to hook me in. Economists often imagine places like an island or a prison or a remote village, all with limited resources, then go from there.
2. "in continuous time" - I think, "Huh?" Continuous time? As compared to time that is not continuous? Time that morphs back and around? Is this set our imagined economy apart from some science-fiction wormhole? I really have no idea what this term "continuous time" means or why they felt it necessary to specify this type of time up front. Immediately, I have a strong hunch as to where this is going...this paper is intended to be written with a academician's linguistic style that intends to confuse. Frankly, this style of writing is used as a weapon. It linguistic bullying toward a reader. This paper would write in such a convoluted manner where every sentence is contingent on, and qualified by, other statements or phrases. If anyone wishes to convey a point, write simply and clearly to convey that point. In my view, this paper would not do this.
3. "non-negative dividends" - Okay, writing gymnastics aside, now we're just making stuff up. "Non-negative dividends" paid by the government? Never heard it put that way. Usually, dividends to stock shareholders are simply called, "dividends." The very fact that they label them as "non-negative dividends" begs the assumption that there must be "negative dividends." I've never heard it put that way, but "negative dividends" is what's called "taxes". And, yes, I guess governments do pay out negative dividends all the time.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm all for the government cutting back on its steady flow of negative dividend payments.
#bitcoin #plebchain
I'm Jonesing hard and dang close to getting one.
What kind of bizarro clown world did I wake up in?
The FED bank of Minneapolis wrote about "useless pieces of paper (bitcoin for short)" and that "the price of bitcoin converges to zero."
Umm...considered fiat currency?
And yet, the only solutions to this alleged bitcoin problem is to either ban it (a "legal prohibition against bitcoin") or tax it.
Somehow, bitcoin is worthless and headed to zero, but yet it's still worthy of being taxed so as to balance deficits.
I'm so confused.
Article: https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-fiscal-impact-report/
#bitcoin #plebchain
I gotta say, that headline and graphic is pretty funny.
#plebchain
https://protos.com/donald-trump-serves-fries-at-mcdonalds-five-days-after-flop-crypto-launch/
Correction: taut not taught. That bothered me.
My gripe was that with the plexi, we couldn't hear each other. So, we stuck our heads around it and drew even closer to one another to communicate...the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.
Well, that's it boys and girls, pack up bitcoin and put it away. A central bank said its a bad thing. They're now kinda admitting that it ain't going to zero, but it's just bad. We'd all better go bad to good ol' central banking 'cause it's more fairer.
#bitcoin #plebchain
Sorry to see that. That's stinky. Evil-me imagines a strand of fishing line tied to the flagpole. When they yank it out, it draws taught across the stairs, thus stringing up a self-tripwire at the top of the stairs.
I would never do that, that's not right either, but the thought does come to evil-me.
If you like #animals, here's a #turtle story (actually a tortoise story).
I agree nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn, I see the way we avoid top down centralization in a social space is by creating voluntary bottom up grassroots collectivism.
Honest question because my chipmunk brain doesn't compute this: what does "voluntary bottom up grassroots collectivism" mean? I'm guessing you mean people working together open sourcey to build something (nostr) so as to avoid something like ISP run internet or Facebook-like social media? The "collectivism" word is what makes me nervous.
Article Update: "Satoshis Bitcoin v0.0 Had 1.99 Billion Bitcoin, Not 21 Million"
https://medium.com/@Fiach_dubh/1-99-billion-bitcoin-not-21-million-fad9f5550659
After reviewing a few more articles on this topic and the Bitcoin Whitepaper conversation on the cryptography mailing list some more interesting details have merged. Satoshi's last email on the cryptography mailing list, where he publicly says to James Donald, "I sent you the main files". These files were the Bitcoin source code for the first Bitcoin client software. Also, we can see from the Hal Finney private email that the subject heading reads "Re: Bitcoin source files attached" with James, Hal and Ray Dillinger cc'd.
Therefore, The private Hal email confirms Satoshi likely sent the Bitcoin source code files to not just Ray Dillinger, but James A Donald and Hal Finney too on November 16th, 2008. Satoshi had apparently been working on this code for more then a year and a half. This likely means Satoshi began working on Bitcoin code in earnest around the middle of 2007.
Also, according to the above Bitcoin Insider article "The source (v0.0) also has a discarded genesis block in the code which has a completely different hash. Assuming the hash was the first genesis test block, it was produced on Sept. 10, 2008." This may be an effective timestamp for the date of this v0.0 source code.
This implies Satoshi gave these three gentleman an older "version 1" copy of Bitcoin, and not an updated version 2, which could have been v0.1. (In one email Satoshi describes a new Bitcoin feature as a "version 2" issue).
Speculation on why Satoshi didn't give these three people the full version 2 details: Well, James A. Donald made it clear in one of his cryptography mailing list emails that he wanted to launch his own Bitcoin version eventually. So maybe Satoshi didn't feel like sharing everything with someone who may front run him to the finish line?
originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/723538
I'm thinking things are going even better than Satoshi imagined. He wrote "if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro..." Right now it's worth 60 Euros. https://satoshibitcoinconverter.on.fleek.co/satoshi_calc_EUR.htm
Wow, 1,000,000 $20,000 "forgivable" "loans" is $20 billion. (1) That's called a handout, not a loan. (2) It's only if you're a black man. How is that not racist against every other race and not sexist against women?
Well this is new (to me at least) and cool: #bitcoin #lightning prediction market. https://www.bitcoinprediction.info/
#plebchain