Correct… it would just change the relative future distribution of bitcoin.

It the mining reward is effectively a socially agreed upon “tax” that gets redistributed by POW. In the current mechanism that tax is decreasing in absolute terms. In the mechanism you just mentioned it is decreasing in relative % terms, and you could also imagine a mechanism where it remains a constant % and increases in absolute terms.

I’m basically just asking what the trade-offs of these 3 policies really are. Again, fully aware that actually trying to change bitcoin would have its own major negative implications for social consensus.

The comment about was about as far away as you can get from supporting the “blockchain not bitcoin” argument. It was “not only is bitcoin the only one that matters, but it would still be the only one that mattered even if designed differently”.

I believe that there is a lot of economic theory that went into bitcoins design but there are many ideologies within economics. Economics is far from a hard science and the fact that bitcoin is the way it is doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the only way it would have worked.

That said, I do think the scarcity narrative has helped bitcoin adoption from a game theoretic standpoint. Just wondering if we will se unforeseen consequences of those choices down the road.

1. Bitcoin exists because if social consensus - people have to choose neutral money over gov money and they will do so if it fits their ideals.

2. Debt is always going to exist in a functioning society, neutral money ensures that no group has unfair access to debt creation via monetary tools.

3. Bitcoin is inflationary and will be inflationary for the next century. Does that mean it is promoting debt?

Thanks for the response! To me that sounds like trusting those individuals to redistribute fairly. I guess it seems to me that a shift from redistribution via a provably fair method PoW to a method that relies on the good-will of early adopters could be a negative aspect. Of course there are major issues with suggesting a change to bitcoin that would make it unlikely to happen, just trying to understand the trade-offs here

Obviously sarcasm, but that’s a weak argument

Go buy nano then! Miners are stealing from you every day

Fundamental assumption that you should try to refute if you respond: social consensus and fair distribution are far more important than scarcity as long as the distribution schedule is known, transparent, and can only be changed with broad social consensus.

Want to clarify I should have said “mining rewards” not fees

Bitcoiners: I like to ask hard questions.

Generally, I see the tendency to complain about how the previous generation used the financial system to create debt and bring forward a wealth of assets at our expense today.

What keeps future generations from looking at the “HODLer” generation the same way? In 50 years when the mining fees have dropped significantly, the majority of redistribution would in theory would have to come from our generation and their heirs spending their wealth. Is this better for anyone but you and yours? What’s your best argument for a bitcoin with a hard cap over bitcoin with a fixed inflation rate - say at the current ~1.8% inflation paid to miners today?

Very well said. I came to programming through data analytics so python was a no brainer due to its versatility! I’m being more enticed by rust lately as I’m becoming more interested in a broader range of coding. As Katie said, exploring the multitude of options is a bit of a journey - might be helpful to look up some projects you are interested in and see what tool kits they are using

Excited for this. Thanks for the link!

#[5]​ keep in mind that part of the reason people rave about filter.nostr.wine so much is that it enables this on the relay side. 2 degree filtering is just really nice.

But mute thread is also extremely critical and more important at this stage. Doesn’t seem to be a way to block harassment - is the bug of getting notifications from blocked users fixed?

I personally think all clients should have a short list of “moderation” parameters like this that the users can turn off or fine tune. Should also include a block or reported threshold by friends if possible. This is also where you could put something like a pow or zap threshold

If you go the ln.tips route here is a guide from the guy who runs it #[4]

😂 both good movies… moonlight is just such a beautiful piece of work

Miss out on an Oscar to an even better movie… Moonlight

If you’re okay with staying custodial and it’s for relatively small funds https://ln.tips is pretty good. By default you operate though a telegram chat but you can link it to blue wallet or Zeus as well. Muun is a good non-custodial option for larger funds, but isn’t a true lightning wallet and can resort in higher fees for small transactions sometimes. I use these both of these in combo and it’s pretty seamless.

May be lame, but Tailscale and Yubico Authenticator have to be high up there for simplicity and utility.

Can’t a bunch of spammy requests to open web-sockets be pretty hard on relays too? I seem to remember someone saying that… maybe #[4]​ ?