People will use nostr without knowing they are using nostr.
That could also happen with bitcoin used as a Medium of Exchange, but not as easy for bitcoin as a Storage of Value.
Anyway, exciting times ahead.
Many years later and I still find so funny that /r/btc are against BTC... 😊
When they said 'home heaters' they actually mean 'home miners'.
Why doesn't Nostr Nests use nostr identities?
protocols > services
Ok, thanks!
It would be nice to have it as an option for the rest of media content too.
🤔
#[2] , does Amethyst use an image proxy, right?
Excuse me, but that's YOUR conclusion, not mine.
Do I think it's good for someone to control a big stake of bitcoin? Nope.
Do I think it's good for someone to control a big stake of political power? Nope.
Do I think it's good for someone to control a big stake of oil production? Nope.
Etc...
Do I propose something to change any of those things? Nope.
Not everything that I think it's not good should be changed!
So, please, don't apply your central planner logic to my opinions.
It's clear that my logic doesn't work like yours.
I am not advocating to anything you said.
🫂
I'm advocating for what?!?!
Sorry, at this point I don't know if I'm not able to express myself in english (it could be that, as it's not my mother language), or you are having problems to understand my words.
Everything you said it's true.
But we are social beings, and nocoiners don't know about bitcoin features (yet).
So, some influencer could be viewed by them as some kind of authority in Bitcoin.
And that could goes against Bitcoin education efforts.
The second best thing Satoshi did was disappearing.
Bitcoin doesn't need heroes.
Exactly.
The supply will become more and more illiquid as time goes, so people controlling a big stake nowadays will get more and more percentage of the liquid supply.
And I don't consider it as something good.
Can I do something about it? Of course not.
Does it change bitcoin features and decentralisation? Of course not.
Does it suppose a risk for bitcoin? I don't think so.
Is it something good for bitcoin? Not really.
That's all.
"That's concentration of power, and that corrupts."
Excuse me, when do socialists agree with the idea that concentration of power (even in the State hands) is a bad idea?
Again, it's not about the total supply, but about the liquid supply.
I'm not saying that at this level Saylor stack is a risk for bitcoin. Far from it.
But it's not something good for bitcoin either.
Bitcoin is much stronger as its more distributed among more and more people.
Bitcoin is your enemy's money.
I'm not saying controlling 1 out of 150 coins is controlling Bitcoin.
It's not. Far from it. That's the beauty of Proof of Work over Proof of Stake, of course.
I'm just saying that it's not good for the exchange rate.
Someone controlling 10% of the liquid supply of any other commodity (i.e. oil) is neither good for its price, as it could allow for market manipulation.
Exactly the opposite.
I don't want anybody, nor Central Banks, nor influencers, nor rich people, nor private Enterprises to control too much of a commodity to being able to control its exchange rate.
That's concentration of power, and that corrupts.
We have seeing it again and again.
It's not about the total supply but the liquid supply.
And the liquid supply is getting smaller.
Chose the word you prefer, but someone controlling 1 out of 150 coins gives him too much power to change the available liquidity and manipulate the exchange rate.
And that's not good.
But it could allow more control over the exchange rate.
Centralisation is not good.
Centralisation is bad, even in Bitcoin.
It could allow some manipulation of the exchange rate, for example.