The left picture shows it's not in Bitcoin's interest, right? You can participate in "crypto" while it's not Bitcoin. So, I'm kinda lost on you're point.
Distorted perceptions of reality have completely inverted the perception of who is acting in the best interests of Bitcoin
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/takes/upside-down-world-spooks-are-heroes-heroes-are-spooks
#freespeech #bitcoin #nostr #anarchyⒶ
Whether this is true simply depends on how you explain it.
No indecision. Stop filling in and making up a story. I'm doing my thing, because I like it. As everyone's being obnoxiously vague at-best, and complete fucking assholes at-worst, there is nothing to "decide" or "consider" or whatever.
Try kindness with a bunch of psychopaths and sociopaths. See how quickly things can change.
I can't resolve such an extreme into an explanation that works in many countries. Especially given how many countries have health-care that is supported by government. The situation is simply more comprehensive and more complicated than this.
The Netherlands was (a while back) known for very favorable health-care because had managed to significantly push down the "capitalist profit" component of pharmaceuticals. Government is not necessarily *only* a problem.
True, you can claim something and have some unique or early proof. That's prly all you can do, but depending on the circumstances/needs, that may be more than enough.
No, I mean, the message could always be a copy. Timestamp attestation will allow you to claim an event at a certain moment in time, but you're attesting the message-carrier, not the message. The message could be a duplicate where the original is 100s of years old.
I was pointing out the same thing. You can only prove that the content-carrier (event in nostr) originates from the owner of the keypair, and even then we assume it is only owned by one person.
Of the post yes, but even then ypu cannot claim the message itself is authentic.
Are you telling is this is becoming a legal way of acquiring explosives? 😋😁😂
“Complexity is the enemy of fault-tolerance”
- nostr:npub1dergggklka99wwrs92yz8wdjs952h2ux2ha2ed598ngwu9w7a6fsh9xzpc
Nah, too superficial. It's about unnecessary complexity.
There is nothing wrong with performing a function and properly supporting edge- and error-cases. It would be worse to neglect these cases and have things seem simple but be unpredictable and fragile.
The idea is to reduce complexity where possible.
You're being deceived. The story they tell you is full of lies and deception.