Just another 878k to go.

Yes we are winning despite these roadblocks

Agree. Pretty much only coinage would be free market money. .. Some say private banks, but their business would be fraud if they don't use 100% reserves. And who could verify?

Many of the Mises reps advocate return to gold standard (ala central banking). Even Saife admitted this before he turned to orange coin. Even Tom Woods hasn't fully embraced free market money (Bitcoin).. Advocates central banking ..

Why did he apply capitalism principles to central banking!?

A gold standard is still with central banks.

Someone can always abuse the honor system. I will never be the one to undermine a high-trust society with "race-to-the-bottom" behaviour.

And it only becomes hopeless when you have intentional subversion by bad actors.

Bitcoin requires adversarial thinking but somehow you must reconcile that with the fact that no one wants to be in a community with scummy people.

Respecting Core filters was an honor system thing that shouldn't work in theory but in practice has done for basically its entire existence.

And it has taken intentional malice by scammers to undermine that.

The best argument I can make against my position here is the point that honor systems don't scale. Leave-the-cash-in-a-box farm stand works in a village with 500 people. It's not going to work in New York City. True.

But at the same time, Bitcoin is a permanently unfinished and evolving technology. All the decisions in that regard are downstream from its users. And if its users can't resist undermining their own interests with short-termist obliteration of the commons by treating nodes as a disposable but inevitable resource when its the only aspect to Bitcoin making it genuinely decentralized then the future looks extremely bleak.

I don't think the alleged hopelessness of counter-spam measures is coming from people who are prepared to take all the relevant players in this ecosystem into account.

Do spammers want their spam to be stored by the world's most redundant database? Sure.

Do miners want to get paid for facilitating that? Sure - though that's very short sighted of them.

But does my node want to relay fake transactions thinly veiling chunks of non-Bitcoin garbage from spammers to miners? Of course not. And without our nodes you don't have Bitcoin. You have another stupid crypto.

16% of the network is permissionlessly asserting their right to relay what's in the interests of themselves and the network.

Just like how you can argue that me not stealing the blueberries from the farm stand and voluntarily paying for them is completely rational behaviour for someone who doesn't want to chop off the branch on which they sit.

God willing, Bitcoin will survive its devs.

Missing statue of Satoshi found in the water

Libel for sure unless he can prove it. otherwise . . . LULZ

Matt Taibbi:

”Now, we know. With the help of the declassified Durham material, we can explain the whole affair in three brushstrokes.

One, Hillary Clinton and her team apparently hoped to deflect from her email scandal and other problems via a campaign tying Trump to Putin. Two, American security services learned of these plans. Three — and this is the most important part — instead of outing them, authorities used state resources to massively expand and amplify her scheme. The last stage required the enthusiastic cooperation and canine incuriosity of the entire commercial news business, which cheered as conspirators made an enforcement target of Trump, actually an irrelevant bystander.

I’ve tiptoed for years around what I believed to be true about this case, worrying some mitigating fact might emerge. Now, there’s no doubt. Hillary Clinton got in a jam, and the FBI, CIA, and the Obama White House got her out of it by setting Trump up. That’s it. It was a cover-up, plain and simple”

If you knew betting on Nostr now was as good as Bitcoin in 2011

What would you do?

you done a really bad job in identifying any "propaganda"

nothing says "I appreciate freedom tech" like calling people cultists for pointing out game theory problems in Bitcoin.

jpgs have nothing to do with that, that's a story invented by the marketing department of a mining pool

bitcoin doesn't care (about your age)

⚡️💬 When the government prints money, don't think it's creating wealth - it's just diluting yours.

Prices rise, wages follow (a little), but the real value of your savings melts away in silence.

Inflation is an invisible tax: it doesn't pass through parliament or appear on any ballot paper.

On the other hand, it weighs down the middle and working classes every day.

What's worse? It's presented as a "natural economic phenomenon"!

In fact, it's the direct result of a State incapable of managing its budget, a model that spends more than it produces, and an obese public apparatus that gets fatter without ever questioning itself.

And we end up financing public services with debt instead of growth. And when this debt becomes unsustainable, we melt it down... by devaluing the currency.

Until then, we ask you to remain calm... To trust that everything is under control.

But by dint of masking reality, by drugging the economy with debt money, we have created an illusion of prosperity... which makes us forget the fundamental values of work, effort and savings.

Inflation is the opium of the people…

The gold standard had inflation and still does. It's also private and fungible.

It failed as the economy became more globalized because of the cost and burden of settlement. Vast majority moved to IOUs and custodians. Now everyones transactions are ruggable, censorable, and surveilled.

Story reminds me of the current trajectory of this other coin

Going into the future, Bitcoin (and any PoW coin) has roughly 6 scenarios that will happen if price stops climbing at a similar rate to the past (I think its a safe bet to say it wont. Name one thing in history that has. Even if it unrealistically swallows 100% value in the world there is still a limit):

1) Unending block rewards (never going to happen 21M is core)

2) Reoccuring blocksize increases + increasing transaction count (Growing fees spread across growing transactions - probably wont happen either, but more probable than #1)

3) Second layers that actually consistently pay miners to secure the chain unlike Lightning (i.e. Drivechains)

4) Nothing changes "scenario A". Thriving fee market. Tiny set of wealthy users are able and willing to pay massive fees. The full potential of Bitcoin is not available to most. Vast majority of plebs will rarely, if ever, touch the base layer. Custodial and less sovereign layers are the norm more than they are even now. No realistic unilateral exit that makes economic sense means the entire security model of layers like lightning are pointless if they can't be enforced on chain.

5) Nothing changes "scenario B". Not enough users are willing to use Bitcoin or pay enough fees for miners to offset dwindling block rewards and secure the blockchain. Miners start dropping out to a new, much lower, equilibrium. (increasingly vulnerable to 51% attack)

6) Mostly altruistic miners (lol. lmao.)

If Bitcoins price doesn't increase at a similar rate to the past, which do you think is most likely? Which do you prefer? What scenario did I miss? You tell me.

Instead of shouting "propaganda" and "fake assumptions" maybe address a single point in the link?

Thats nice but block rewards get lower over time and run out. Look at current fees. It's unsustainable unless price goes up forever and/or fees continue to rise. Speaking of assumptions, those are big ones to make.

my first formal position of employment involved working with a government IT department, specifically accounting. the number of things they did with excel was hilarious.i didn't do much work with excel in my role but i learned quite a lot about writing excel scripts at that time.

funniest thing about excel spreadsheet scripting is that it seems to be something that women are particularly good at. there was a lot of women in the office i worked in. it left me with a vague impression in general that women were good bookkeepers, and later encounters with book keepers confirmed this. it's beautiful tho.

not saying in all cases women are not capable of really inventing things but they sure as hell are good at operating calendars and ledgers.

i cite the case of Mileva Maric, wife of Einstein, for this. i'm pretty sure what the women of yugoslavia say about her is correct: that she was the actual inventor of relativity theory. so, don't misread me by thinking that women are not capable of invention. to the contrary, i think they are very capable as a class of human in the process of invention. probably they originally invented math and calendars. the motivations for which should be clear, since the first big insight about these two topics logically would have likely emerged from those who are most subject to biological clocks. ie, fertility.