Bitcoin security model is not a ”budget”
Injeera bread with dinner
This is a massively under appreciated delicious healthy meal 
“BuT FiRSt HanD AcCounT”.
Really? Tucker Carlson can fuck a hedge trimmer 
Security budget
The problem with relying on the private jet class paying for proof of work is that the private jet class does not need or care about proof of work. nostr:note1l0d6skks5tj75vc9q7dznte6v9ftv4gcwpzn39qp2j49hkpawmcqksse0d
Where are people suddenly getting this “hurried and contentious” thing? Paul has been talking about this for well over half of Bitcoin’s existence.
I think people are just turning away from any uncomfortable discussion of security budget by saying “well nobody knows”
I have some objections to this analysis.
The "wildly contradictory" arguments that you point to are precisely the problem: Fees could be so high that only rich people can use L1 (plebs sure aren't going to spending $50 every transaction) while at the same time even these higher fees could represent a such a small fraction of total market cap that it doesn't keep things secure.
My understanding of the drivechain idea is that it's aiming to aggregate huge volumes of lows fees up to main chain. It's not clear that it would work exactly as planned, but it does represent a possible Goldilocks arrangements that doesn't fall back onto Saylor's silly "oh but rich people pay to transport art and pay real estate agents 3%" argument. I'm having trouble picturing high value investors needing to settle $10 million a few times a second.
Certainly, we're not relying on high value investors constantly making L1 transaction to keep Bitcoin running?
If Bitcoin where to obtain this sort of global store-of-value status such that trillions of dollars was changing hands every day, handling transactions off L1 would have become the norm. If I'm a rich folk settling $10 million in a single transaction, it's not the security of PoW that I'm most interested to pay for, it would be the handling of keys and this sort of thing that your average Walmart heiress isn't going to be confident with - so this will be handled by boutique Swiss bankers, who would devise their own ways to skimp paying the billions of on-chain fees.
The problem with putting the security assumption on high net worth investors is that they are the easiest to capture, they don't care about censorship resistance. If the blockchain is captured by a monopoly miner or a cabal of corporations, it need not cease to be a store of value, as long as these high net worth investors continue to believe it's a store of value.
Also, no need to pile on to this "VC-backed" ad hominem: Either it's a well-thought out idea (since 2015) or it's not
That’s called free speech
Elon musk has just discovered that free speech has this funny property that sometimes what other people say has effects on other people, now he’s mad so he does things like suppress views on Twitter that are critical and suing people off Twitter. He has an 8th grade understanding of free speech
Elon is the biggest censor in the business
Elon Musk is that seventh grade kid who’s been on a “free-speech“ grind ever since last week when he got detention for calling the fourth period teacher a “f—-t”
So did you give them the website?
No. This is moronic. He sues and mutes his critics. That’s the opposite of free speech.
Yeah I’m hoping that was it I cleaned with paper towel and vinegar real good and then tightened it. Hope it doesn’t start a fire.
I hope there’s still that guy responding with “Why do you want to do it this way?” Instead of answering the damn question
Been hitting the email a lot lately and it’s great nostr:note1jg02vnxyh5jtnd0l72dyv2d0dcy360ethxaqjw5tepcftp69s56s5ac6pq
Could you give me an easy marinade for zucchini or that I’m going to grill later today?