nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev |

|In a recent BitcoinAudible I recall you saying you were tempted to reproduce your voice with AI on an episode to see if anyone would notice. While listening to the book I had to wonder. At one point in the book the topic of Mt. Gox was included. I noticed it was pronounced EmTe Gox, every time. I found myself asking, is that a Guy/AI voice, was it a pun you introduced for 'empty gox' or was it maybe spelled that way in the book as a point of humor. Or, heaven forbid, did you just pronounce 'Mt.' (mount) wrong? LOL It would be funny if you or the book did 'empty' on purpose, but I'm just curious.

Welcome!

nostr:npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev

Anyone else expect the bumper music to start at the end if every sentence?

Thanks Guy. Great read!

nostr:note1kdstzspfx8heesyhjd2d0vzqxwguhz67mgca7ukutc22zlrkqs3semc9gv

I was going to figure out how to set this phone app up for zaps so I don't have to keep track of who I owe thanks and zap at home. Thanks for the heads up. Zap you in a few hours.

I was reading how micro-dosing could help Alzhimers (my Mom). Not a cure. but emotional help. Problem was, it's not my thing and certainly not hers. She would not approve of an all out trip. Plus, she is advanced enough that it could be a bad experience. However, I/we have no experience and no way of knowing what a "micro-dose" of shrooms would even be. Then, not being connected to source.... there is prison.

Something so effective and so simple yet so far out of reach. It's criminal.

They've done the same with micro-doses of Psilocybin. Doses so small there was zero hallucination. Folks barely even felt any effect. But, they opened up and talked more in group and private therapy.

Okay! That's what I'm talking about. I started on the free stuff. Will do some more then probably sign up. Again, thank you so very much.

Thank you! I will certainly check it out. Zap you later. My setup doesn't zap from my phone app.

I got interested in climbing a few years back to save a bunch of money on tree work for limbs over my house. It was kinda the same except I was able to find more primers to get me started. Now I can do my own tree work... SAFELY, and I've helped some family and friends with my new skill. There is a lot of stuff to know and jargon, teniques, tools, styles, math and such that go into climbing for fun or work. However, finding a place to start with that was a whole lot easier than getting started doing any kind of developing or coding, at least as far as my efforts are concerned.

Honestly, no offense meant and I could do the same if talking about my industry.... but. If I'm interested in learning how to code and all the resources and suggestions I see are:

New to code pleb.... FOSS projects....low hanging fruit for badges and green streaks on gethub, who's own documentation is just as jargon soaked.

Now, I know what some of that means but, brand spanking new, I wanna learn to code bros? It's the shallow end for most of you, I know but it's too much to absorb when I first need a jargon dictionary to find out where to even start.

noStrudel is available as a service with Start9.

Thanks for asking. In answering I had to look up some stuff and it keeps me sharp. I like doing that and helping others along the way.

Yes, a hard fork is different than a 51% attack. A 51% attack would use the current rules of Bitcoin Core (including the 21mil cap) to gain the majority of hash rate. This would allow them to validate fraudulent blocks to the chain, but under the current rules so other nodes (not part of the attack) would validate them. They could only steel or double spend coins in recent transactions as they include them in the new blocks they mine. Older transactions could not be changed. The chief defense against this in BTC is cost. Unless one hacks into 3-5 of the largest mining pools at the same time and controls them long enough to write fraud blocks of value to them, the last estimate of cost I've seen is above $7billion dollars worth of miners plus the operating costs of them. Next it would ruin the value of the coins they are steeling. I'd say, while technically possible, it's practically impossible now that the network is so large and robust.

A hard fork on the other hand can be done by just one person and cheaply. However, you have to sell that idea to the world and hope people (and miners) follow you so much that the idea of what Bitcoin is changes. Good luck with that. Miners have to think your new idea of increasing the cap will make them more money. Developers, users and node operators have to operate and build upon the new network you just created. Gaining a cap increase would be a very hard sell. None of the hard forks of BTC to date have even tried to change that rule and there have been many. Most go to zero quickly. Few have held on, BCH, bitcoin gold, bitcoin SV come to mind, but they kept the cap.

For my FIL, I would try to ask how he thought this would be done so he could discover, as we discussed the scenarios, that he didn't know what he was talking about. All in a nice way of course. My dad for instance trusts me to understand it for him because he knows I'm not pulling what I have taught him out of my hat. Thus, when the explanations get too deep for him, he believes me when I say, "trust me, it ain't happening." Incidentally, that's why I've learned what I know about this. Telling this to strangers that are just obstinate have made me a bit cynical and eventually I just give them the 'have fun staying poor' line and move on.

With my dad part of my 'trust' defense is, "Look Dad, this is where my money is. Your money is my inheritance. I don't wanna screw that up either. Plus, you're my dad. If I'm wrong, I bare the cost by having to take care of your needs if you go broke. I'm that confident."

Diluting their holdings. Yes and No. They have a wallet with the current rules as would everyone. It has addresses with balances. New rules are applied by any miner as a hard fork. He has created a new chain with a new wallet. The wallet he has on the old chain still has exactly the same amount of coins under the old rules. He now also has that exact same amount of coins under the new rules in a new wallet. Effectively doubling the total number of coins. Theoretically, the value per coin is split in half but the volume is doubled. Time and the market will decide if his total holdings on two chains are worth more or less than the original value on the original chain would have been. Note I called them old chain and new chain. The market will also decide which one is 'real' Bitcoin, not simply the longest chain.

Yes my opinion is the longest chain should be called BTC and Bitcoin. In the fork, my number of coins double as well. I would probably pretty quickly sell my coins on the new chain and by more coins on the old chain. This mass action is what will make the longest chain, show where the value is considered to be and determine who is best and is BTC.

A new chain with more coins would dilute that value, on that chain, as your percentage of the whole would be smaller. Lets say they doubled the 21mil market cap to 42mil while the price was at $10 but, people loved the new chain and it's price quickly went to $20. I have that smaller percentage but my $ valuation remains the same, plus I still have my coins on the old chain. The old chains coin value should go down in this scenario but the over all market could expand with new money and keep them both up in price. Not likely but possible.

The miners biggest disincentive is the wasted electricity and downtime on what is historically a loosing proposition. BCH did okay for a while but look at BSV and others. They quickly lost a lot of hash power and turned out to be a pretty big waste of miners efforts (money)... but some do still mine them.

Further if there is a hard fork. My node does not just look for the longest chain. It looks for the longest chain that complies with the rules of my node. The new chain's blocks simply would not be validated by my node as it didn't follow my (the old) rules. I either update my node to the new rules or I stay on the old chain no matter how long the respective chains are. I could also fire up a second node for the new chain and have both two wallets and two nodes while the market decides the winner.

Lastly, a 51% attack can do a host of bad things and cause a lot of major problems. One thing it can't do is change the core set of rules simply because they have the majority of hash and thus require new rules like some kind of hostile takeover. That would require a hard fork whether 51% went with the new chain or not.

My confidence on this reply is fairly high but I could have some details wrong. Also, sorry so long.

What a coincidence. My Dad chose the same thing. It's really a bull market.

Looks beautiful. Is that epoxy on top?

An oldie but a goodie. Is it too early? 😂😂😂

BTC OG and truck driver here. Good ole fashioned (but we'll read) hick. There are many of us. I think we just tend to read more and follow what we're interested in. We take action on our smaller scale, in person where it will have more impact on the life of our communities.

Head down, get it done. Nature will take its course. I know my place. Good things sell themselves. I talk to my locals more than anything. They aren't here.... yet.

Of course, this is just my perspective, preference and experience.

Not at issue for me. Neither side is good on BTC, finance or economics as a whole.

Trumps opponents want me dead. Trump does not. Can't spend anything if you're dead.

Had never heard of him. Just listened to a bit of an interview and read a couple of book summaries. We would agree about recognizing reality for what it is and living in the world according to it. That's a big deal to me. I would say our approaches or sources of data about reality are probably different and we might often come to similar conclusions from different premises and axioms.

I don't know how he would view freedom/liberty vs binds/slavery from his axioms. I just know that the idea that we are either literally free to do anything we could wish or we are somehow a slave, doesn't reflect reality in myriad ways. Liberty, freedom, ownership, property etc... aren't (as most people casually think of them) reflective of reality. I often use basic language to reflect on these things to get at reality.

For instance, "freedom isn't free", is nonsense to me. It's in the very words themselves. If it isn't 'free' then it isn't FREEdom. Now lest examine, 'nothing is free'. I can find a 'cost' to just about everything, no matter how small, so that seems to better reflect reality. If so then, 'there is no freedom' in that strict sense, seems more accurate. Then I make the finner distinctions between 'freedom' and 'liberty' to see how they apply. Finally I asked myself (for a reality check), does anyone actually want (highly prize) freedom or liberty? I don't think either is in most peoples top 10 even.

In reality, we were taught in the Western Enlightenment World, that freedom and liberty were the necessary means to achieving all the things we really value. Thus, the means have come to be the ends. So, face reality. What do we really want? What are those close to universal desires that we all seem to share? If we could have them without any liberty or freedom, would we care about liberty and freedom so much? Would our lives be 'better' without placing those two things at the center as an end in themselves? I've concluded they would. I've discovered that pre-Enlightenment thinkers approached liberty and freedom from a different place. F&L were tools granted to those who are able to use them for their best good and the good of the world. Those not capable of using them properly were not granted them, for their own good and the good of the rest of us.

I'm blathering again. GN