Would it make sense? Isn't the point of the simplex that you don't use a persistent ID across chats?
Or maybe I don't fully understand how it works?
I’m confused as to what you think the solution is. How do you think you’re going to just ban things you find offensive I’ve true entire network automatically and why that’s better than the end users just choosing their own filters.
Ok sorry I’m slow I just realized I follow you and you reposted this.
Some thoughts on the orange checkmark:
Still the best way to improse a real world cost on spam by collateralizeing usage by bitcoin.
But there might be a way to include aspects of a web of trust to or skme form of reputation by adding the ability to put up collateral for someone else. This way you can "vouch" for someone you know in a way that imposes a cost if the person who you vouched for fails.
There might also be a way to take away your collateral if you no longer wan tovoucbh forhimm.
Doesnanylne know if there's a project like this already?
You don’t necessarily need Bitcoin for the effect I was talking about. They’ve compared Europe to the US where Europe has a less free market and higher concentrations of wealth across time than the relatively more free US. It’s confusing because if you’re measuring inequality with say the Gini coefficient it seems higher in the US at any given moment in time but across time the people in various brackets change more in the US. I do agree that money printing probably causes more of the money to be concentrated across time so Bitcoin is needed.
I think my clams a bit weaker. I can’t be sure if there’s an absolute set of morals that exist outside of us. But that the path dependent outcome of how we evolved has created a set of limited strategies that work generally across time.
I’m still reading but what do you think of the claim(I hope I’m not butchering this) that morals are just a shorthand for meta-rules that have evolved as the winning game theory strategy for human civilization ?
What do you mean by moral skeptic in this situation? Skeptical of the concept of morals?
Yeah but who will conduct the survey, you’ll have inbuilt bias from that point. Could try to use an anonymous one but then you might have a lot of noise or active sabotage
Depends on how you conduct the survey but basically same problem. They’ve done some research I think is legit with white and black interviewers getting different responses from white and black respondents depending on who was asking
More likely the top brass is gate kept from the details and sources of info that don’t advance the interests of the middle management level gate keepers.
Wouldn't every player be incentivised to try to fork to an inflationary currency if they could? Hegemon or not. Decentralized energy is why they can't since they'll be forced to compete on hash rate.
So youre worried that the world can agree to a new fork of Bitcoin without any nations or other actors cheating?
Obviously nothing new exists and nothing ever changes duh
Very generous of you
How would the attacks break the 21m cap? Do you mean like paper Bitcoin?
