True, that's important to keep in mind. I wish there were better options.
Google is an ad company. If they want to make more money, this is the first thing that comes to their mind. Apple is a product company, they have two ways to make more money and one of them may eat into the other. Yes, they're going to sell ads and information, but since this undercuts their marketing, they need to be more careful about it. There's more resistance. They can also pursue additional privacy improvements without fundamentally going against their revenue stream.
Put another way: Apple might be selling my data, but Google has to
Yes, but I trust them to do a better job running my phone than Google. Apple was the first to have an HSM, first to have a lockdown mode, first to put privacy on the features list, first to announce their own baseband. Until I can run a fully open stack, I'm sticking with iOS.
Do they have a term for the accretion of constraints that directs the exploration? I've been thinking about this as I pair with LLMs, but I can't find good vocabulary. Essentially, a term for "working a problem out"
The more I learn, the less I know
For the future that Bitcoiners want, Bitcoin is necessary but not sufficient
Just as the NSA "understands your network better than you do", the Fed deeply understands how Bitcoin works, and could work.
Ah, I see. I don't agree, but I understand 🤙
Read history books. You'll thank yourself later.
No. I'm measuring it in obligations. You're hearing fiat, but that isn't the same thing. Bitcoin maximalism won't make property, or taxes, or militaries, or force disappear.
I understand the philosophy, I'm asking people to recognize the physics. If the majority of Bitcoin activity is inside the banking establishment (primarily "a reserve currency"), then they are running the most nodes, coordinating with the most miners, defining the rules. They're patient, capable, careful, and have no interest in individual adoption of a reserve currency. Your taxes will be paid in CBDC, and the exchange rate from non-Bank UTXOs will be a pittance.
The days are long, but the years are short. https://ynniv.com/atari.gif" class="embedded-image" loading="lazy">
`fork` was V6 (1975), so I'll give you that. Perhaps this avatar I drew 20 years ago doesn't set expectations appropriately.
Yes, I used the term colloquially to mean the shorter chain after a hard fork. But you're arguing that you're stable as long as you don't change. Obviously you can run your node however you wish, but if you continue to maintain the minority chain you're following in the footsteps of Bitcoin Cash. My argument is that institutions in a primarily reserve currency situation will collude with each other to centralize Bitcoin.
Semantics. If Bitcoin becomes "a reserve currency", then the wealthy will be the majority and thus "not the fork".
You said that two people can ignore the rest of the network. Yes, they can, and there's a term for it
That's not true. nostr:nprofile1qqsza748zkamgmw4he4hm2xhwqpxd5gkwju38wqh3twmtshx8kv8xvgpramhxw309u6rxdpsd4skjm3wv36kx6mydeejummjvuargwp58qhsz9nhwden5te0v4jx2m3wdehhxarj9ekxzmny9uq3samnwvaz7tmxd9k8getj9ehx7um5wgh8w6twv5hsv0qvag and I can be the only two who agree in the while world, we would get the bitcoin we want. All of our existing stack would be ours and eventually the difficulty will fall enough for us to mine new blocks on a bitaxe and then fall more until we can CPU mine.
Since we want the bitcoin that makes the most economic sense there is 0% chance it would be just us, which kinda makes your point pointless.
That would be an interesting choice of hard fork, but no one's gonna stop you 🫡