in Vietnamese ngu means idiotic

So you're saying gold will trend to zero of what exactly?

I think the majority of bitcoin people won't abandon the store of value dream, and that'll make it hard to popularise for everyday commerce . You can't have the value of "saved bitcoin" go up in relation to your cup of coffee while the value of "spendable bitcoin" does not. And coffee shops are not going to update their prices and menus daily.

Not sure what the analogy is, the dollars in your savings account don't change their fundamental properties when you place them in there, they get spent by the bank here there and everywhere, and the returns accrue as interest. If Bitcoin becomes a transactional currency it'll appreciate or depreciate within the bounds of everyday life, as all transactional currencies must.

Relays are not always necessary.

Yeah, no.

Yes, this very much confuses me. Many opinions here seem to exist in a quantum superposition of "stack sats" and "spend sats". It seems so obviously logically inconsistent.

The folks that are all in on store of value—the "I'll never zap a single sat" crowd—are at least understandable. While I disagree that Bitcoin will ever come close to gold, at least I get the position they're staking out.

But those that are "store of value" one day and then "day-to-day currency" the next day, I really have no idea what the thinking is.

For bots to communicate with bots to get things done, and people in the loop when they want to be, or so I'd imagine. Agentic over generative.

It'll be a bot-first social network and therefore won't have to attempt some kind of "bots are welcome too" framing act to appease an existing (and skeptical) user-base.

I like that your team is building something for nostr that makes sense as per the original nostr blueprints.

That seems at odds with human nature. What are examples from the past of generational stores of value that have dropped to utility value *not* as a result of greatly increased supply?

One thing I wonder is that nostr ethos seems to be all about spending bitcoin, making it an everyday currency, buy your coffee, buy your bacon and eggs. I’m not an economist by any stretch , but it stands to reason that there would be a push and pull between everyday currency and store of value. When it comes to gold, people don’t trade their earrings for their breakfast.

That seems to assume a fixed external measure, in this case $. Not that I have any idea how three body problems work in math.

For discussing certain theories I suppose that's a useful distinction. But for me the assertion that gold will go to 0.000[infinite more zeros]1 seems just as unserious as the assertion that gold will go to 0. Even to assert that the value of gold will approach the value of, say, copper—I can't see how that could happen in the next 100 years.

Hmm, in that case "trends to zero" sounds like just a euphemism for "goes down".

What Orwellian wordplay is this?

Good car metaphor.

Also https://useouranos.app/ works over there for that account.

This deer I think can pull directly from a PDS as a fallback for given instances, so no relay needed, but have to check on that. (Regardless it currently works when tested on VPN, while bsky.app does not.)

How does gold trend to zero? We've already minded like 70-80% of the earth's gold, with pretty high confidence.

Of course asteroid mining could change things, or maybe some large deposit could be found somewhere totally unexpected vis a vis the modelling—though even that wouldn't likely change things by more than a few percent.

So the scarcity part seems pretty legit. And I don't see our race falling out of love with traditional concepts of jewellery anytime soon, to say nothing of gold as an accepted abstract store of value.