ME TOO
The latest twitter dramas make it clear - any centralized / profit seeking platform will become a monoculture, and inevitably censor dissent, even if just by just deprioritising in the algorithm.
Each time something like this happens a few more people wake up and realize the only way they can do what they want is in a free platform where you can make / choose your own algos.
Historians will look back at this time as the point when it became clear that social media algorithms provide the structure of society. They are everything now, the DNA with which cultures and societies and economies evolve and interact.
Of course the algorithms must be free for any of this to work, as will soon become apparent.
Nostr is way more important than bitcoin.
I'd say it's pretty obvious at this point that most people don't want to be free
if there's one night i will go to bed before midnight, however i'm feeling, its that night
all that happens is that one day people who think they have bitcoin in an etf find out they don't
so they realize they are actually hugely short bitcoin and all try desperately to do something about it at the same time..
extremely bullish!
they can't stop even if they wanted to
Literally creating a monoculture where you only exist if you agree with everyone else
Plus price is a pretty good metric to follow the draining of all earth's financial wealth into bitcoin.
OK, we know it's gonna happen whatever, but you think I'm not going to want to watch!?
worth staying on X for.. ..there's nobody here to tell "i told you so.."!
I don't disagree with any of this but think it can be simplified:
1. Follow the herd in all things
(because, for example, injecting yourself - let alone your children - with a novel genetic agent that the developers described as "building the plane while it was alreay flying" is *insanely risky*.. ..but if the herd does it it must be right)
Yes, how could they actually know this stuff?
Reminds me of when in covid, they had these absurdly high vaccination rates (where i live). To the extent that in some age bands there were more vaccinated people than the whole population.
It basically revealed that (in this case) they had grossly underestimated the population.
(This was also cynically used to make misleading stories about things like the rates of unvaccinated admissions to intensive care. Because if you have 2 people in IC and you think the population is 4, you can say half of all unvaccinated are in IC.. ..but the actual number of unvaccinated might be 200,000, say..)
Yes its definitely being exploited.
But also, I feel like saying "no borders, total freedom of movement" is basically the same as saying "no private property". Should everyone be free to walk into your garden or bedroom?
They are definitely purely motivated by profit - and that's a good thing. It means they do exactly what we need them to do, which is to compete against each other to generate blocks to add to the blockchain by carrying out the maximum possible amount of "proof of work", or "hashing". In doing so, they ensure that the blockchain cannot be faked because the blocks they make take so much work to generate that they cannot be replicated by an attacker.
The problems would only come if miners start being motivated by other things - for example, if governments started to carry out mining, in order to censor transactions, rather than to make money. This is a relevant concern that people think and discuss about, but for various reasons - which you can find out about if interested - it doesn't seem likely to be a big problem.
Another thing to put your mind at rest, perhaps. In 2017 all the big companies in bitcoin, including the overwhelming majority of the miners, got together and agreed to make a change to bitcoin's protocol - by increasing the size of the blocks. There was a lot of controversy, as most developers and grassroots users disagreed with the idea. The companies published plans to make a hard fork that would implement their plan - but they had to abandon their project when it became clear that users and markets disagreed, and that the fork they created would have less value than the original bitcoin. If miners had power then this would not have happened.
Finally, if miners do ever begin to act against bitcoin's interests, it is actually quite easy to change the hashing algorithm used by bitcoin. This would immediately destroy all mining businesses, as the equipment they had invested $billions in would be worthless. It's not something you'd choose to do, as it would cause some disruption, but miners ultimately know that they cannot ever threaten users because if it becomes necessary, users will destroy them.
I hope that helps!
it will seem like a weird aberration looking back
always slightly freaks me out to be reminded some people see advertisements on their computers
plus these charts always get scarcity wrong. gold is simply not scarce. we've only mined like a billionth of the contents even of the earth's crust.
crucial thing is, if the price of gold goes up, the supply goes up - as all the deposits that were a little to costly to extract now become economic.
and that is true of every single other asset in human history - except bitcoin.
that's true scarcity - actually perfect price inelasticity of supply - and there should be a column in these things where bitcoin is on its own.
(and nobody really gets that - which is why bitcoin is going to steadily drain the wealth of the world)
oh, and bitcoin is way more unconfiscatable. most of mine literally cannot be confiscated even if I have a gun to my head and really want to give it to the attacker.
just back from a week in el Salvador where bitcoin was the only medium of exchange I used đź’Ş
You're right, something like that could never happen - because if there's one thing the banking system can be relied on for, it's protecting ordinary shareholders!
Either that or they want more time to front run their own announcement...
He may be talking to the monero people idk