We out here hashing bro, what are you doing?

REMINDER: You can buy a fraction of a #Bitcoin called Satoshi.

All your models are going to be destroyed. #Bitcoin

Ladies and Gentlemen🇪🇺☀️

Today Monday ☕️🥐

Let's focus this week on making Bitcoin more accessible and easier to use. @relai_app #Bitcoin        cause happiness.☝️

relai.me/jokhodl

@relai_app ln Wallet opens up possibilities for several people in #Europe

⚡️lightning fast bitcoin payments to Europeans guys ⚡️

#Keep #Stacking #Sats #Bitcoin #Relai

#Austria #Belgium #CzechRepublic

#Denmark #Estonia #Finland #France

#Germany #Greece #Hungary #Italy #Liechtenstein #Luxembourg #Netherlands #Norway #Poland #Portugal #SanMarino #Slovakia

#Slovenia #Spain #Sweden #Switzerland #Bitcoin #Sats #Hodl #Buy

Fyi: Tomorrow is Monday

How’s your night friend?

Gm ☕️

I've heard from a reliable source..when bitcoin reaches 1M$, all of satoshi's bitcoin will be distributed among the year active addresses.

It’s OK, I probably don’t need it.

I’m researching pairwise comparison aggregation methods for a personal project, and this one keeps coming up.

The main difference between my project and the literature is sparseness. I have a dataset of ~40k items. Users see random pairs and choose between them.

So, by aggregating pairwise rankings, I’d like to assign scores to items. From what I can tell, The Bradley-Terry model assigns one point to whichever item the user preferred and zero to the other.

The problem with this, IMO, is that it throws away half of the data. If a user prefers A to B, and we only give a point to A, then we’ve learned nothing about B (relative to unevaluated options like, say, C).

So I’m considering giving a negative score to items voted against. In the ABC case, after a user votes A over B, the scores would be: A=1, B=-1, C=0.

I was hoping to find existing literature about sparse pairwise ranking aggregation, but haven’t found much yet.

This happened during a demo of Tollgate, a tool for OpenWRT routers which let's users pay for WiFi with sats-denominated ecash. Friend of mine connects his phone to the wifi hotspot and is shown a captive portal that says it wants ecash from a certain mint. Friend doesn't have ecash. But I do.

I whip out my phone and create a 100 sat token, show it to him as a QR code, which he copies and pastes into the captive portal. A few seconds later, he's online. 1 sat = 1 minute internet.

We're just scratching the surface of what's possible.

Last night, HBO published a documentary that claims to reveal the identity of Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.

We believe this narrative goes against the very ethos of Bitcoin and strongly oppose this kind of sensationalism.

Speculating on Satoshi’s identity isn’t just unnecessary; it’s irresponsible and dangerous.

The power of Bitcoin lies in its design, and Satoshi’s anonymity has been essential in allowing Bitcoin to grow free from individual influence.

This isn’t a flaw—it’s one of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths.

Knowing who Satoshi is wouldn’t contribute anything positive to Bitcoin; instead, it would create a target, invite unnecessary attention, and compromise the principles on which Bitcoin was founded.

We discourage this type of speculative behavior and urge everyone to respect Satoshi’s choice to remain anonymous.

Let’s focus on advancing Bitcoin for a freer future, and honor the decisions that have allowed it to flourish.

Good morning ☕️ ☁️ 🌊 you wonderful Nostr people 🫂💜

#Bitcoin #Coffeechain