#[0] 's idea of using private zaps for hiding DM metadata could be generalized as using third-party trusted services to send encrypted DM blobs on your behalf.

These third-parties would be the ones interacting with the relays, not you. If the DMs leaked the public would see just that one of these servers sent a DM to someone, but they wouldn't know who was the original sender.

The receiver would get these messages and decrypt them to be able to see the actual message signed by you inside.

Relays could ban these services if they were being abusive, or charge these services directly (and then they would charge you).

Receivers could also refuse to decrypt and just discard messages from services known for being spammy.

I’m of a similar opinion

I’d love for the man who received the proposal to do it. I think he wants to, it just gets in a weird mood every time his mind gets close to the subject.

If I fail to convince him I’ll bring him a bottle of wine, make him talk and write it myself 🤣

What percentage of bitcoiners do you think know about zaps?

- <10%

- 10-30%

- 30-50%

- over 50%

NOOOO U NEED DIDS, U NEED APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF THE INTERNET, NOOOO U CANT JUST EXPERIMENT!!

He does not like talking about the birth of the web much these days. He felt betrayed after Tim accidentally lost the archive (oops) rebuilt everything by himself to the best of his knowledge, left and then claimed nobody at CERN helped him. They still communicate, but once in a blue moon.

He’s more focused on his weird particle physics ideas and the censorship it has received in the past (arXiv at the request of CERN, supposedly). I think the interest for Nostr comes from there.

Web proposal was around 1989 I think…

🤗🍪

I’d need to ask the man (trying to get him to join Nostr. He is curious) . I know it was around 10-15k. Office space for Tim, some salary and a NexT station is all I know.

The person who received the proposal had just been promoted to head his own team. Tim was sending the proposal around to a few heads and he took the bait.

Started a bit sooner than that. CERN was not interested, some people at CERN were. I know this because I have seen the email with the proposal sent to the person who released some seed funds for Tim.

I was there, too young and stupid to understand what was happening. In my defense, many were much older than me and as stupid as me.

I disagree, but I'm rooting for you. Strange that they needed bitcoin to come out first and always claim to be bitcoin's competition.

Believe in yourself

The decentralized aspects of blockchains are not ideal for many situations. Experimentation is fine but their highly inefficient databases and with bitcoin meant to keep time across a distributed network of small blocks anyone can run and monitor.

What people miss is all the other blockchains rely on high centralized databases connected to smaller "pruned" nodes. This introduces many points of failure. They also fail to take into account scarcity for the sake of scarcity doesn't make something valuable from nothing. It has been the unique sets of variables in bitcoin that have allowed it to grow and remain trust less. Also, collectables are also highly speculative. Bitcoin has had one singular focus and with its unique sets of cercumstances and the way it was developed make it one of a kind and bring its value. While fun to experiment with, everything else is just noise.

On climate change:

* I believe it is happening, based on satellite temperature measurements.

* I believe CO2 is increasing very predictably based on atmospheric measurements.

* I don't believe anybody doing those measurements is intentionally deceiving the world. I'm just not that much of a conspiracy theorist.

* I believe these changes are anthropogenic (human caused)

but

* I think most models and predictions are pretty suss.

* I think selection bias is endemic: in journals selecting papers, in governments selecting who to fund, etc. An extreme bias rejecting "deniers" yields a certain and unscientific (potentially untrue) outcome.

and

* I don't think it's important to stop these changes in the near term

* I think climate change is a net-win currently as Canada, Greenland, northern Russia and maybe even Antarctica are mostly unusable currently; there are far more uninhabitable places due to too-cold than too-warm; far more people die each year because of being too-cold vs too-warm.

* Species will die, but I don't care. Life continues to evolve. There will be new species.

* People will move. But much moreso in the short term, people will adapt.

yet

* Eventually we will have to convert away from fossil fuels that put CO2 into the atmosphere because it is very hard to draw it back down in sufficient quantity.

* We need fossil fuels now in order to innovate the technology needed to not use fossil fuels. We have no hope of doing it on bamboo bicycles.

Anarchism is apophatic and voluntarism is cataphatic