Avatar
James A Lewis
9a4acdeb978565e27490dca65c83e9f65745eaec1d9a0405a52d198c1489913b
Husband, father, #Catholic #Christian, Amateur Philosopher, Bitcoiner, freedom lover, word nerd #dadstr

Four major industries experience disproportionate price hikes: automobiles, college, healthcare, and real estate. The reasons are two: government involvement (subsidy and bureaucracy, as you mention), and fiat currency with fractional reserve banking (which makes loans cheap, but you can't pay people on loans).

nostr:naddr1qq257vmy2pshzdpn2a9ny665dvm8jae3g3drgq3qnf9vm6uhs4j7yaysmjn9eqlf7et5t6hvrkdqgpd995vcc9yfjyasxpqqqp65wvhtukf

What's truly life changing is the feeling of superiority you get 'cuz you're an Apple user, not some lowly android proletariat.

> Ben Shapiro: "Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism."

Absolutely false. People can reasonably disagree whether the true religion of God remains with the Jews while not condoning but condemning the actions of the Jihadists. Jihadists hate Catholics about the same. Just mention the battle of #Lepanto.

Ben Shapiro needs to recognize he commits with this statement the same error as the BLMers do with saying "it's not enough to not be racist; you need to be anti-racist."

This genocide by Hamas has exactly the same degree of despicable and heinous as every other genocide in history: absolute.

Now, Shapiro must cease making those who religiously disagree with him out to be basically Hitler and Hamas. Put the blame where it is deserved.

https://twitter.com/BenShapiroShow/status/1711418033913078162?fbclid=IwAR3HUdX7g9J5aSKzui2s81lk-RFjDNEYTjey7rix6cOLtTPEtMaH4mEjMTU

#battleOfLepanto

Ben Shapiro tends to think it's legit. It's really just zionism. I probably shouldn't be upset that he calls anti-Zionism equal with antisemitism.

Replying to Avatar Cyph3rp9nk

nostr:note10dygdcxn7nygcxxrlmpp2qackpr24c3tpk39h4guvjk60nrtmkcsc5swfc

By Sam Parker

To reiterate, Bitcoin is now as Turing Complete as any other chain, and this requires zero changes to Bitcoin.

It’s become a canon maxi talking point that Turing Complete = Bad. This is silly for a number of reasons.

Firstly nothing in our reality will ever be TRULY Turing Complete, because the technical definition of Turing Complete actually requires an UNBOUNDED runtime, and we just don’t have an unbounded amount of space and time to accommodate for that.

Along the way a small cabal of script hackers such as

@robin_linus

and

@super_testnet

have figured out how to hack in all of the functionality we would want from a generalized computer into Bitcoin’s extremely limited OP set, so the only thing that has kept Bitcoin’s VM from being as Turing complete as something like Ethereum’s was not a matter of expressivity, but simply a matter of Runtime, with the most stringent limitation being the stack size limit.

All BitVM does is allow us to split the runtime of some logic that would be out of bounds of a single transaction ACROSS MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS. That’s it. We aren’t adding any new semantic features, we just are exponentially increasing the length of the programs we can run.

So Bitcoin really isn’t any more Turing Complete by the technical definition as it was before, it simply has been given a runtime to its programs that we can reasonably say it’s “Turing complete enough” for any program that we could realistically want to execute.

Secondly this is the best thing possible for ossification. Why add in an Opcode when Bitcoin can already simulate any opcode imaginable? The debate now shifts to features to increase efficiency, privacy, security and not about features. Adding in this kind of functionality actually REDUCES risk for Bitcoin, precisely because it reduces the need for it to change in the future.

Thirdly being able to have satisfaction of arbitrary logical constraints means that you can cut out all kinds of trusted or semi-trusted escrow services that a version of Bitcoin without this requires. Congestion control/Coinjoin aggregators, sidechain quorums, certain types of DLC oracle type stuff all can go from trusted/semi trusted to 100% trustless. Bitcoin’s trustlessness is only as strong as the weakest link in the interaction you are engaging in with it. Oh and it means that Drivechains are unnecessary.

Finally this is opt-in. If you don’t trust your coins being locked to some Turing complete contract (totally reasonable) then don’t lock them to a Turing complete smart contract. One of beauties of the UTXO system is security sandboxing.

If people really feel strongly that Bitcoin shouldn’t have this functionality, perhaps for issues of incentives or something, that’s a conversation that should be had, but basically it would require ripping out Taproot, which seems very dumb at this point.

Does this mean Bitcoin can run Doom? What about running a node of itself? 😲

Apparently swans are a sexy temptation to daughters of Thestius? 🤣 are swans a symbol for something?

I really like Fr. Andrew Dalton and have watched other interviews too. Looking forward to listening to this interview during my lunch break now

Video Description:

> In this interview, I sit down with Fr. Andrew Dalton, an expert on the Shroud of Turin, to discuss whether this fascinating relic is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. If it is, does that mean that Christianity HAS to be true?

https://invidious.slipfox.xyz/watch?v=b97z-uqZdoQ

The issue is ambiguity. "Native American" is the name of a genetic race like Caucasian and Mongoloid, and it is used to denote a land of birth. I am both (well, not much the prior, but I can trace lineage).

Ambiguity is the enemy of clarity and the friend of deceit.

nostr:nevent1qqspn6ytmkxe7e07m36azd7e2x7ggg68cemk2wvgrcxkf0nyrg3jskqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsq6pjgpvxxuwlrexs6vht7d0pqjy3864dlf3m7adsr0wnhwmpspmqrqsqqqqqpn53mry

Funny. It's not niche at all. Partial preterism is what's been believed for these two millennia. It doesn't need a special name. That's just part of Christianity. The "left-behind" view is the novel one.

Zionism is alive and well in protestant non-denom, non-credal Christian circles like Calvary Chapel, as well as some southern Baptist circles. I'll have to look up what "preterism" is.

I think it's not those who *want* to trust government (I'd really like to trust our leaders) but those who think the hierarchy of trust ought to be widest authority at the highest level of trust, as if individuals in lower authority are inherently less trustworthy than those in higher authority.

The real issue is that responsibility, and thus loyalty, is inversely proportional to proximity, and your neighbor can be more likely trusted with your wellbeing than some strangers in an old, stone building a couple thousand miles away.

Only the semi-intelligent will realize how much intelligence is possible and their disparity of it. Too dumb and one is unable to recognize it.