This is actually an important point. It will help us make a case if we don’t vilify but instead acknowledge how this situation has organically arisen from what used to be a good idea.

Get zaped 1k, zap back 210 sats! We call this circular economics

Banks

She gmi

Tail emissions

bad in that they’re hella dumb and susceptible to scamming and degeneracy - the idea they are “good for adoption” is retarded because the proponents have an extremely short-sighted and high time preference attitude about the reputational impact, in that not all attention is useful attention; neutral in that who am I to say? it’s a public tool and how I feel about how people use it is of absolutely zero importance to anything; neutral once again in that it’s clearly a fad that has already enormously died down and a lot of the scaremongering about the impact was even more laughably stupid than the ordinals themselves; good in that it probably won’t ever die down completely and so it seems like there is now a permanent block space buyer of last resort; good once again in that expansions of utility that don’t endanger decentralisation or consensus are definitionally good because we have to be humble in admitting we don’t know what will come from them. something significantly less retarded than monkey jpegs could be right around the corner.

me: “I’m just chillin over here, gettin zapped, zappin em back.”

mrs allen: “zapping them back? why? are you an idiot? don’t do that.”

I have no idea what you are talking about and it makes me very happy

I looked at twitter for a few min yesterday. Apparently there are some politicians lying, some media outlets are using it to get engagement, and many people have opinions. I was shocked!

def tune out from 🤡world

is that Scots?

Ride the nostricht

The internet is the fucking best

LDK, BDK, MDK…only 23 more to go.

Someone should do a relay that is very-high signal. It can issue shares of revenue of that relay and then charge for each note submitted to it.

Shareholders take a cut of the revenue, but are bound to vote on whether a note is worth being published or not. If they vote no when most people voted yes or vice-versa they lose a small fraction of their shares, the shares go to those who voted with the majority.

Would this work? Why not?