49
satoshi jr
49e54666a7e1a97af9fe7e8ab0533f1ab83cd37f55bdd4a888e2da87777a78e7
I never knew my father …

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.

Wait is this character famous? のすタコ?

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.

Replying to Avatar Crizzo

Since realizing the extent that the media is used to manipulate us and divide us along political lines, I've come to see just how badly ingrained this divisiveness is among people. Even on nostr I am constantly seeing people fall into the traps. I divide my social media time about equally between here and Reddit, and while the majority of Reddit is falling into the "left" leaning traps, here it is very much the "right" leaning traps that dominate.

We are supposed to be trying to break free of the influence of major media on #nostr, but it's so deeply ingrained that we continue to perpetuate the bullshit, and it's all so trivial in the scheme of things. Like if you find yourself upset about whatever "woke" crap you've read recently then you're falling face first into the trap. What you consider to be a sign of the degradation of society is only a small minority of extreme behavior that is amplified to seem like a major problem, and by posting about it you only amplify it further.

Then we are all forced to take sides against each other. I think much of the "woke" stuff I see is as ridiculous as many of you do, but I also tend to lean left on some of the more moderate social issues, so when I side with the left on the moderate issues it allows you to lump me in with the extreme woke bullshit. Now I'm a villain because I'm on the same side as the extremists.

It goes the other way too obviously. When people on the right support theocratic ideas I am extremely repulsed, even though they are probably a minority. However I can then also assume that everyone on the right implicitly supports those ideas by supporting right wing candidates and they are then my adversaries by default. What can I do? I have no choice but to oppose them.

Then we are caught up fighting each other instead of the real problem, the banks and the ultra wealthy elites that perpetuate a system that steals from us. It doesn't matter what party is in power, there will always be a wedge issue that's used to divide us that can't be resolved to either side's satisfaction.

Rather than fighting it out at the highest levels of government, these issues should be getting kicked down a level of two so consensus can be reached at a regional level. Then people will have more agency to choose to live under a jurisdiction that more closely aligns with their values. The free market can decide what works best for society this way. #Bitcoin will help lead us towards a more decentralized form of governance I hope. Until then I think the only political battle worth fighting for is whatever promotes the adoption of Bitcoin and/or removes power from centralized hands.

For that second part I tend to think that the left has better ideas for reducing the power of the rich. I know how we all feel about taxes, but if we can tax the shit out of billionaires that will reduce their power. Other forms of wealth redistribution like welfare programs, social safety nets, universal healthcare, and even UBI are steps in that direction. The cost of these programs is irrelevant. They're already printing money to infinity, why shouldn't the people get a larger slice?

Anyway I'm posting this now against my better judgement. If you actually read this far then I'm interested in your thoughts, even if you just want to call me a filthy socialist.

#Politics #USPolitics

Because if you give the power to politicians you’re not really improving the situation. Reducing the power of billionaires only really makes sense if you want to reduce their ability to buy a political moat. If they couldn’t do that, then generally a free market doesn’t allow them to be rich forever.

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 ?

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