My 2¢ :

- Lean into the non technical features that a noobie might find interesting: ‘no user name, no password’ … ‘become unbannable’ … ‘monetise your audience’ … ‘add another income stream’ … ‘join one of the fastest and exciting online communities’ … ‘build on nostr or be a user on nostr, you are in control’ … ‘be an early adopter and control your niche’

- If you are interested in A) follow these people etc

- Zap ⚡️ explainer and FYI

- An explainer about the perils of DMs and how they are not private (yet) . Add transparency.

- The beauty of #askNostr

- If you live in region x, then this client might be good for you

- I know you have started on client suggestions for particular OS systems which is great

- create some printable art that people can post up around their communities and cities (stickers maybe? Down the line perhaps?? QR codes etc)

- Wallet tutorials

The numbers have been crunched, and it's a resounding YES!

Ah, here we go

🚨 IT'S OFFICIAL: The BBC cannot be held accountable for misinformation.

No right to appeal, no transparency, and the regulator is just another dead end.

For those following the case, here’s an analysis of the BBC’s Stage 2 response, highlighting systemic flaws in how they address inaccuracies:

1/ Conflict of Interest Not Addressed

Flaw: BBC failed to disclose Alex de Vries' affiliation with the Dutch Central Bank, which has a vested interest in undermining Bitcoin.

Impact: Readers lack full context to assess de Vries' credibility.

2/Reliance on a Discredited Source

Flaw: Heavily relied on Alex de Vries' commentary, which has been debunked in peer-reviewed critiques.

Impact: Treated de Vries' work as credible research, perpetuating misinformation.

3/ Failure to Independently Fact-Check

Flaw: Cited similar reporting from other outlets, neglecting their responsibility as a public broadcaster to verify claims independently.

Impact: Undermines the BBC’s editorial standards and trustworthiness.

4/ Freedom of Information Request - Refusal

Flaw: Refused to disclose the fact-checking process under the FOI Act.

Impact: Lacks transparency, raising concerns about their editorial process.

5/ Inadequate Responses to Evidence

Flaw: Avoided addressing detailed rebuttals from the Digital Asset Research Institute (@dari_org).

Key Issues Ignored:

-Misrepresentation of Bitcoin’s energy metrics.

-Failure to consider efficiencies from the Lightning Network.

-Overreliance on outdated methodologies.

-Exclusion of peer-reviewed studies on Bitcoin’s benefits.

Impact: Demonstrates a lack of impartiality.

6/ Breach of Editorial Standards

The BBC violated their own guidelines in three areas:

Accuracy: Relied on discredited sources without fact-checking.

Impartiality: Omitted conflicts of interest and rebuttals, creating bias.

Transparency: Refused to disclose their fact-checking process.

7/ Avoidance of Accountability

Flaw: Avoided engaging with evidence and arguments presented in Stage 1 & 2 complaints.

Impact: Resistance to accountability makes it difficult to challenge inaccuracies.

Summary of the Process Challenges

The BBC’s reliance on flawed justifications, refusal to address rebuttals, and lack of transparency demonstrate systemic shortcomings:

1. Failed to retract or correct misleading content.

2. Ignored conflicts of interest.

3. Failed to adhere to accuracy, impartiality, and transparency standards.

Full Stage 2 response attached.

This process began on 5 December 2023, and over a year later, we are here with no resolution.

This is a clear institutional failure undermining public trust in a taxpayer-funded organisation. The BBC must be held accountable for inaccuracies in their reporting.

The BBC must be defunded.

Full X thread and history here:

Dear Nostr, I need help getting my head around pricing in sats vs denominating in sats 😵‍💫 If in fact is not even the same thing?

I have a seasonal product that I make once per year (yes it's marmalade!), the cost for making it will not change until next year as I bought all the ingredients and materials already. If I wanted to 'price in sats' does this mean not changing the sat price regardless of any value increases/decreases over the coming year? Say bitcoin doubles, my customers would effectively be paying twice as much if I do not track the fiat price, when they should be experiencing a discount instead.

So far I believe I have been pricing in fiat and denominating in sats, therefore anyone paying with bitcoin gets their goods cheaper over time.

What is this idea for pricing in sats, perhaps I just don't understand the terminology?

ICYMI sneak peak of the Newest artist on a bitcoin standard in the value verse.

Say hello to Nathan Abbott

#v4v #newmusic #nmnu