Avatar
zebra
0c7beb189ac5e41f04f4d9c31d4945873853e07ff1e178be2f3b5c0252ac9c40
webdev

#kharkiv #photo #wallart

#kharkiv #photo

Police officers in Kharkiv stand next to the remains of Russian rockets fired at the city

I pay attention to the bombing of kharkiv by the russians because it's my hometown. what will I become?

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

Some people have grown cynical with democracy (and various types of representative government broadly, e.g. including constitutional democratic republics that enshrine certain rights to protect liberty against the masses), viewing this method as promoting short-term leadership with bad incentives.

I have a different take.

Prior to the printing press and then the telegraph and radio, running a democratic society over long distances wasn’t even feasible. The concept of having people democratically participate in their government relies on people being relatively connected information-wise so that they can use their access to information to know what’s happening and to then select between different options, which you couldn’t do across the entirety of a country before people were literate and election materials or other publications could be mass produced. In the pre-press age of handwritten books, making written documents was expensive, and so literacy was a niche skill.

So, that era was ruled by kings and queens, council oligopolies, and so forth. Representative government, to the extent that it existed, only applied to small city states where people could literally gather in a town square, or to “elites” in a capital. There was literally no way to run an election over very broad distances on a regular basis. The printing press helped change that, and then the telegraph, radio, and other tech further reinforced it.

But ironically, as I discuss in Broken Money, those technologies also started to break our money. The printing press and telegraph allowed the transaction layer (the movement of IOUs between individuals and entities) to grow exponentially more efficient both domestically and globally, while our settlement layer (gold) remained basically unchanged. This broadening gap between fast transactions and slow settlements was increasingly bridged with centralization and credit, and the gap eventually became so wide that every nation dropped the settlement layer of gold almost entirely, except as a reserve asset.

So the same technologies that enabled widespread representative government also enabled the proliferation of softer money. Prior to these technologies, broad democracy wasn’t possible. And after these technologies, sound money was too slow to keep up. Oof.

But over a long enough timeframe, our technology became good enough that we finally figured out how to do fast settlements as well. Bitcoin. People can send value to each other quickly over long distances, in ways that no central entity can prevent or reverse, and with a unit that no central entity can debase. The first sound money of the Information Age.

If Bitcoin is successful over the coming decades and becomes a much larger and less volatile money, than it is now, fully entrenched in society, then that would be the first era where technology is at such a state where broad democracy and fast sound money can coexist. Or put more universally, it will be the first era where information spreads quickly without breaking the money, and thus both fast information and good money could coexist.

I, for one, would be curious to see how that develops.

Your "If" what is worried me )

Who can give definition of "bitcoin-maxi"?

For example if I don't like orangepill people around me and in general don't talk about Bitcoin a lot can I still be Bitcoin-maxi?

#bitcoin #definitions

here is an example for you to think. I'm ukranian, I lived in Kharkiv. russia invaded my country. part of kharkiv which is close to russian border were destroyed heavily, (northen saltivka - in case if you want to search and check). at the time I lived like 15 minutes walk from that area. for two weeks I lived in basement.

russia says there no ukranians, there are no ukraine, (watch putin carlson interview). so - can you say that it is just ukrainian government who sending people to fight just to make money? in fact, i don't need my government to have incentives to fight russia. because I see in my own eyes how they destroying my city and country. in fact, I have no choice but to fight. because if russia occupies all ukraine I'm personally wil be dead for my beliefs. So either fight or flight.

so, to add more craziness to all this - I hear here phrases like "funding foreign war". but in fact, just maybe, those patriot systems from US probably saved my life when russia trying to hit our cities with rockets.

my conclusion btw about this sort of talks is like - never ever say "abstract good phrases". instead, learn something real and try to understand all sides. in this case you will be more balanced and real. because some time bitcoiners feels like cult to me with all this "bitcoin fixes everything"

what is "funding foregn wars" for you it is helping ukraine to survive for me. when you say stop funding foreign war you actually saying - lets allow putin to destroy ukraine and and that's it. probably you will save some money but this will not end war and not help to build better future. it will be just beginning of new conflicts.