Trying to formally link maintainers to the settings in a remote gitserver instance works against the distributed patch pattern. That's the cathedral single-point-of-truth pattern.

A commit is just a commit. Any commit that is published can be pulled by anyone who can see/access it.

Maybe the maintainers don't like it, but other people do? They should be able to see it, discuss it, and pull it, regardless.

currently gitworkshop.dev uses the npub:identifer with the most number of events tagging it.

ngit users the most recent event where the 'earliest unique commit' matches the initial commit, filtered by npubs listed in 'maintainers.yaml' if that exists, or falls back to prompting the user for an naddr.

The intention is to improve gitworkshop.dev so it makes less automatic choices and factors in WoT to recommendations.

The intention for ngit is to use 'maintainers.yaml' and fallback to the same approach used by gitworkshop.dev.

U.S. CPI: +3.4% YEAR-OVER-YEAR (EST. +3.4%)

U.S. CORE CPI: +3.6% YEAR-OVER-YEAR (EST. +3.6%)

The great CPI scam, go to the supermarket and you will understand.

#Bitcoin

Doom or bloom?

Gm ☕️☀️

"Trust your instincts. Do the unexpected. Find the others."

- Timothy Leary

Do you think they will be large scale reactors like we currently have or "micro" reactors.

How about if we quit this all and just go back to trading corn for fiat?

hmm?

Most people will run Bitcoin Core's rule set because it's the most reputable implementation by far.

remember that life will work out! even if it doesn't seem that way right now, even if things are not going accoring to plan, there are miraculous things in store for you!

Somehow nostr always feels like its about to fall apart at the seams

You don't own it for eternity if you stop paying taxes on it, so the main difference is that in Singapore it's a lease with a set time limit, and everywhere else it's a lease without a time limit, try not paying your taxes in either system and you can say goodbye to your property no matter how long you've had it.

The big difference though is that Singapore will protect your property rights better than in other cities such as London, Chicago, etc. Nonetheless Singapore didn't just boom because of better protection of property rights but also because of it's looser economic policies and the government not trying to centrally plan absolutely everything. Did they do this? Yes, like every governmemt to different extents, but the intervention here was less than in most other countries. My point being, the more libertarian/free market leaning a geographic area is, the better the economic outcome is, generally.

Bitcoin fees are currently only a dollar, but niche programmers are suggesting to change the fundamental nature of bitcoin and increase its attack surface to make it more scalable… for people who don’t necessarily know or understand the trade offs of that scaling.

Scaling is an important discussion, but everything is a trade off. I like many of the scaling discussions, but rushing them is another matter.

It costs me $100 to buy a 1oz gold coin by mail, or to send signed documents internationally in a few days. Verification is expensive.

The idea that global monetary verification should be super cheap inherently comes with security trade offs.

All ideas should be evaluated carefully and come to major consensus. Otherwise change proposers risk a fork war.

If you're referring to the state owning all the land, then yes, but it's the same case everywhere. Once you've signed your deal with the state, there's pretty robust property right protection laws. Basically, the only thug in town is the Singapore government but they'll let you carry about your economic business and you don't have to worry about other thugs coming in and destroying/stealing everything.

Some governments protect property rights better than others. Those that do it best and allow decent amount of economic freedom tend to boom.