Rome's debasement was different in kind. The coin was not the ounce of metal it was purported to be. Clipping edges was a reduction in mass but sold as a full coin. This is different than printing because the gold coin still exists and was not a facsimile of another molecule of gold. The dollars are facsimiles of other dollars meant to represent a claim to money. The debasement is similar but the mechanism is different. Eventually the small six0ze of the coins would betray their mass and show the debasement very obviously.

Points taken.

Choice is good. The market will certainly decide if it will be the aforementioned disaster or fairly lucrative. Altogether I don't think Facebook, or Instagram being lucrative was in question.

The instances of the consent driven adverts have been tried in traditional settings but also some fairly new ones too such as Brave's BAT economy and several game apps.

I still disagree as to the ethics not just on deception grounds but the privileged platform layer access to the user commodity. If I pay a dev to feature my ad it creates an incentive structure that is ultimately anti-meritocratic. You don't have to be meritocratic, I just have the opinion that it is deleterious to the goal of having a public discussion, proclamation, and information platform.

Again, you can do whatever you'd like, I'm not your dad. I just don't like the paradigm of advertising seeping into nostr on those outlined ethical grounds. But as most of how ethics goes, it amounts to "I think it will produce bad results and I don't like it."

Onward, My man.

So the point here is that it is a psychological deception. People don't hear "Social network platform" and think consciously "I volunteer to be a commodity for corporate meta data collection and sales."

If I ask literally anyone "What is Twitter/X? What is Facebook?" They will never say "A place for people to volunteer personal data and be advertised to." Their misapprehension is that they are social networks and they are users of the service.

The novelty of asking users if they consent to advertising has been tried and fails due to a lack of incentive or those who do not use the service in it's intended way and exploit the system which devalues the service for the apps REAL customer, the Advertiser.

I am not against creating value for money. But the platform is not the layer on which commerce should be enacted. It is the social layer. Companies can make an account, produce engagement, and promote their product through that. Success can be earned not bought, ethically.

As I stated, you are ostensibly providing a service that is not disclosed to the users on a prima fascia basis. If I provide a space IRL for people to have coffee and chat but in reality every tenth person is a salesman for a different company, I have deceived the patrons into thinking this is just a place to have conversations. Even worse is when you MAKE your patrons talk to the salesmen to get their coffee. Do you see?

I mean, you can also create an app that skims everyone's Nsec and sells it to companies for money. it's at your own peril and the users might not like it if they found out but that's your right as the app dev.

You can do a lot of immoral things to make money, I didn't say you couldn't. I just said it is unethical and will be a disaster.

Advertising on social platforms turns your users into commodities. Unless it is informed consent this appears to me to be highly unethical.

The best advertising I have seen recently is companies sending me sats with memos saying "Hey, please try yada yada! Thanks" this is the first direct advertising that actually inspired me to consider a product.

nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprdmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucnfw33k76twwpshy6ewvdhk6qg4waehxw309amk7apwdehhxarj9ecxzun50yq3yamnwvaz7tmhda6zuat50phjummwv5qxfslc is correct and those using Ads on a social platform app are defrauding your users.

It is the inversion of product and consumer that makes it a disaster. An app that uses advertisements is no longer providing a service to its users but the advertisers under the false pretext that they are providing services to users. Under an advert model the Users are the product.

Functionally barter is when you trade a consumable or commercial good for another. Money has no consumable value. Its only function is to be an intermediary to represent the value of a consumable good. So the distinction between barter and monetary commerce is that very difference.

"Money printing" isn't a thing. One main property of money is that it can't be counterfeited or printed. Currency is a claim to money which can be manufactured and only the bearer of the money can decide if that claim is a valid one. The confidence game of the USD is not due to them "printing" gold claims. It is literally a fiat or by decree claim that dollars are money (they are not).

That is all beside my point which is Gold is heavy and necessitates a lighter exchange medium. That is the flaw Gold has had to deal with for 5000 years and has cause scores of countries to debase their currency. Which simply means removing the nominal peg to Gold. The economic actor decides what claims to value are valid. USD is issued by the state which has the incentive to debase the currency. When local and regional banks set their own currency pegs (prior to the savings and loan regulations added in the 90's) their incentive was to be a good custodian for their community. Anyway I hope this was edifying.

Am I? Damn. I must not realize when my head hurts.

With all due respect you might be naïve to how money scales. That paper you denegrate is actually a tool for commerce. The paper is gold's security flaw not an invalid claim to it. Again the Tokenization is a service that allows commerce with gold, not an inherent scam.

yes, and you don't issue currency pegged to your gold either so, you know, that's the whole point I was making.

I run 3 nodes. 2 full, (1 knots, 1 core) and a pruned node. I have taken to Locally updating the timechain on a separate storage device every quarter as a much quicker data loader.

Although I wish the Pruned node was utilized for more software.

Gold is only private in small coinage. Actual wealth in gold needs a custodian. Practically, gold is not being lugged around, it gets deposited in a bank, which IDs you.

Cash is not money, it is a coupon. As a coupon it doesn't really have any constraints on privacy as long as it is a valid claim to Gold.

As I said before I am an economics nerd not a coder. I am not sure what kind of privacy is achieved with those proposed filters as I can't extrapolate what is gained from the golomb-rice set compression.

Being an economic nerd, audit ability is more important on a base layer money. Layer 2s are usually where financial privacy is implemented. In gold terms(prior to 1971) a bank would HAVE to know to whom the gold belonged. But the layer 2 (dollars) would add the anonymity. Plus the pseudononymous nature of bitcoin actually is way more private than gold ever was.

Why you telling on yourself? Pay these miners, son.

*source

Ask yourself when C-Suite executives became thesonurce of your problems. Medical costs are an obvious incentive issue. You might want to look into governmental regulation around medical costs and insurance. What a tone deaf and frankly gone with the winds of society type of thought this was.

I totally get that. Building layer 2s that don't rely on trust (like lightning doesn't) is essential to eliminating the perception that dollars are needed in the entire chain of commerce. That day is coming shortly but as you allude to with your point of view, it's not here or at the very least, not in the zeitgeist. The only thing I would add is the counterparty doesn't want dollars either but that's just me nitpicking. Onward.

Hmm. I understand the lens from which you are viewing this. I guess (from my economic nerd background) the underlying asset being redeemed in the usage of credit confers to me that you are living on the asset. The dollar is a coupon without an asset so I would say that the Dollar is the muddling/confounding factor not the Bitcoin.

Because assets can use any coupon as currency, using credit (layer 3) to convey dollars (layer 2) that is redeemed for Bitcoin (layer 1) IS using the asset. The coupon (dollars) is the strangest currency because it is not tied to ANY asset nor any pretense of being pegged to one.

Paying your Credit card bill with Gold, oil, or any other hard asset IS living on that asset abstracted by the Dollar and further abstracted by the issuance of credit.

I don't see Jack's framing as disingenuous as saying you live off of any hard asset would imply the use of an exchange medium like currency even if abstracted through credit.

I would say "living off" of dollars is to have no wealth and not really be living off of anything beside perceptive value rather than appreciable value.

So, I get what you mean but on a technical level no one "lives off" of their true wealth by that narrow definition.

I guess I am unclear what your definition of "living on" something is. Nobody "lives on" money. They exchange the money for food and clothes and all the things that keep them alive. You exchange the bitcoin for the credit and the credit for the food. The work for the bitcoin. The food for the work and so on. It's all kind of recursive.