Avatar
lesco
a446ae5475238cfa923c15f670a5388ae1fe6b2030f433329dffb796fa583989

Went there last year.

Photos can’t show how big it feels and how the high ceilings influence your perspective on state vs individuals.

However, I must say this kind of buildings exist to project a longer shadow of the state.

For empire level constructions, I value more beautiful bridges, big dams and extensive roads, especially far away from the capital.

This sounds a lot like “leave the money matters to the money experts”.

The average Europoor wants socialism again, they really do.

We can go back after the famine.

Replying to Avatar jimmysong

Within the datacarriersize/OP_RETURN change is hidden a change to how many OP_RETURN outputs are allowed. Previously, it was 1. With the datacarriersize change, it's now as many as the user wants.

The technical justification for multiple OP_RETURNs now being standard is completely unconvincing. To quote

@theinstagibbs

:

"The motivation for doing this is for situations where you cannot commit to all data efficiently otherwise. Think SIGHASH_SINGLE | ACP scenarios. The datacarriersize argument applies to payloads themslves, so yes, if someone wants to do ~80 bytes of payload and can do it in one output, they should just do that."

To paraphrase, he's saying there might be transactions where multiple people sign one input and have one output that they get to control, which are each OP_RETURN. No wallet I know of even supports SIGHASH_SINGLE/ANYONECANPAY constructions. I'm not sure if you get 10 Bitcoin seasoned developers together that they'd be able to construct a transaction like this together without a lot of debugging.

I have never seen any transaction like this in the wild (multi-op-return, sighash_single), and I have not seen anyone even ask for something like this. This justification was never brought up until I specifically asked this question in the un-deprecation PR. The multiple OP_RETURN becoming now standard was pointed out in the original PR, asking if this was an intended effect, to which no one responded with anything like the quote above. Thus, the rationale quoted above looks like to me an elaborate post-hoc justification for bad code.

This modification is going into v30.

Honestly, I'm not too concerned about the consequences of this particular aspect of the PR as the effects of it aren't too great (the 100k default is far more consequential), but the fact that this flimsy rationalization was accepted without much question is what makes me question not just the user-alignment, but code quality of the datacarriersize PR.

Bitcoin core is obviously compromised.

Truly decentralization requires more clients.

It’s absurd to me when someone protects core as if they were the only ones that should be in charge of the whole network.

El problema es que el concepto de patria se puede capturar y capitalizar.

En el momento que defines una patria, siempre habrá un grupo que explote el lado tribal humano.

La élite siempre fue internacional, entre los grandes romanos se jactaban de hablar griego.

Mientras que “el pueblo” rara vez se organiza, ni si quiera en el imperio romano uno se “sentía” romano, europeo y mucho menos visigodo.

La religión organizada fue la primera versión del estado nación moderno, una símbolo para unir pueblos y monopolizar la cultura, cuando el segundo mandamiento prohíbe explícitamente rendir culto a símbolos.

La segunda versión fue el estado-nación.

La tercera versión es la unificación final de la cultura con un control único de la narrariva, a veces llamada globalización.

The three main problems with ETH.

1. You can’t run a full node (they even renamed them to archive nodes), so not really decentralized.

2. Too much complexity requires transaction to be computed in a bigger machine, increasing the surface vector exponentially, every month many ETH get stolen this way.

3. Bitcoin exists .

Hear me out.

Stop calling Bitcoin digital gold.

Call gold analog money instead.

Yes, but tons of new capital is holding BTC within exchanges and treasury companies.

They will eventually get reck and then price will skyrocket when everyone realizes Bitcoin is scarce.

Just like FTX.

Money is information.

Money is speech.

Creating money out of nothing is a form of narrative control AKA censorship.

All arrows should be colored as information.

Money is speech.

The problem is who controls that speech and therefore the creation of more money.

Replying to Avatar Cyph3rp9nk

I would say US shadow economy is way bigger.

Boomers will end up with more Bitcoin than many realize.

A GenZ would have to join Bitcoin 8 years earlier and save 2 full years of work to have the same Bitcoin as a boomer will have by selling their real estate now.

They STILL have most of the capital.

Ultimately understanding Bitcoin is more about overcoming fear than any other thing.

How you end up overcoming that fear comes in different colors.

1. You have nothing else to lose.

2. You have the proper experience to test and verify the inner workings of the network yourself.

3. You are somewhat technical and trust the analysis others do.

4. You trust if a systemic failure existed it would be already be exposed or exploited.

5. You understand the monetary part and that removes the need to understand how the network works.

6. You join only ideologically, not with your capital.

More?

They will remove Bitcoin’s capital gain tax to have less friction when selling it.

Spain is very mountainous so the culture is not uniform.

Catalonia and Valencia languages are closer to Italian because sea trade was easier than trading with the rest of the peninsula.

South of France also shared this past, including Occitan a language banned by Paris a few years back.

So, you must stop working to avoid subsidizing your lazy coworkers.

These cities are far from “good places to live”.

Only good as a vacation destiny.

Try working there.

You always forget that the reality about a city being walkable and bicycle focused is that everyone needs to live in the center making a few landowners rich and only affordable to a few.

Replying to Avatar Cyph3rp9nk

Ahora me cuadra todo

No, it does not.

Direct democracy is the rule of the mob.

The FED can choose the unthinkable option:

1. Raise rates

2. Keep printing money

Some Bitcoiners will never get this.

You don’t spend good money, ever.

The better the money the less you want to spend it.

It’s called Gresham's law and it gets pretty obvious when you go to a place like Argentina where people spend local currency and save in stronger dollars.

Bitcoin transforms you into an anti consumption drug addicted.

nowadays high trust societies are consequence of monopoly of violence, generating maleable and subdued groups

My 2 sats:

1. Bankruptcies are a good thing.

It frees resources to companies that provide value instead of extracting it.

2. Money should have no utility, hoarding “useful” assets removes them from the market, creating supply problems for real world applications.

3. Hoarding an asset with no utility becomes a donation to society by delaying consumption making prices lower to everyone else, Bitcoin makes “capitalism” ethical again.

It’s funny how you “debate”.

Insulting me personally,

calling me uneducated while using Wikipedia widely accepted lies as arguments.

Just like the Swiss so called neutrality.

Just another case of copium severus.

Good luck facing challenges as a country with that attitude.

Does it hurt? I mean breaking the Swiss eco chamber.

Nostr is no place for SOMA consumers, keep taking anti depressant to cope with reality.

BTW, your nice town still has cars, only the ones approved by the state mafia.