In the same way that monetary scarcity increases what can be purchased with that money, scarcity of goods increases the amount of money those goods can "buy".
If you save when goods are plentiful, and attempt to spend when goods are scarce, you will find that your "real" purchasing power has likely declined.
That's not a dollar, that's an nft.
Completely agree with this. To over simplify... the % of the money you want to spend now roughly equates to the % of the stuff that's available to buy now.
Savers increase the spending power of current spenders by reducing the amount to be spent now, producers increase (or decrease) the spending power of money being currently spent bu producing more or less goods for sale.
If available for sale goes to 0, purchasing power of money being spent goes to 0.
It's decidedly less efficient for everyone who benefits from the manipulations (possibly unpopular, but I'd argue most Americans benefit at the expense of the 3rd world).
I do think btc is objectively more fair.. participants have a much stronger expectation of being treated equally.. but to your point. Whether or not you think fairness is good is a different matter. Most would say they think fairness is important, but they betray themselves quickly by talking about who NEEDS to be excluded.
Maybe they'll fork btc and we'll get a nice airdrop.
Men who stare at goats is a great book. The author also wrote them... another great book.
Tocqueville?
Nostr right now is a bit too much people who have the same ideas of the world.. there's no one to argue with.
When some government gets stupid and tried to shut some bit discussion down... alot of people will probably flee to nostr, and that wave will be half insane.
Good analysis of ctv vs drivechains, a bit dense but very helpful.
https://app.sigle.io/polydeuces.id.stx/9PHVc0PWHk_skP15_cYOb
The why not boils down to MEV that's difficult to predict how it will behave. Since drive chain anchor transactions can be very high value, it could become routine that optimal miner behavior is to attempt a re-org to capture more blocks (as an example).
OP_CTV, OP_APO, OP_CSFS (I am way out of my depth here) are more interesting covenant options imo. @4moonsettler and @polyd_ on X are sharing a ton of educational content about how those things could work. Recommend reading up on it.. it's pretty mind blowing.
Umm.. honestly I'm not sure.. IRL I work with alot of different models, but mostly risk models.. I have little to no experience with language models.
However, content recommendation algorithms can be quite useful, Netflix is really good at recommending shows I might like. Pandora good at recommending songs I might like. Etc.
I think the danger is a single algorithm out of user control pushing the narrative top down... I imagine that if there were many competing algorithms that clients could kind of download and plug and play in to their client they could be a really useful tool.
Lol, hi Elon 👋 when will you be making part of x's offerings being a nostr client?
Global works sometimes for now, especially of you only use paid relays..
Ultimately though, you'd hope nostr will have a ton of content out there.. and sifting through it would be prohibitive.
I am thinking some kind of algo.. but like client side... am algo that enables the client to pull more of what they want more efficiently, not push where you see what somebody else wants to show.
Could be interesting to train an LLM on "stuff you like" and then have it search the relays for related content.. or something like that.
Maybe from a data efficiency standpoint.. relays could broadly categorize the content the host and service queries of content by category.. could do ot client side as well but that feels really computationally heavy.. and requires the client to download and scan all content only to discard most of it.