Avatar
vinney...axkl
2efaa715bbb46dd5be6b7da8d7700266d11674b913b8178addb5c2e63d987331
Engineer at https://opennode.com --- Working on https://catallax.network - decentralized labor/bounty protocol and: https://attestr.app/ - mutual agreements signed on nostr Do you like sharing paywalled content to nostr? Install this extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/readtorelay/gfncdikmbmefjjbahjhgkodnhepikecj - https://github.com/vcavallo/ReadToRelay Order print books with bitcoin! https://whitepaperbooks.com

First try with #mkStacks. Thought of the name "vibes check" first and then decided on what it should do after. This took a few minutes and exactly zero manual code edits from me.

Wtf.... nostr:npub1q3sle0kvfsehgsuexttt3ugjd8xdklxfwwkh559wxckmzddywnws6cd26p you have done something VERY STRANGE AND INCREDIBLE here.

...why..? what is this about?

Bitcoin is uniquely suited for saving for many reasons, but the most important may be that there is equal overhead for saving 1 sat or saving 1 hundred million sats.

Most assets or goods imply some cost or overhead to stockpile and save. This can conflict with marginal utility: since you don't need the good to satisfy a pressing need today, the "cost" of storing it long-term has to work out with regard to your confidence that you will need it in the future for a more pressing need later.

That conflict is removed when there is low to no cost for saving arbitrary units.

but okay full paranoia mode: a state actor on the other end of a Robosats transaction, records timestamp + fiat amount + username at the time, later on in a war on bitcoin holders subpoenas Strike for KYC on this user = knock on your door, "where is that bitcoin you bought".

nuclear, sure... but there are ways around even this - like paying with Liquid USDT from a noncustodial wallet.

very odd. I can get there but I don't have this option. maybe a state by state thing or something.. because I also don't have the loan options yet.

I'll put one in at 4 cents.

...and we see demonstrated in real time how prices work!

when I checked on it a little later the estimate went from 16 hours to 4. so maybe disregard

Replying to Avatar sachin

To give a glimpse of what people are missing by ignoring Hoppe just because someone else said he's not cool, here's an extract of a footnote from his essay titled 'In Defense of Extreme Rationalism':

"Though quite frequently mentioned as an empirical counterexample, it should be noted that quantum physics, or more precisely the indeterminacy or Heisenberg principle of quantum physics, correctly interpreted, is in accordance with this. What has been previously said does not preclude—and this is precisely the situation in quantum physics—that in order to experimentally produce a result, two or more measurement acts must be performed and that because any two separate actions can only be performed sequentially, the performance of the latter act of measurement might change the results of the former one, so that if this proves to be unavoidable, the results in question can only be predicted statistically and a deterministic explanation proves impossible. But even here each separate measurement act presupposes the validity of the constancy principle—otherwise, neither of them would have been performed; and the sequence of acts, too, presupposes constantly operating causes as it would otherwise be simply impossible to repeat two experiments in the field of quantum physics and state this to be the case. Moreover, the experience of quantum physics is in exact line with the preceding conclusion regarding the characteristic of causality as an action-produced phenomenon and as a necessary (known to be valid a priori) feature of reality. If causes can indeed only be measured and identified sequentially, by means of actions that have repercussions for each other, then they can, in principle, only be causes whose constant operation is of a probabilistic kind—and this, to be sure, can again be known to be true a priori. Quantum physics then only reveals that cases such as this are not merely conceivable, but do in fact exist. See on this F. Kambartel, Erfahrung und Struktur, pp. 138ff.; also P. Mittelstaedt, Philosophische Probleme der modernen Physik (Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut, 1968)."

who says Hoppe isn't cool?! he is among the coolest

as long as nobody sells they can just wait a little longer until the next update with larger number after the bear.

it's so easy :)

you can repost this every few months with a slightly larger number

I've always liked Jameson and still do. I don't love his behavior in op_return but I still like him and his work

You would denominate the deposits in USD (and the goods) and perhaps the plucky soul who is running the mint could put up his own funds 1:1 for all deposits and then hold the BTC himself, taking on the price fluctuation risk.

The goal is to save merchants (and customers) the sometimes nearly 4% credit card processing fee. if you wanted to get very creative - after more analysis than I'm doing off the cuff right now - you could have the merchants pay a much lower processing fee, maybe 1% or 0.5%, and that could be pocketed by the aforementioned mint backer to offset his risk. If the Bitcoin price is favorable for a period, maybe he even refunds that fee back to the merchants or refunds + a bonus.

Agreed that the #1 goal is consistency and ease of use (and discounts) for the customers, and #2 goal is savings for the merchants. It's not simple bringing the this lower-fee, instant/guaranteed settlement network to uninitiated merchants and customers; there are some tradeoffs. But if whoever is attempting to run this operation is sufficiently incentivized to see it through, he could take on a bit of risk himself (and thus all the downside in the tradeoff...) in order to help it succeed with good UX.

I think you're missing the original point about "active denial" vs "irrelevance".

You don't actively deny every jurisdiction that doesn't apply to you, not to mention the infinite number of nonexistent jurisdictions that you could _imagine_ and don't even purport reign anywhere. They are more like "irrelevant" or "N/A". Supporting a distant (or imaginary) jurisdiction is an active choice, simply not thinking about them is as close to neutral state of nature as you can get.

Did you think about an elephant while reading that paragraph? If not, were you "denying the elephant"?