Nah, I just meant that I find it puzzling why someone aware of the clear advantages of electronic systems through BTC, would seriously advocate for a non electronic one in any capacity.

Because then you can go right back to argue for gold over BTC, the tangibility, works offline, natural value through material properties, all that.

I just say, make all systems electronic already, stop the cash Rube Goldberg machines that fool nobody in the end.

Yes, make it more transparent, more equal for wealthy and poor individuals, make it more honest.

No, it’s traceable, tightly restricted, easily forged, physically impractical, for these reasons effectively worthless, even if it were private.

I certainly would never accept it for anything.

Seems we agree, im general at least, so what speaks against, figuratively, dropping the veneer?

I really think that dose of honesty and increased transparency would help people on all sides, rip off the bandaid, and let us figure out a way beyond the already present dilemma, that hides it plain side.

I hope you know what I mean here, because I really appreciate how constructively you engaged in the discussion, instead of just punishing me for going against popular opinion.

What did I ignore, tax avoidance?

I do experience my current banking system as described, call it dystopia if you want, I think corrupted suffices.

Aside from the conceptual aspects, I find it really absurd to consider paper notes, metal coins, a technology adequate solution for anything at this stage.

I mean, you designed a sophisticated electronic relay system yourself, and want to argue that we should rely on non electronic structures for commerce?

I honestly fail to understand the motivation, especially with BTC already up and running seemingly stable for over a decade.

But governments already control the use of money, except for some edge cases, and these exploits arguably mainly advantage already wealthy and privileged individuals with more time and means to identify and exploit them.

But they already have that with current central bank currencies, KYC, cash regulations. What meaningful difference do the paper shreds make? Withdrawal limits, easy to counterfeit, difficult to validate, impractical for meaningful transactions, and the KYC theatrics in place of full traceability rob people of their most basic dignity IMO. I want analogue central bank currency, cash, gone, I want the pretense of individual freedom in that system gone, I want efficient, transparent tracking, honesty in the abuse.

They already have the proverbial gun, they keep the cabinet unlocked, and the bullets loaded, CBDCs just remove the veneer.

How were they ever bad? They update the current system for efficiency, and make it paper free, something that happened for most other system in the 1990 at the latest.

I have never seen one tangible, comprehensible argument against CBDCs, just slogans and theatrics. “Censorship”, “CBDC” why do substantial subjects always transform into meaningless catchphrases in no time?

Three years old, yet I have never seen it brought up before, while the design spec sounds ideal. Does it have a catch? Haskell?

Hard to argue with your direct credentials here, of which I admittedly knew nothing when I wrote the post.

However, I hope I could lay out somewhat credibly how and why I disagree.

Regarding incremental, even if I perceived it like that, I go with the James Joyce quote “In the particular is contained the universal”.

Because of human anatomy.

I find that perspective completely disingenuous.

First of all we should recognize these things as mobile computers. At least the iPhone keynote made the distinction that it encapsulated three distinct devices and ran OS X, but then the complete discourse got hung up at that useless phone categorization.

Second, the form factor derives from human anatomy. If you want to innovate human anatomy, take it up with the laws of biology and physics. Phone design made enough mistakes by messing with the device size.

Third, only recently, phone design completely overhauled the enclosure construction, advanced glass types, aluminium and steel alloys, fewer mechanical elements, even Titanium, notoriously difficult to machine, appears to enter the mix more prominently soon.

Then recent devices completely overhauled wireless connectivity, UWB, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi revisions. 64bit chips, secure enclave, dedicated machine units, advanced biometrics, laser scanners, advanced camera optics, advanced speakers, wide color, HFR, color temperature adapting screens.

PCs have had no comparable innovations in decades, yet no one seems to lament this for sake of self congratulatory rambling.

If you avoid to look past the trivial surface, you will find anything dull pretty fast.

I think there is a pretty common misconception of the term censorship though, as somehow it changed from “suppression of speech” to “denial of validation”.

Suppression requires a natural power imbalance between speaker and censor, one that technical systems like Nostr, open source electronic relays, already inherently lack. A relay operator choosing which notes to transmit exercises their right to free speech, they suppress no one, they censor no one.

Before seemingly everyone here started using WoS, because, who needs self custody, what could possibly go wrong with incentivizing consolidation of control and power again, has no one ever taken a look at its UI and thought: Wait, this looks shoddier than 90s shareware, or a geocities webpage, and no one with an ounce of self respect or self awareness could ever publish something like that, and put their name to it?

The plain, even enthusiastic, acceptance of the model and design behind WoS among most notable users here makes me feel like having entered opposite world every time.

Exactly, seems obvious

Love the ‘no supplements’ position.

Is it open source?

Whirlpool, jacuzzi?

Adam Green

#[2] Thoughts on replacing the share button with the ellipsis?