So #[0] is written in C. I really want to contribute. Guess I’ll have to learn C. Y’all have good recs for learning C? I’m coming from Ruby, JS, and a wee bit of Python.
I swear I saw someone setup nostr “spaces”…
Thanks! Do you happen to have a good resource for learning more about a Bitcoin book?
#[0] is apparently hoping for a nostr based GitHub. It would be really great to see a sort of Higher Ed GitHub for research. Imagine a network of researchers using nostr to share, discuss, and review research before publication—and then for publication to occur on nostr. I can definitely git behind something like that!
I hope so. Nostr seems like it has something special…like there’s the potential for something great if the right conditions are met.
I will say this about nostr, the reliance on relays instead of server instances (i.e. mastodon) is brilliant.
Cool. Cool. But the thing is, that’s just an assertion. Not utrying to be snarky, but most of what I’ve seen on here about the glory of bitcoin seems to be a bunch of emoting. Anyone here a bitcoiner and trained in philosophic discourse? I need something concrete to seriously contemplate whether bitcoin is actually a good (good in the Aristotelian sense).
Am I the only one on nostr that’s not a blockchain-anarcho-bitcoin-bro? I mean, I think bitcoin is cool and all, but this could get old real quick…fo’ sho’
Hmm. Not sure that worked right.
If you end up starting this project. Please let me know. I’d love to contribute.
Exactly. A proper distributive model should recognize that the top dogs benefit from their numbers. Since they have access to lots of pies, or larger pies, they shouldn’t be able to take percentages from smaller pies from which the underdogs draw from. Allowing the top dogs to do so is inherently unjust.
Let’s say rates starts at 25¢ per person, and this is distributed to creators whose subs are within a certain range, say 0-100. Within this range, each creator is guarantee a certain percentage of that 25¢. However, if a creator’s subs move above 100, the creator moves into another bracket where the consumer rate would increase to say 50¢. This is a rough sketch, but my thought is by increasing the pay rate by corresponding sub ranges, you preclude the possibility of someone with high subs taking a disproportionate piece of the pie. Again, this is a very rough sketch.
So it seems the protocol solution may have to necessarily include a payment distribution layer. What if it was much lower than $10? Say 25¢ per person? Let me elaborate…
I believe something along those lines could work better than the current system, but I imagine consumers also don’t want someone to nickel and dime them to death. So, the transaction process may need to function in a way where it’s almost invisible.
Check check
test