Avatar
Christopher Marshall
16cde121ec939778b69a5e17d7c411ecb55d10af67dd9a3b0be411aaeedbeea8
software developer and communications engineer. interested in bitcoin and understanding 2008 banking crisis.

That has to change as the firehouse grows in size as relays will take considerable resources to run but you have a good point that the nostr architecture allows you to access as much of the total raw feed as you want while incentivizing relay operators to monetize their retrieval services at commodity cost. Gatekeeping is not automatically encouraged like it is in twitter land.

Are you talking about BTC wallet key pair? Boot an air gapped laptop from tails/Linux USB, use electrum to generate seed phrase, write down on paper, and sign txs on air gapped laptop. Create master public key and write to USB then sneaker net to non air gapped laptop. Create unsigned txs on non air gapped laptop using electrum plus master public key.

Loved your point about "credit ledgers" (how the left likes to think of money) versus "natural / commodity ledgers" ( how the right likes to think of money).

I often visit family in one m.e. country and would guess that's what it feels like to try to do open source dev there. I am guessed by that the AI doomers, if they get their way, will reduce the U.S. and Europe to that same experience by establishing CompAuth.

A focus on building new skills, products and services tends to foster the growth of networks of good faith engagement, while a focus on winning arguments tends to foster (faster?) the growth of networks of bad faith engagement. Builders versus bickerers.

Even in the domain of argumentation, good faith networks win over the long term, because bad faith thought leaders turn on each other as they reach the scaling limits of inconsistency.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?

Changing the question to: what problems might the transition to Bitcoin bring that could be very challenging to solve?

A country with a fiat currency can wage war for much longer than a country that didn't print it's own money. It has the ability to gather more wealth and resources from the population during times of crisis.

I think the solution to this will require more willing shouldering of responsibility for keeping society safe by the bulk of the citizenry. I don't really know what form it will take.

Try moving the time of your last drink before 6:00pm. It made a big difference to me. I can see it in the Fitbit heart rate sleep chart.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer hodler and the sunshine maxi will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of honest money; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Fiat, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is proof of work only that gives every thing its value"

Paine on the recent crash to $20k.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated

I thought you had to be trolling. I like to answer troll Q's just to sharpen my argumentation.

Because networks of lies can only be maintained for so long before they collapse of their own weight. The longer they go on, the heavier the consequences of putting off the day of reckoning. So better to face the music early and tell the truth as you go.

Why do people talk about second order logic? Doesn't it make more sense to talk about second order arguments?