Love that the BTC price starts to fall the day before I get paid. Cheaper sats FTW.

Recently realized that the same tools underpinning Nostr could be used to underpin a decentralized accreditation system for businesses and professionals.

All an accreditation system really is is a reputation tracker. Is business A engaging in their business in a manner compliant with proper business practices? Is the person who is claiming to be a PHD of Physics actually a PHD of physics? Does this psychologist I'm looking to hire for my own treatment have a history of abusing patients? These kind of questions.

So, let's say someone wants to be accredited, I'm going to use Brett Weinstein as an example. He creates a private key (let's say asec and apub, 'a' for 'accrediting'), and sends a message that says simply "I am 'Brett Weinstein' ", adds his professional photo, signs it, and posts it to a bunch of relays as an identity statement. He reaches out to his professional collegues who have similarly put out an identity statement, and they put out signed recognition statements: "I approved Brett's thesis paper for his doctorate in (year)." "I taught alongside Brett between (year) and (year)" "I co-authored (research paper) in (year) with Brett" "I was in a class Brett taught in (year), he is evil incarnate and I'm woke" etc. Then whenever anyone is wondering whether or not to hire Brett for some position, or whether or not to hire him, they can just check his apub to see what his record is.

Relays could consolidate the overall scope of recognition statments they receive, generating what is essentially a score for a person, and by crawling along this web of reputational history a person can be properly recognized for who they are and what their qualifications are. The relays could stay afloat by charging a fee of a few sats for every post they receive and every call for data they get. It's at least as good a system as the current centralized one and it could be implemented at any time, with minimal development effort.

If their not dead, probably so.

I personally suspect that whoever he/she/they were, if they are alive they wiped their private keys for those days when they were the only miner, abandoned all methods to prove who they were, and are now just part of the community, different alias. Satoshi was #BuiltDifferent

#[3] #[4] Would very much appreciate it, and zap accordingly.

Right. Hadn't thought of the bandwidth component, only the storage one.

Maybe relays charge a few millisats per linked npub, from a budget paid for in advance. End users are charged similarly for each post they read.

Yes please. Being able to tag a post by it's intended category would be great, as would filtering notifications by reply, zap, post length.

I mean demanding on the relay, btw. Most clients would probably just crash.

😕 Why would such a limit be specific to npubs? I can't imagine it would be more technically demanding to have a million npubs then a novel of the same data size.

Here here brother. We stay the course of truth, it'll lead us right. Even if we do end up in turbulent seas along the way.

Curious how many Matts are on here. You gotta be a special sort of determined to stay with BTC when you start at the beginning of a bear market.

Pretty sure the way we look at BTC is very different to how John's do.

Ah, just snort did that.

I do NOT know what happened with formatting to wipe out that example.

First, you can further split the backup. Take the following example:

You have a shamir arrangement that requires 4/7 shards to reassemble. You have 5 family members, and consider them together to be an important part of the holding, but you don't want to worry about colluding. So instead of having family hold onto 5 of the 7 shards, you split one of the original seven shards into 5 sub-shards in a 3/5 arrangement. Family collusion can no longer risk the entire account.

Second, which is hinted at by the first, you can really spread shards around without risking the full account. Making a 3/5 multi-sig can be difficult. Making an 15/20 shamir is comparably quite easy.

Third, shamir shards are encoded in a manner that avoids confusion. If you have more than 1 multi-sig, you have to track which seeds are attached to which account. Shamir shards can be identified by the first 3 words, which are shared across all shards. Each shard also has checksum built in.

Fourth, on reassembly, the result is far easier to use. Each transaction with a multi-sig requires that you once again multi-sign. Reassemble a shamir secret, and you can run whatever amount of transactions need to be run, then factory reset the hardware wallet.

Even for the purposes of long term vault storage with trustees, shamir is superior.

Yes. A multi-sig gains no advantage over a shamir backup in terms of the security of the backup. The shamir backup has significant advantages over the multi-sig however.

If it's just 3 relays, then yeah we're in trouble. If it's about 20 relays with most of the traffic, and a few hundred around them, then it's probably alright.

There's also no real reason users couldn't hold maybe a few hundred megs of their own event history, post that to relays in case. Plenty of ways to deal with this kinda thing.

I'm not thinking transaction fees: multi-sig that doesn't use taproot strikes me as foolish unless it's old. I'm thinking usability.

To spend from a multi-sig, you have to go collect enough keys from your hiding places. That's great for a long-term vault, but not if you might pull funds more often than once a year.

Shamir allows spending from a hardware wallet, but doesn't have single point of failure for the seed backup. Balanced trade-off. At least for those funds not set aside for retirement.

Great idea. What's your take on shamir backup compared to multi-sig?

A few central relays, yeah that's extremely likely. Nostr.wine is already heading in that direction. That's not in and of itself a bad thing. Especially since the central relays will be surrounded by a sea of competition ready and waiting to take over should the central players start playing dirty.

Similar to how there only a few mining pools with most of the hash power, but the instant any of them act up, they lose all of it as the actual miners send their hash rate elsewhere.

Thanks bro.

🙁🤔 Wonder if alby's overwhelmed or something. Was received yesterday, nothing's changed.

Good to know.

Dimash Qudaibergen is the best male singer to probably ever live, favorite from him is Greshnaya strast (Sinful passion)

Outside of his impossible talent, I'd recommend Lady of Worlds by Miracle of Sound, and The System by Tom MacDonald.

As time goes on, we're likely to see some natural social rules and taboos show up on here, followed not by mandate but by social correction. One of those taboos will likely be too much meme spam.

🤯 That guy is so screwed.

It's only surprising when you're used to thinking the government is a good thing. Even once you realize how wrong you were, you keep finding leftover tendrils in your worldview.

Curious how common this is: I first bought bitcoin, about a year after really starting to learn about it, in December of 2021. I started buying seriously, with constant DCA, in March of 2022. I have LOST net purchasing power buying bitcoin. The only time I've ever sold any of it is because the good I was buying didn't take bitcoin. I'm all in.

Anyone else got a similar experience?

And of course, if the fundraiser had been done entirely with bitcoin, it couldn't have been blocked or interfered with, and a million Canadian citizens wouldn't have had accounts frozen.

Don't forget that part.

And yeah, long path to walk, but I'm actually convinced most of us are walking it. Stumbling a lot, but still.

Well ideally, the minimum necessary use of force is zero. The problem is, we don't get to set that value. Our opposition does.

Bitcoiners already are playing a force game in hashrate. We just have a single social rule that the force will be wielded electrically, not kinetically. It's that use of force that allows for permissionless spending at all.

If we can get our opposition to play that same game, then everyone wins. If we have enough force capacity to convince our opponent not to fight us, then eventually everyone still wins. What I can't accept is for us to lose, because we would rather lose than kill.

True on that last part.

What is best is if we can get and keep the freedom we are after, while retaining our moral integrity. Retaining moral integrity is the truly difficult part.

We can build independent institutions, fund them with bitcoin. Develop beyond any need for anything their fascist collusion can provide. We also defend these institutions with the minimum necessary use of force, and the maximum possible capacity for force. Then, we outlast them. Simple 🙄

Where things will get difficult is determining the minimum necessary force, and also what level of casualties can be tolerated. Even more important is remembering that just because something is necessary doesn't mean it is just.

It's a real problem. But I do believe it can be solved. In no small part due to being able to actually have this conversation.

I'm feeling good on that front. The overall trust in the system is so low, the overall anger among people so high, and the overall awareness of how badly we were attacked widespread enough that attempting this again won't fly.

That said, the sooner we can reach the point where any overreach by government is met by force, the better. When police go to arrest someone for speech, what needs to happen is either the police release them immediately, or those police officers are gunned down by that persons entire neighborhood.

We outnumber the bad actors at least 1000 to 1. Many of us are armed. And attaching a molotov to a drone is not only easy, it's pretty damn cheap. We win this conflict the moment we decide to. And if everyone realizes this truth, we might not even have to fight.

#[5] #[6] 🥂 To agreeing to disagree.

#[5] you were on that project? 😮, respect.

The bias isn't in the individual details of a given test. It's not in raw numbers. It's in heuristics. The world is infinitely complicated, brute forcing your way through understanding the world would take longer than the universe to determine pretty much any complex action. What intelligence does is figure out what data to pay attention to, and only make decisions based on that limited info. That's a decision made without being able to know for certain that it's the right data being used, and the problem affects humans and AI. When I say that there is bias there, I'm not using it in the leftist sense. I'm using it in the sense I just stated.

It's great that whenever a real discussion about AI comes up, either the AI's behavior is nonsensical, or it is and people have to wonder whether they are actually any better.

No problem. We're all trying to figure out what we want in this space, and we've all been burned by the ones we're coming from. Discussion like this are likely gonna be common over the near future.

If you send about 60 sats, you are providing about as much value as a youtuber running adsense gets per view on a video on average. Use that info how you will.

More services, better results.

Any large data set can be subject to statistical manipulation. Because somebody (or in this case, some agent) has to make a decision somewhere about what data is important vs irrelevant. That means an unavoidable value judgement, and all value judgments contain within them a degree of bias.

AI is better at showing people just how complex our world really is and how little we understand our own consciousness than it is at solving any problem it's ever been set to solving, and since you've dealt with major AI, you know that's really saying something.

accepted