aa
Exodia38
aa902c06496dd51e22521ed77aa9f8b1edcaab329b439990e369411f6b490e71

Off topic thing. I stumbled upon an article that resonated with most of the things you've been saying about the state of nostr and the prevalence of terrible recommendation algorithms we are seeing today. The article isn't directly about that but you could find a lot of similarities to various phenomena that are happening today here

Hope you find it useful:

https://mises.org/mises-daily/anticapitalistic-bias-american-intellectuals

I see Nostr as a social network and also as a free market of information. It's expected to see discrimination in a free market. Sociopaths gonna sociopath, even in a social medium.

Expect some individuals being total pricks and being accepted by others. It doesn't mean I don't see them and don't hate them. At least I can also be discriminative with those I don't like

Replying to Avatar Cyph3rp9nk

Inconvenient truths

When we talk about Bitcoin scalability we inevitably talk about the blockchain trilemma.

The blockchain trilemma is a concept that explains the difficulty of balancing three key properties in a blockchain network: decentralization, security and scalability.

Imagine the vertices of a triangle, it is impossible to change the angles of two vertices without affecting a third and in the same way if you lengthen the vertex of a triangle it also affects the angles of the other two vertices.

Bitcoin prioritizes decentralization and security at the expense of scalability.

Therefore, if or if not, we are going to need alternative solutions to the L1 layer to scale because we want Bitcoin to remain decentralized and secure. This is where the rest of the cryptocurrencies fail, either not accepting the blockchain trilemma or outright lying to users. If Monero were to have mass adoption with its dynamic block size, who would be able to run the nodes? Only the megacorporations like Apple, Microsoft or Amazon. And block size also affects security, the less decentralized a Blockchain is, the more insecure it is.

That said, we have to accept that not everyone will be able to use the L1 layer, Bitcoin does not understand rights, and we will have to accept the trade-offs of scaling solutions.

That said, neither drivechains nor sidechains are feasible scaling solutions in the long term as they are still blockchains.

Lightning is only scalable if we assume losing self-custody. If everyone adopts Lightning and we need one channel per human, it would take decades to open all the necessary channels (about 40 years), the fees would be huge and obviously not everyone could afford to open a channel, it is an oxymoron in itself.

And this brings us to ARK's vUTXO (virtual UTXO) model or statechains like Mercury Layer or Spark. The only way to scale and maintain self-custody, at least so far, will be to use these solutions that do not rely on a blockchain and accepting their trade-offs in terms of security and decentralization.

And for these solutions to be scalable they will have to face the challenge of leaving as small a footprint on the blockchain as possible, and this implies that many people will never be able to go out to the L1 layer.

The other alternative is full reserve Bitcoin banks, and this we know always ends up in a fractional reserve Fiat system. Both Satoshi and Hal were always very clear about these trade-offs in fact Hal himself talked about Bitcoin banks as a way to scale.

In conclusion, we must emphasize that Bitcoin does not understand rights, that Bitcoin has never been scalable, Satoshi and Hal knew it from the beginning, that the trilemma of the blockchain cannot be violated, it is like the laws of thermodynamics and that the only way to deal with scalability are layer 2 or even layer 3 solutions assuming the trade-offs.

We have no alternative to the Fiat system scam other than Bitcoin as it is, the rest are just lies and false pretenses.

Maybe the "non scalable" quality is a blessing and not a curse, right?

I mean, regulators in the world are waiting to understand Bitcoin enough to regulate it ad nauseam.

Maybe they will hit a roadblock because the path taken by the layers of Bitcoin will be almost random and almost impossible to describe.

Wouldn't that make Bitcoin "unregulable" by default?

Is it possible, for example, that people in 100 or 200 years would be talking about "layer 1 million" solutions?

Are you the real or a false prophet 🤔?

But at least he does it for equality, so I can be equal to the already dead people

You would need a guarantee that the content is useful/productive; otherwise, every person that paid could be rugged. Maybe it can work if the author of the content has a solid web of trust, I don't know

Of course, it always has been about an humiliation ritual. It's particularly pronounced in Europe today

I mean, we have seen what they've done to llms. Now imagine that but with human beings 😱

When you discover she has a chair in her house

Las palabras no matan, el orgullo lo hace

I see it in this way, through 3 concepts (that I made myself, be cautious):

1. Mana value is the utility of certain tool to satisfy a necessity you have (Eg: a car can cost you 0 btc, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful to transport you to somewhere). It doesn't have a specific unit to measure it. Sometimes I call it technological value.

2. Monetary value is the slice of the global mana value that is represented by certain amount of money. For example 1 btc = worldtotalmanavalue/21000000, 0.5 btc = worldtotalmanavalue/42M, etc

3. Chronological cost treats the same phenomenon than monetary value but from a different point of view. It measures the difficulty of obtaining certain tool or item (the typical way of measuring this is through work hours but you can also use monetary units).

In the case of certain software, I could say that it has a lot of mana value if it's useful for someone in the real world. If people replicate it and keeps being needed, you could say the mana value has doubled. If this specific software is replicated a lot (which is common), the chronological cost of it will tend to zero pretty quickly. It will be dead easy for me to obtain it.

However, if I sum all the softwares in the world, that will give a pretty big monetary value because they provide a lot of utility today

The things I described are not 100% exact because the industries and markets don't behave linearly