That's naive, Vitor.
Gender based sports is the primary filtering for body-structure. The male musculature is very different than female musculature.
Adding a mixed category can make sense in some sports but not in all.
Shared content ≠ emotional state.
People share for visibility.
Hilarious voting results on Twitter/X.
It is entirely possible that the platform attracts more of a centre-right audience or that the centre-right is more active.
Yet, the account of Brian Krassenstein has 844k followers and we may assume with some confidence that most of his followers are pro-democrat. If half of his followers had voted, Kamala might have won his poll.
I say *might* here because increased spread of the poll could also have brought more visibility to pro-Trump or pro-JFK jr votes.
This brings me to the formulation. Perhaps referring to Trump as a convicted felon is not the brilliant strategic move Brian thought it was. Maybe the formulation added a few extra thousand votes in favor of Trump. Why? Because the establishment in most Western countries have been against Trump for the past 8 years.
Yet another possibility is that Kamala Harris simply isn't very popular among people in general.
Anti-establishment has become attractive for a lot of people. This means climate *realism*, not climate alarmism, abandoning the UN Agenda 21 sustainability goals, reducing energy costs, energy taxes and costly regulations, avoiding WW3 escalations as well as furthering peace negotiations in Ukraine.
"The Establishment" has come to mean: net zero, ESG scores, DEI ideology, CBDCs, climate scare mongering, increased costs of energy and living expenses, moneyprinting via high degrees of government spending, abandonment of merit in favor of ideology, and so on, with carbon allowances and social credit scores on the establishment horizon.
While Trump is far from perfect, not every polititician has stood up in Davos and told the World Economic Forum to get lost with their socialist de-industrialization and anti-energy policies, calling them "Prophets of Doom".
Trump at Davos in 2020:
Going back to 2017, Trump pulled the US out of the Paris climate accord. He said that it is designed to kill the US economy:
On January 20, 2021, Biden signed the US back into the Paris climate accord. This was done on his first day in office. Clearly a high priority issue even if perhaps mostly symbolic. It displayed allegiance to the UN Agenda 21.
2023. Trump critiquing Germany for its harmful climate alarmism policies:
2024, February:
"I will not allow the creation of a CBDC"
It is possible that Trump became anti-establishment by pure chance, as his stance was to protect US energy sector and strengthen the American economy.
From there is was inescapable that Trump would end up in conflict with the UN Agenda 21 and its next milestone Agenda 2030. Probably without even knowing what they were.
His pro-energy stance was unacceptable to the Al Gore's of the world, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Rishi Sunak, Angela Merkel as well as the deep state in the Scandinavian countries, all of which have heartily embraced the UN Agenda 21 and its authoritarian de-industrialization plans.
Clean, cheap and reliable energy runs the world and provides us with the benefits of civilization.
Being pro-energy has become anti-establishment.
#Trump #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #Establishment #Energy #CBDC
Absolutely.
Yet in my humble opinion, signature aggregation seems to be far more complex than to just keep small amounts on L2 - L3's where they can be spent easily.
Using competitive banking services is fine in my view as long as we don't store large amounts there and as long as nobody can expand the total supply.
It seems we assume that everyone wants to store $10 on L1 when other options for that are better.
I'm disappointed that nostr:nprofile1qqs2auxkkgfgylem580xrztp8ek5sf83s86k0vfq2feuz6y4lkhskgcpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsztkr48 never got an answer to his question about what Bitcoin looks like to those who can't afford a UTXO.
This is an important question, maybe *the* important question. But it also underscores how much he diverged from his "pleb everyman" origins: this is very much not a newcomer question!
Guess I won't be on WBD to answer it, either!*
*Spoiler: I don't know the answer, but I can describe the possibilities and issues people can (and are!) exploring...
As several responses demonstrate, these considerations can be long and complex.
One simple answer is that not everyone will have enough savings to compete with the fees on L1. The bandwidth for a secure and decentralized store of value is limited and cannot be otherwise.
In a good case scenario we might achieve 7000 tx's per block. That's a million tx per day (7000 x 144) and 368 million tx per year.
For a population of 8 billion people, the above estimated bandwidth could be compared with a 21 year waiting time per transaction (if it was a queue system, which it is not). Since it's a fee system, some deposit amounts will just not be meaningful on L1 in relation to the competitive fees.
A more plausible figure is 4500 tx per block, equalling 648k tx per day and 236,682,000 tx per year. This gives a bandwidth of 33 years waiting time per tx if it was a queue system. (Again, which it is not)
Even if the bandwidth on L1 was significantly improved, not every person out of 8 billion would be able to compete with the fees. Some people can afford to use L1 hundreds, or thousands of times so the above calculations are merely hints that highlight the issue.
The solution *must* involve L2 - L3's.
It can't be 100% solved on L1 and this is not even related to Bitcoin but would apply to any L1 blockchain. L1 fees will outprice some people - this is inevitable.
Personally I'm happy to use Lightning and Liquid for amounts below $100. A free market competition on L2 - L3's combined with self interest (tx fee income for relaying) will keep the options secure enough.
As the L2 - L3 development continues there will be more options and greater security.
The potentially offensive part of this subject is that realism (A is A) is often misconstrued as non-inclusiveness. Reality is what it is and no other decentralized competitor to bitcoin can solve the problem for L1 bandwidth either. L1 has its benefits and drawbacks.
Yeah. Dedicated communists have a poor track record with private property rights.
Interesting times.
For every positive bitcoin announcement one may expect that there has been a study period in advance combined with silent stacking. Only when participants are ready for a price increase will they announce bitcoin adoption plans. (This tells us nothing of near term price movements, but gives us some insight into what has been going on in the background)
Sure, they are free to waste their votes and benefit the Kamala Harris side. I just don't get it personally.
Yes, I hope no Bitcoiner thought that RFK jr's policy promises were doable. It's understandable that the person siting on the bench watching the game and have no chance of winning the game will come up with the idea: I could outbid the real players who have a chance of winning so that I seem like the better option, in spite that I can't fulfill the promises.
Good points Hans.
RFK jr once said that he is "the acolyte of Al Gore". (There's a video clip, easy to find) And this is not an overstatement.
RFK jr has aligned strongly with the UN Agenda 21, while Trump - against the odds - signed the US *off* from the Paris climate accord 7 years ago, which incidentally, probably caused much ot the deep state attacks on him. The attacks have been relentless after that, basically 24/7. Biden signed the US back on to the Paris climate accord on his first day in office. It was a big deal for the deep state.
Then Trump stood up at the WEF in Davos and spoke out against the socialist climate alarmism policies and condemned them completely. How many other presidents have openly defied the global deep state like this.
In regards to RFK jr, I still have issues with his statement that he wanted to jail critics of the climate agenda. I don't know if he still have this opinion or if he still consider himself an acolyte of Al Gore, I hope he has grown and changed his mind, yet my trust for him is limited. And in relation to the 2nd amendment and gun rights, RFK is scary. On energy he is a disaster.
Decided to watch Trump's speech at Nashville. Normally I don't bother listening to long political speeches.
Overall it was a good speech, with several relevant and important points. His Bitcoin reserve ideas seem to be within the realm of the possible and not extremely outlandish.
Removing taxes on tips fits well with his pro-Bitcoin message.
As I heard him say that, I could almost hear him say: "You can play with your ZAPS on Nostr as much as you want and it will labeled tips and it will not be taxed or registered".
Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions here but I think that this interpretation is not a far stretch, if tips becomes tax excempt
A related matter is that if zaps are not taxed, then there is no reason for the state to monitor them. The reduction in surveillance would be a victory in itself. (We can still expect the EU and Laggarde to attempt maximizing surveillance and KYC/AML)
Trump's positivity to crypto was upsetting for many bitcoiners. Yet, a president is supposed to be inclusive and show support for individual liberties and property rights. Trump signaled that he is a defender of rights. He spoke out against "repression of Bitcoin and crypto". That is a powerful message to his voter base.
We can say as bitcoiners, well crypto is harmful. Yes, it is. But we say this with the conviction of experience and insight. Trump does not have this insight, yet. And even if he did, his job is to reassure voters that free markets is the standard that he is operating by. (If we for a moment ignore the fact that no nation is yet a true free market, technically, due to the presence of central banks)
The most important aspect for me is the opposition to CBDCs. We already knew from game theory that nations will have to stack Bitcoin. It was a matter of time.
I hope Trump will reward Vivek Ramaswamy with an influential position in his administration. Vivek dropped out of the election gracefully in order to not divide the votes, showing both strategic ability and integrity.
Avoiding a Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren government, with continued warfare in Ukraine, repression of private property rights, DEI policies, CBDCs and full speed on the UN Agenda 21 madness, avoiding these risks to liberty is vital. Climate alarmism and Agenda 21 is at the heart of the deep state and Trump's energy policies is akin to holding a crucifix, garlic, and a sloped roof against it. Vampires shall not pass
#Trump #Speech #Bitcoin #2024 #Nashville
Here's my theory.
People on Twitter adapt their message to fit within the constrainsts of the character limit.
As a result of the compacted and cryptic message with little space to express nuances, readers can be predicted jump to wrong conclusions, which generate unnecessary side-debates.
Here on Nostr we have the *space* to include the nuances that we have in mind and it is far easier to avoid misreadings.
I was considering the idea of "funded hashtags" that can be paid, with for example 1-10 sats. This would make it costly to spam such funded hashtags.
The funded hashtags would be a separate system vs regular hashtags.
The funding amount could go to the relays that transmit the funded hashtags.
This would not be a perfect system and spam would still happen, but it might be worth a thought.
Good point. There will be many options open. I am considering bad case scenarios in an attempt to understand a likely market response to regulations.
Absolutely.
Yet game theory predicts that governments will stack Bitcoin, regardless if we like it or not.
But certainly, I agree with the sentiment.
Thoughts on the game theory of tainted Bitcoin, part 2.
In my first note on the subject I described in short why I believe that tainted coins/sats cannot work over time.
A possible response from governments as their taint policies inevitably fail, is to introduce a "taint tax".
One aspect of the game theory of Bitcoin is that governments will want to accumulate as much Bitcoin as possible, it being the best and most secure and neutral store of value.
One aspect of this *value* is that Bitcoin is neutral. Bitcoin transactions cannot be stopped via sanctions or political intrigue. This adds real, practical value to Bitcoin both for individuals and for competing nation states.
Taint tax.
As I alluded to above, a taint tax might be a possible strategy attempted by certain governments.
In practice this would mean that a government, realizing that their AML/KYC taint system is not working, decides to *accept* tainted coins/sats for a fee -- a taint tax.
Let's say that the EU introduces a Bitcoin taint tax at 10% for buying a house. If you can't or don't want to disclose the history of your coins/sats, the EU basically says: fine, we don't want to lose billions of Euro in lost trades every year, so we accept your coins that we have labelled as tainted, provided you pay us this extra fee (tax).
However the game theory doesn't stop here. The proposed taint tax will have to be evaluated in relation to the market response.
The EU might have to lower the taint tax to 5%, 2% or whatever the market participants consider a reasonable theft vs the benefits.
As nations compete to stack Bitcoin, taint taxes will also compete. If another country sets the taint tax to 1%, the EU will have to consider lowering their taint tax.
Many jurisdictions will not care about the EU taint phantasmas at all and their free market policies will naturally impact the rates that the EU sets.
Liberty-oriented jurisdictions will prosper from the increased commerce that follows from a free market without taint regulations and such government overreach.
As I reflected in my first note, I don't see how taint regulations will survive on a competitive global market with sovereign jurisdictions.
At the end of the day, consumers will vote with their feets and sats/wallets. Market participants will have the final word.
#Bitcoin #Taint #GameTheory #Game #Theory #TaintTax #FreeMarkets #Free #Markets #Liberty
Right.
Neither Trump nor JFK jr understand Bitcoin --- yet.
The important dimension is that they take a stand and have to be accountable to their voters once in office.
Public perception is vital for a president. Every broken promise can quickly build up dissent among the base of supporters.
Whoever wins will have to consider the implications of not following through on promises. This is the win.
I remember when RFK jr wanted to jail people for opposing climate alarmism.