Avatar
ynniv
576d23dc3db2056d208849462fee358cf9f0f3310a2c63cb6c267a4b9f5848f9
epistemological anarchist follow the iwakan scale things

Not every message is vital though. You could apply different levels of squelch to different relays.

😅 nostr:note1ln280keska6pymq9h933pksu8zs8rpma8djpq6lxy4zt2em5jynqug4nph

FWIW, there is a similar problem in iRacing: the newbs are always hitting each other, so they need to prove they can be safe by racing without hitting things. Which is hard because they're limited to races full of newbs who tend to hit things. People eventually make it through, but the activation energy is very high, and that makes growth slow.

OTOH, Bjork once said "All walls are great if the roof doesn't fall".

Replying to Avatar Bitcoin Jungle

Didn't the CIA create Bitcoin? An analysis >>>>>

Although I haven't seen any credible evidence of this, let's just assume for a minute that it was, similar to how the NSA created the Tor network.

The NSA created the Tor network in order to allow operatives to communicate from unfriendly territories without the possiblity of being traced. But, for it to work, enough people had to actually use Tor so that communications could blend in with the crowd to avoid detection.

In order to get people to use it, they had to put it out there in the open. The Tor network is just a piece of open source software that anyone is free to read, analyze, use, fork, copy, and alter. There's no secret sauce. Anyone with the capability of reading computer code can understand the design of the Tor network.

One could draw similar parallels to Bitcoin. The CIA could've created Bitcoin in order to allow funding of programs without touching traditional financial systems of unfriendly countries. But, for it to work, enough people would have to actually use Bitcoin so that transactions could blend in with the crowd to avoid detection.

But, if that were true, then why would they design Bitcoin to have all transactions be publicly visible in a blockchain? To me it seems like they would've designed it similar to other cryptocurrencies, which obfuscates transaction details on the ledger. In short, how does the CIA benefit from having a publicly viewable immutuable leder of their dirty business?

If it were true, why would they design a system that is resistant to censorship? To me it seems like they would've designed it with censorship capabilities, for example with the proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, which would allow the person with the most of the coin to censor transactions at will. In short, how does the CIA benefit from having a tool that their enemies can also use freely?

If it were true, why would they design a system that incentivizes decentralization? To me it seems like they would've designed it with centralization in mind, enabling them to leverage that into control over the network. For example, wouldn't they prefer to launch Bitcoin as a business using In-Q-Tel (the venture capital arm of the CIA that invested in Facebook early on)? If a single company "owned" the Bitcoin network, this would enable them to leverage more control over the network and future development.

Just like with Tor, Bitcoin is just computer code. It's open source software that anyone in the world is free to read, analyze, use, fork, modify, or do anything they want with it. There is no secret sauce behind Bitcoin. It has been analyzed, studied, and attacked for 15 years by many of the world's top mathemeticians, cryptographers and security researchers. To date, the Bitcoin network has not been broken.

It's clear when studying the source code of Bitcoin that it's design goals were decentralization, transparency & censorship resistance. Why would the CIA design Bitcoin with these design goals?

There's a quote "A sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.", known as Clarke's Third Law. The technology behind Bitcoin may appear mysterious and magical to non-technical people, but it is grounded in sound mathematical principles and open-source development.

I fully support the motto "Don't trust, verify", and encourage you to perform your own research from first principles. Maybe you do want to go so far as to learn programming to be able to inspect the source code of Bitcoin first hand. But, even if you don't, I would recommend starting with the Bitcoin whitepaper which explains the design of the network. It's only 8 pages long. I've attached the Bitcoin Whitepaper here. I invite you to read it, study it, and join us at our events around the area to come and discuss with others!

I don't think they did (it more likely would have been the NSA), but as with Tor, does it matter? As long as we understand not just what it does, but how it works, the origin of the code isn't important. (Compare this to recommended curves, where we don't know all of the mathematical implications.) As for argument that an agency would have favored centralized control... I'm not convinced, for the same reasons that Tor is decentralized: for practical not philosophical reasons. The same could be said of transparent transactions: sometimes you need to solve a problem first before you can solve it well. Still, the early history doesn't sound like the kind of people that work at agencies, so I don't think it originated in one.

Everyone in the Valley says they want to be Steve, but few have gone hard enough to understand what that means.

I was just thinking that. Dunno what happened, but he changed.

Yes. Developers should be paying close attention as new models come out. Zed seems close on Cursor's tail, and is open source. nostr:note1k9axnvugjxskdf2c2vhc02gz89tzkyug60jtnh9e2kfus6u9mcjq98vcs6

Is the goal to cover costs, or to deter reading?

Replying to Avatar ck

👀

Nothing says pump and dump like financial news throwing out $T's. It's directionally right, but finance never goes from A to B without taking everyone for a ride.

Well, lightning payments don't need AUTH. Not sure about nostr zaps