I'm not trying to coalesce the meaning. First - Meaning is created by how people understand words. You cannot create it, you can participate in it, but it's an emergent effect.
It's the same as how you can't centrally control economy. economy and language are emergent phenomena.
Second - being part of a category does not make everything equal. Water is a liquid, but that does not mean it's same as all other liquids, in fact, it's a very unique liquid, making life on this planet possible.
You are still talking about "Bitcoin not crypto", I did not post about this. The original post was about Bitcoin is not crypto, which I keep hearing (last time yesterday in local 21 group), that's why I'm writing about it.
if you mean Bitcoin not crypto, don't say Bitcoin is not crypto, that's all.
most people talking about crypto are referring also to Bitcoin, not only the nonsensical stuff.
That is what I'm talking about precisely.
Bitcoiners often exclude it, but that's not how most people understand the word. If we go out of our bubble, people use words differently. If we actually want to warn them, we should use the words to communicate, not confuse. And inside the circle, people already know...
What about chip and contactless?
Even if the name is not transmitted, is it somehow revealed during the communication with the merchant? Either at processing or settlement time.
Again - words are defined by their use. There is no other meaning that what the speaker uses it for. Many words changed their meaning. When people say "crypto", they don't mean hidden, although I personally like that meaning, when you utter this word, that's not what people understand. It is usually followed by a question "you mean something like Bitcoin?".
That's the Schelling point aspect
termux and lynx there?
The point with using words is that you are referring to a Schelling point that the word represents. In that, your perception is not important, it is what others agree on the word means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)
A good way to extract the Schelling point of meaning of words is AI, that is basically what the statistical model does (it does it on semantic vector embedding layer, so very early AI, pre-gpt was already good at it). This is one of the rare examples where you can actually use AI output as an argument, because it's a direct task that the AI's statistical model is trained on.
Also what is funny to me is that Bitcoin is the best example of a cryptocurrency. I don't think it's a good strategy to deny common knowledge, it will never change everyone's mind. A good analogy would be - when people talk about plant medicine, please understand that many plants will just kill you. Not every plant is good for you, even though it's natural. If you want to use a cryptocurrency, use the best one. What is the best one? Well, we have a thing for that, it's called a market, what do people agree on (Schelling point again)? Check the cryptocurrency market cap.
Much more useful than denying obvious reality of how people understand words.
Another Schelling point example (AI is good at these actually).
Crypto = Cryptocurrency.
That is what people mean when they use this word. They don't mean "only the shitty currencies except Bitcoin".
Words are a Schelling point and their meaning is emergent of how they are used. We might not like it, but trying to redefine how people use the words is useless.
Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. Probably the best example of a cryptocurrency, in short crypto.
But yes - you can say "Bitcoin, not crypto (in general)" as in "I focus on Bitcoin, not the whole category, because I think other cryptocurrencies are horseshit". You should not say "Bitcoin is not crypto", because it is, it is what people mean by the word crypto (=cryptocurrencies) and Bitcoin is a perfect example of a cryptocurrency.
Correct: "Mona Lisa, not paintings (in general)". Incorrect: "Mona Lisa is not a painting".
To podcasters: please, stop with zoom calls for interviews. The sound quality is horrible. Use zencaster or something similar that records audio locally on every participants computer.
For the third time: I am not criticizing "Bitcoin, not crypto". I am criticizing "Bitcoin is not crypto".
"beach fishing, not ocean fishing" <- correct, meaning "I am doing one thing, not the general thing"
What I am criticising, if you read the post is:
"beach fishing IS not ocean fishing"
That is incorrect.
Yes, use one less word:
Bitcoin, not crypto
Correct - meaning "we are here for Bitcoin, not crypto, we are focusing on Bitcoin, on crypto".
Bitcoin is not crypto
Factually incorrect.
People use the word "crypto" as a short way of saying cryptocurrency, it is a long word.
I am saying "Bitcoin not crypto" is OK - it is an opinion of what you want to focus on ("air not gas (in general)", "medicinal plants, not plants (in general)", "gold, not all metals"). Saying "Bitcoin is not crypto" is just wrong. There's a distinction and I have literally heard people saying the latter and meaning it at the same time!
Also see:
The point with using words is that you are referring to a Schelling point that the word represents. In that, your perception is not important, it is what others agree on the word means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)
A good way to extract the Schelling point of meaning of words is AI, that is basically what the statistical model does (it does it on semantic vector embedding layer, so very early AI, pre-gpt was already good at it). This is one of the rare examples where you can actually use AI output as an argument, because it's a direct task that the AI's statistical model is trained on.
Also what is funny to me is that Bitcoin is the best example of a cryptocurrency. I don't think it's a good strategy to deny common knowledge, it will never change everyone's mind. A good analogy would be - when people talk about plant medicine, please understand that many plants will just kill you. Not every plant is good for you, even though it's natural. If you want to use a cryptocurrency, use the best one. What is the best one? Well, we have a thing for that, it's called a market, what do people agree on (Schelling point again)? Check the cryptocurrency market cap.
Much more useful than denying obvious reality of how people understand words.
Denying reality and saying something but meaning something else is a good mindfuck strategy, but the only thing it separates is the person saying it from the sane people who know meaning of the words they use.
I see it because they have to write it down and I send it to credit card processor.
The question is with which cards the name is actually checked against the card holder. I know in some cases it is and the payment is refused, in many cases, any string would work.
When someone says Bitcoin is not crypto, I know they are just parroting something they don't understand.
Bitcoin uses cryptography to create digital currency. It is a cryptocurrency. Saying it's not is like saying air is not gas. Yes, many types of gas are toxic and dangerous.
When people say Bitcoin not crypto as their focus, it's like saying that for example a conference is about air and not the general category of gas. But that does not mean air is not a gas.
Bitcoin not crypto means that whoever says is focusing on this particular one, most of them think that other representatives of this category are junk, but this should not mean denying reality. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. Pretty good one, maybe even the best one. But a cryptocurrency.
Yes, the question is a bit more complicated though. When I accept cards, I see a name, usually the one they write in the card owner input box on the web.
But consider SEPA - even if you only use IBANs, the name actually gets resolved during payment. So people who think they write John Doe in order form are actually not anonymous at all, because when the transaction is settled, I see their name.
The question then becomes - is there an API call or part of the settlement process that reveals the user name to the merchant? I don't care about card number, I consider it doxxed anyway.
Reticulum can do this, but it will be slow, Nostr is very chatty
reticulum.network
Probably, the question is how to do it in a way that the team can keep working on it. sustainability is key here, otherwise it would result in a very underfunded project.
I'd rather have a separate service with its own token and a wrapped representation of bitcoin providing additional services like anonymous exchange and lending products than an underfunded L2.
Ultimately it's on the team and the users to agree on model (including financial model) that works for everyone. I don't think they are thinking about Bitcoin L2, although it's FOSS, so if someone invests energy into turning it to L2, they are free to do so.