No. Ordinals are evil.
Bofa would be shitcoiners...
Well, I'm off twitter but the news sources I follow on nostr aren't up to snuff just yet. What's actually happening?
I have been looking to add Btcmag to my feed. Cannot find the Npub, can you hook me up ?
For non-zap just a Z under the profile circle.
If Anonymous means creator of the note can see and private means only creator can see and public means everyone can see.
You need a long press with a giant box.
The reason is : too complicated to understand properly. Defaults are everything. Should be anonymous by default.
Is Non-zaps just a genral Lightning tip?
If that's the case would it not just make sense to have a Z icon next to the profile pic circle for that ?
First of all. Thank you for everything you've done so far. I mean no offense at all with any of my comments.
I just believe that if someone ends up say "banned" client side, they will come back just making another npub and trying again.
There is nothing costly in having a voice on the public relays.
So clients and relays will need to implement costliness to either post or create accounts. whence : "clean clients and relays".
Other clients and relays will not enforce bans and thus will be cheaper. So there will always end up being "undesirable" voices coming through the "clean side" unless a walled garden is enforced.
So in the end we end up with like "clean clients and relays" and "unclean clients and relays".
I'm just wondering how tenable the "clean" side is going to be. Are you guys going to fight using "costly credentials" like e-mail registration to try to fight the unwinnable battle against spam and "undesirables" ?
If you do, what is the difference between the "clean side" and twitter ?
Imho, people need to understand that freedom is messy and scary. Freedom is anarchy and chaos. But like Thomas Jefferson said :
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boistrous sea of liberty.
How does banning someone from seeing your future posts that even work ?
Is it client-enforced ? Must be right ?
#[0] That shriver interview was SO based. Jesus.
That woman needs to help us change the world by writing bitcoin books that have a good chance to be picked up for screenplay.
That's exactly why zaps are NOT proof-of-work.
I see, if the money doesn't come from taxes.
However, in the aftermath of 2008, they did QE but didn't lead to inflation because the $ went to rich bond holders (that's my probably flawed understanding). In 2020 the money went to plebs which led to inflation.
So, like, if you pay higher debt service, doesn't that repeat the 2008 model ?
***Disclaimer*** I'm an irredeemable idiot.
You could write a client to poll relays for that information.
It is a type of note.
The Fed has a dilemma, almost a race, between two things as they raise rates here.
1) Raising rates generally results in tighter borrowing standards on a lag. This can reduce lending-driven money creation and lead to disinflationary demand destruction around the margins.
https://void.cat/d/LciK171UhVRj6yZuNHk2u7.webp
2) At high public debt levels, raising rates also increases federal interest expense, which increases the fiscal deficit, which is a source of ongoing inflationary stimulus into the economy.
https://void.cat/d/FX7vWUrUF4kiNidN1g5PQ3.webp
In the 1940s, inflation was fiscal-driven and public debt was high.
In the 1970s, inflation was mostly lending-driven and public debt was low.
Currently, the Fed is using a 1970s-style playbook to deal with 1940s-style fiscal-driven inflation.
I don't understand how higher debt service is inflationary.
Un-verified accounts.
Or, the classic, Russian bots
#[1] Loved your posts on the elephant site.
Looking forward to more here !!!!