Have you found someone ?
Monero is amazingly simple to use. Fees are supper low. No gas or fee bullshit to juggle, its all known ahead when the transaction is constructed. It's hard to zero out several wallets in botcoin. You have to worry a low feel will never get pushed. With XMR that goes away.
The feeling you get from Default privacy is almost inexplicable. Sovereingty. No need to worry about if this or that purchase will one day show up to haunt you. No need to juggle several wallets. we are steeped in invasive relationships, this one private mechanism is such a relief. I don't even buy anything illegal with it, but the feeling is there.
Bitcoin feels clumsy, compared to Monero. Hard to explain. Monero beats lightning. But lightning support for microtransactions is better. Bitcoin always has this feeling of impending doom, did i enter the right address, ? or is it the wrong kind of btc address ? Did i set the right fee ? Should i coin join ?
monero supply can be verified. The mechanism is basic such that tx out = tx in, without revealing who holds what and to whom.
I don't want to beg, but since you are handing out zaps, do you need a video editor ? Or content creator that uses Ai art ?
Realized that after😆
#6 In almost every cultural tradition Angels are part of a government structure. There is always some king, or in the case of angels, God.
#20 You admit the desirabilty of escrow. Drivechain/hash escrow offers this but with the direct similarity to and protection by Bitcoins own security, miners. Also, you fail to point out that the additive trust of a fedimint also contains the additive risk of its participants. This is slightly different than a betrayal.
A fedimint of a group of 5 is also liable to the risks of 5 peoples lives. Your whole model ignores the role and power of hidden, individual custody of money. In a village, a child of one member might become sick. Whereas before, someone could say they simply do not have the money to help, now everyone knows they have the money. This money could have been saved for next years seed purchase, but now it must go to the child. Someone else's child. Ones own survival is now at risk. Thus any money that would find its way into a common structure like a fedimint, would already be "gift" money, money that can be afforded to be lost. Such money is, in ethnographic terms, better spent in public acts of generosity p2p. In the bitcoin context, lightning micro transactions, not long term fedimint holds.
The whole basis for fedimint is based on an anthropological error made by wealthy westerners AND wealthy disconnected Africans about the people they are trying to help. Somehow Bitcoin has something to learn from cultures that are bad with money.
Fedimints attempts to appeal to a minor economic demographic that do not actually share their money the way they claim. Outside of funerals where money is put into a common pot, or specific projects that benefit everyone(themselves) everyone is trying to make and keep their money, FROM others. These specific scenarios can already by met by a direct utxo to the person they trust in charge of the project as is done with cash.
There is a saying:"A stranger is a potential friend, a neighbor is a dire enemy."
The game theory and principals behind bitcoin supercede local cultural expression of the use of money. Property rights are individual. The individual is universal. You either play the game in line with these fundamental properties or you suffer, in a long enough timeline. When we observe communal behavior, we are still observing individual behavior, outside of anything but insects.
--------------
Wow, what a slog. Often repetitive and all over the place. The background floating graphic and the need to switch to reader mode to avoid it for each mini article made this entire attempt at reading your work very very unpleasant. Please compile your points into a TLDR, for this mess that would mean one or two long form articles. I mean, you bought a whole domain and repost links to it, so you want people to read this stuff right ?
Each post could have just been neatly organized on a single page with subheadings. Anyways, enough about the presentation, what about the substance?
You are on to something, it's just not ever clear what. It appears your point is: "Trust in institutions scaled civilization to a point where things are enjoyable." Wow, groundbreaking.
As a fellow writer, please take my critique in the lightess of touches. You put this out there and you use it as a response to several ongoing existential debates about bitcoins future, but there isn't really anything adding to the conversation. We know custodial and trusted structures scale.
The goal is to scale without trust not because of the nature of trust, but because of the nature economic self determination/innovation and the trend towards instituional corruption.
Ok , they are quite short and based on your other comments your idea is worth looking into. Please offer a version without the floating icon in the back. Its very irritating to try and read words above it. I hope read/focus mode works for this site 🙄
Yes, but i'm mostly looking for your writings on Drivechains, not adopting your whole worldview, which is probably already aligned with mine if you're a Tuttle fan.
I have actually audited gcc because i am actually that autistic and sexless. I was hyper focused on a lisp transpiler at the time so it was part of that deep dive.
My point is, you quoted all of your written work in a comment opposed to drivechains. You mention a common objection that has been "debunked" from day two of bip300. Almost a decade ago, which means you not know what you are talking about. So, i could read 30 articles and use all that time to find the one relevant objection i'm interested in, or you could just point it out.
My goal here is find something wrong with drivechains, i'm a bug hunter, so sonething you say might be valid. But all the arguments so far against it have been really really bad. It's an interesting and worthwhile economic and technical project.
Mints are custodial. Fedimints design does entail trust. It intends to have a family or village share funds between several people.
If you look at the early days of nostr, paid relays were a potential sustainabilty source. Its one reason zaps are integrated. The Ad model has bad and anti-social incentives that we all could have avoided by paying for services. Imagine the lack of spam we could have had if each email cost a cent or something. Nostr's biggest threat is the same threat every other open protocol faces, capture.
Xmpp was embraced and capture by google.
All this could have been avoided if its users had paid their ideologically aligned core devs to make and focus on the protocol, instead of ad backed whales coming in. This is now super easy with zaps, the way nostr:npub10qk5zpmhv7rspp87shajf7d24yrf4lyr7w0m25wv9w78grs4k0sq0gq8pcand others are supported with Damus.
People like nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m and the way he supports these projects is also good. He empowers devs and open networks in a hands off way, for the sake of society.
Tldr; we don't need ads to remain sustainable, but you are always free to start up an ad or subscription funded relay that curates the feed.
like subscription relays ?
@/43 can someone post a video of zside running on a raspPi to end this argument forever please
@/38 THOSE OTHER COINS DON'T WANT/NEED BIP300 BECAUSE THEY ALREADY INCREASED THEIR BLOCKSIZE.
DC PRESERVES bitcoins conservatism
@/35
Bitcoin 2008: Fuck the government. Bitcoin is Law without the state !
Bitcoin 2023: I'm being sued by a mad man, maybe your project will also get people sued, let's not do it.
This is why we need DC. Bitcoin innovation will never happen with these pussy's at the helm. Even for self preservation. They would have been the ones telling Satoshi, "Making a new money is "Illegal".
@/34
Todd: DC will add labor for miners, centralizing it more and making it less likely regular people can mine.
Paul: I don't think so, its just a some more software and with bip301 you don't even need extra software for each project. Even without that, the extra fees will more than pay for the small amount of time used to run extra software.
Todd: For 256 different projects ?
Paul: I doubt there will be 256, but even that isn't an upper bound.
Todd *Burning Noises*
@/33 this debate has entered into the Seinfeld "Ehhhh" phase of argumentation. #ManHands