Whenever someone declares an event to be “good” or “bad” for Bitcoin, I think of this story…

The Story of the Chinese Farmer

“Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all of his neighbors came around to commiserate. They said, “We are so sorry to hear your horse has run away. This is most unfortunate.” The farmer said, “Maybe.”

The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and in the evening everybody came back and said, “Oh, isn’t that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!” The farmer again said, “Maybe.”

The following day his son tried to break one of the horses, and while riding it, he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors then said, “Oh dear, that’s too bad,” and the farmer responded, “Maybe.”

The next day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the neighbors came around and said, “Isn’t that great!” Again, he said, “Maybe.”

The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity, and it’s really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad — because you never know what will be the consequence of the misfortune; or, you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune.”

— Alan Watts

Getting close to failing these on the regular.

First off, I don't think we necesarily need to determine a purpose for society or other individuals, I just think it's important that we accept that that objective purpose itself exists.

Secondly, it seems like there are two fundamental values you outlined in your message as being important:

1. The ability for us to progress in this discussion

2. The rules of logic itself

These are values. If they aren't objectively important, then you're right, we won't move forward in this discussion. There wouldn't even be a point to moving forward because "forward" wouldn't exist.

I value logic too, but I understand that logic serves a purpose. A purpose that is outside logic. Logic serves this purpose in it's proper context.

It sounds like you think value doesn't come into play in the sciences. How then, can you explain the fact that there's a functionally infinite amount of scientific data out there, but somehow we manage to only pay attention to the scientific data that matters? A scientist must select the data, they must design the correct experiments, and they must have the right orientation towards their work in order to arrive at the so called "objective truth."

Well, what makes that scientific truth objective?

(If you respond to nothing else in this message, please answer that last question)

Does #[0]​ actually transfer sats on every WoS-to-WoS zap, or is it just an internal balance adjustment until the sats are sent to an external wallet?

Cool either way - just wondering 🫂🤙

It's not an actual counterargument though

Does anyone get un-orange pilled?

The number of #Bitcoin    maxis only goes up forever, Laura.

Yes, new tools with better UI will be required. Why can't custodial solutions be a part of the landscape while new tools are getting built?

It's very hard to entertain the statement: "There is no objective purpose in the world" as true, because the statement is self contradictory.

Which part of the statement is objectively true? The part which denies objective purpose, or the part which affirms it?

This is why earlier I mentioned that without objective value, nothing makes sense.

Descriptions of the world don't make sense.

Judgements don't make sense.

Actions don't make sense.

Statements of any kind don't make sense.

You're probably wondering which part of the statement I think "affirms" objective value, so here it is:

First off, the statement is an action, and therefore it is inherently an expression of value (even according to subjective value theory).

In order to generate that statement, (let's call it a description of the world), you had to value certain perceptions, concepts, thoughts, ideas, words, the English language itself, over others. These values are baked into the truth-value of the statement.

The truth-value of a statement depends partially on the context-dependant objective value of the means by which the statement was generated and conveyed.

Moreover, you're attempting to adhere to a logical framework that under subjective value theory only exists subjectively, not objectively. This is because logic itself is a framework of value.

I want to be able to assume the premise is true, then explain my reasoning from there, but because they premise is self contradictory, anything following will be incoherent.

Sure, here goes:

Q: "What is the purpose of one's life?"

A: I do not know

Q: "What is the purpose of society?

A: I do not know

My central claim is that there is a purpose, not that I know what that purpose is.

I think understanding how something can be context dependent, but still objective is going to be important here.

I use the phrase "Context-dependant objective value" for a reason.

Objectivity ≠ Absolutism.

For something to be objective doesn't necessarily mean it's also absolute.

It's very hard to entertain the statement: "There is no objective purpose in the world" as true, because the statement is self contradictory.

Which part of the statement is objectively true? The part which denies objective purpose, or the part which affirms it?

This is why earlier I mentioned that without objective value, nothing makes sense.

Descriptions of the world don't make sense.

Judgements don't make sense.

Actions don't make sense.

Statements of any kind don't make sense.

You're probably wondering which part of the statement I think "affirms" objective value, so here it is:

First off, the statement is an action, and therefore it is inherently an expression of value (even according to subjective value theory).

In order to generate that statement, (let's call it a description of the world), you had to value certain perceptions, concepts, thoughts, ideas, words, the English language itself, over others. These values are baked into the truth-value of the statement.

The truth-value of a statement depends partially on the context-dependant objective value of the means by which the statement was generated and conveyed.

Moreover, you're attempting to adhere to a logical framework that under subjective value theory only exists subjectively, not objectively. This is because logic itself is a framework of value.

I want to be able to assume the premise is true, then explain my reasoning from there, but because they premise is self contradictory, anything following will be incoherent.

Self custody is important. However, onboarding new users should be a bigger priority. Most people literally struggle to get hold of some sats ⚡ even if they're willing to pay for it

Users are being asked to withdraw their funds. They don't have a responsibility of providing you a service forever

I think there's a slight difference between your concept of "subjective value" and my concept of "context-dependent objective value," but correct me if I'm wrong.

My version of this concept preserves the ability for a person to be more or less correct in their evaluations, whereas yours doesn't.

In my conceptualization, there's the thing I'm valuing, how much I consciously value it, and then there's it's actual, objective value relative to me. These last two are separate.

The reason I think it's necessary to keep these separate is because...

For example:

I could value ice cream, and I could buy it to eat it, but that doesn't mean that it was a good thing that I bought and ate that ice cream (even for me).

After all, Ice cream is generally not good for me. There are exceptions, but there really is truth to the statement "I shouldn't eat ice cream three times a day, even if I go ahead and do so."

If I did this, I'd be expressing incorrect value to the market. The market would begin overproducing ice cream because of my increased demand, and this wouldn't be a good thing.

Does this mean that I think government should step in and regulate ice cream out of existence? No, it doesn't. It just means that the market is only as good as it's participants at approximating value. It just happens to be the best means we have of doing so.

I understand your position here, but I still have to disagree. You smuggled in a value-laden concept in the second paragraph: "unhealthy."

"Due to your knowledge of the unhealthy consequences of ice-cream, this will likely reduce your valuation of the good."

"Knowledge of the unhealthy"

=

Knowledge of a negative

Without objective value, what differentiates health and unhealth?

Perhaps by "knowledge" you are referring to a mere opinion or preference, but it sounds like you don't mean that. It sounds like you are talking about knowledge of an objective fact.

I understand your position here, but I still have to disagree. You smuggled in a value-laden concept in the second paragraph: "unhealthy."

"Due to your knowledge of the unhealthy consequences of ice-cream, this will likely reduce your valuation of the good."

"Knowledge of the unhealthy"

=

Knowledge of a negative

Without objective value, what differentiates health and unhealth?

Perhaps by "knowledge" you are referring to a mere opinion or preference, but it sounds like you don't mean that. It sounds like you are talking about knowledge of an objective fact.