Avatar
Brian
3a9198641fe998a7857c8d9fc7e840ba13a1efbf6521096cb33c9827c21aecfa
Pleb at @npub1aswwzwc8szh4k86zeqxxm9rcmepzc4zmcnnn2hl65t3tpyldzyxsrrmvtf

#Bitcoin is publicly electronic CASH and transactions create new "bitcoin bills" called UTXOs. This creates fee and privacy concerns worth studying.

Aloha Friday 🤙

She brought out her bedroom voice to ask that question 😂

Thesis is that maybe tether is their CBDC appetizer. It currently gives much of what a CBDC aims for but has an added benefit of creating massive new demand for the dollar

I don't know about USDC but tether announced onboarding the FBI and chainalysis and freeze wallets on ofac sanctions list

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

Here’s an observation about shitty Twitter algorithms.

I’ve actually never blocked or muted anyone on Twitter. Never felt the need. 690k followers, countless comments, no filters.

If someone is an ass, I tend to just ignore them or akido them and move on.

I just went over to Twitter and checked my notifications. Some guy posted in an unusually negative way in one of my threads. For a brief moment, I was provoked. But then I looked: he has 8,700 posts and 6 followers. Briefly skimming his profile, it is pure negativity. Imagine this. Like actually take a moment to think about what that process feels like for him, let alone how he impacts others.

Posting eight thousand and seven hundred times, mostly negatively, and after well more than a thousand of those posts, someone elects to follow him.

The algorithm trains us to see this and get angry. When he shows up in our feed, he seems like a normal person who disagrees with us. But he’s not normal. Someone like that is literally and sadly more in the mentally ill camp, even as the algorithm presented him to us like any other normal person, saying we suck.

Imagine if we had more programmable filters and algorithms. Like, mute people with over a thousand posts but with less than one follower per five hundred posts. That filters him out, similarly to how we would visually filter out and thus physically avoid a man holding his own shit in his hand in public on a street, who needs help but not public attention and proximity.

The centralized algorithms we have normalized, are not real life.

We give people virtual access that we would not do publicly, partially because we can program our real-life algorithms with various behavior rules that we can’t do on most virtual platforms.

good point. I'd also like to be able to scroll through a feed of shit holding humans from time to time. like digital "people watching" in vegas

What would a #CBDC do for the US government that they can't yet do with #USDT or #USDC? 🤔

#asknostr #bitcoin

note1dduc9rapqpd0uv6w2fr8sthngh4hlhaseqjjt845eazl74ytk7mq26cgkg

maybe this helps: A summary done by https://venice.ai

The main issue discussed is the growing divide between those who can afford Bitcoin fees (A group), those who can afford UTXOs but not often (B group), and those who cannot afford either (C group). While solutions like Lightning Network help the B group, there's no clear answer for the C group. Various approaches have been tried or proposed, such as moving people into the B group, locking up funds to cover fees, or grouping people together. Two main approaches remain: grouping people through community cooperation and relying on incentives.

Grouping people can work within a community, but it's subject to ghettoization if the coordinator exploits the system.

Relying on incentives involves schemes like e-cash mints, single UTXOs held for multiple people, or more ambitious proposals that align incentives against dishonest coordinators.

The importance of making Bitcoin more expressive is highlighted, as this can lead to better solutions. Overall, finding a solution for the C group remains a significant challenge requiring further research and development.

Can you make it a little shorter?