Try not to neglect your health, family, or friends while stacking sats.
The road to financial independence can be long—and those things can quietly suffer.
But stack nevertheless.
This is just my own echo.
Some lessons can only be learned by living them.
In the long run many people might custody their bitcoin with banks for this reason.
12 familiar words are not complicated. The fear etc comes from the idea of losing them, but this just the same with whatever you trade them for.
If you don’t have something critical you can lose them you don’t have self custody. And better the something you do have be a robust standard.
Today: Square is accepting bitcoin payments nostr:nprofile1qqsphtcc46rrelvptfm4c2y58k85alnam0lfu773mgwdmtynka0zspsql7emy 🟧
Soon: Sellers can accept bitcoin payments wherever they are 🚀
Details here: http://squ.re/btc
Incredible
I think this emerges in any group. An individual is idiosyncratic and group less so in proportion to its size. If you want a cohesive audience, group or community there will always be some emergent norms associated with it.
🎧 What Is The Future Of Stablecoins? With Allen Farrington & Cody Ellingham
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L70jC9QGhA
🎧 Allen Farrington co-wrote Bitcoin Is Venice and Only The Strong Survive, and is a co-founder of Axiom, a Bitcoin-focused venture firm. We discuss the future of stablecoins, their potential scaling issues, and the possibility of stablecoins moving over to taproot assets on the Bitcoin Lightning Network.
Check out the original article that we discuss: ["A Half-Baked Thesis on Stablecoins" by Allen Farrington](https://njump.me/naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzpqnwn7y4hqdtgxj9ygngkfy7drgze2qkpr002c4yj08wxhlut36eqqxnzde5xs6rjv3kxcer2vp3lc8ac9)
We talk about and promote greater bitcoin adoption in payments, but greater stablecoin acceptance in payments would be a great benefit to bitcoin, making fiat somewhat interoperable with bitcoin.
Greater use of stable coins in society could help solve the on/off ramp issues.
Perhaps we could even have BTC/lightning/ecash wallets that also hold a stable coin balance in the users local currency.
It could also be useful for wider acceptance and adoption, as people may feel more comfortable with a currency that is more familiar, and it could help to show the distinction in utility of a hard money for saving as they see the balance discrepancy over time.
The indelibility of Nostr makes careful proofreading essential.
When new circumstances or technologies arise that lead to changes in society, we often try to moralise those changes to make it seem like moral progress, but often we're just taking the bad side of one situation and comparing it to the good side of the new situation.
What is this referring to?
Given how much simping is already happening on Nostr, it wouldn’t be surprising if a decentralised OnlyFans ends up as one of the early use cases.
Gold is not a discreet quantity or unit like Bitcoin.
Perhaps we could peg the price of one bitcoin to the price of a cup of coffee in the developed world and make a sat 100th of that and a microSat a further 100th for micro transactions.
None of the current denomination proposals are permanent. Bitcoin’s denomination(s) will need to be recalibrated in an ongoing manner, the question is against what?
There is only 1 bitcoin
Now nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdu0k0t75 is pushing BIP-177 to change satoshis to bitcoin.
Are these people crazy?!
Turning 21 million bitcoin into 2.1 quadrillion “bitcoins” isn’t just bad branding—it completely nukes the most important meme in Bitcoin’s history.
This isn’t just a bad idea.
It’s a recipe for confusion, dilution, and long-term cultural fragmentation.
We’ve spent 15 years building absolute clarity around one of the strongest memes in monetary history:
21 million Bitcoin. 100 million satoshis each.
Simple. Elegant. Untouchable.
And now, right on the edge of global adoption—now—they want to rewrite the script?
This doesn’t feel like UX optimization.
It feels like a narrative hijack.
A subtle takeover—not of the protocol, but of how people think about Bitcoin.
And that’s just as powerful.
Maybe I’m paranoid.
But changing the unit, the name, and the supply right before mass onboarding doesn’t just feel tone-deaf—it feels strategic.
Like rewriting the map while millions are just beginning to find their way.
I’ve never heard anything more short-sighted, more dangerous, or more fundamentally disconnected from what makes Bitcoin work.
It’s not a UI bug.
It’s a memetic monument.
You don’t demolish it for clicks, smooth UX, or vanity campaigns.
You protect it—because mass adoption is coming.
And what people adopt must be the truth, not a convenient lie wrapped in “accessibility.”
There is only 1 bitcoin
Yeah I guess it would be unusual. It would be like renaming cents as dollars and that being the only denomination. I think there’s definitely utility in having at least two denominations, it helps in accounting, pricing and speech.
Perhaps we could peg the price of one bitcoin to the price of a cup of coffee in the developed world and make a sat 100th of that and a microSat a further 100th for micro transactions.
Yeah it’s an interesting problem. Most currencies have a subunit, Bitcoin is quite extreme having such a large single unit and such a small subunit. Over time the single unit would become more and more abstract for most people - for instance if it’s 10 million dollars for one BTC.
In essence there’s only 1 bitcoin, I think that’s the real understanding, 21m is just an arbitrary number.
Maybe another means would be to base the value assignment around utility. Like peg it for initial assignment to a fiat currency value. Like 1btc = 1-5usd something in that range for example, then it would have a similar user experience to most currencies. Although, that would have to be recalibrated from time to time to account for deflation.
Yes it would be a big lesson in divisibility and abundance.