Yes, this very much confuses me. Many opinions here seem to exist in a quantum superposition of "stack sats" and "spend sats". It seems so obviously logically inconsistent.

The folks that are all in on store of value—the "I'll never zap a single sat" crowd—are at least understandable. While I disagree that Bitcoin will ever come close to gold, at least I get the position they're staking out.

But those that are "store of value" one day and then "day-to-day currency" the next day, I really have no idea what the thinking is.

One thing I wonder is that nostr ethos seems to be all about spending bitcoin, making it an everyday currency, buy your coffee, buy your bacon and eggs. I’m not an economist by any stretch , but it stands to reason that there would be a push and pull between everyday currency and store of value. When it comes to gold, people don’t trade their earrings for their breakfast.

That seems to assume a fixed external measure, in this case $. Not that I have any idea how three body problems work in math.

For discussing certain theories I suppose that's a useful distinction. But for me the assertion that gold will go to 0.000[infinite more zeros]1 seems just as unserious as the assertion that gold will go to 0. Even to assert that the value of gold will approach the value of, say, copper—I can't see how that could happen in the next 100 years.

Hmm, in that case "trends to zero" sounds like just a euphemism for "goes down".

What Orwellian wordplay is this?

>> The Chinese people who are working to feed their families don't deserve this,

Nor do the American families. It goes both ways, and China has long held the favorable side of the imbalance.

This leads me to believe they feel threatened by Grok and Llama. They have data moats, openai only has third world eye scans.

Installed Amethyst on new phone. Every message is now an unread message.

Send help

on some sense, you're right. but it could be investing in other things (that aren't restricted). They can also buy commodities priced in dollars. or just convert it back. even if they want to keep their own currency low and avoid the conversion, they can buy gold or literally anything

streaming my nostr sats to lnmarkets where i gamble them away with 100x leverage 🫡

China's decision to buy treasuries

This is not lightning, which requires a utxo per user, but a new thing. The controller would obey user commands to transfer funds, and be penalized if it didn't do it.

Politicians always lie

I've long been toying with the idea of an L2 for unenforceable ("trivial") amounts. The only mechanism here is that if the coordinator misbehaves, a user can prove it and send *all* the funds to a fallback. The default fallback is half-burn, half-fees*, but it could also be some custodian of last resort.

This is strictly weaker than, say, lightning, but I think it's the best you can do for tiny amounts: ensure that there's no profit in cheating.

The problem is that I don't think you can prove all the different ways the coordinator can screw you. It can fail to respond at all. It can claim to be unable to make any lightning payment you ask for. You can probably prove misbehaviour for any transfer to/from other internal users of the same system, but that's not very useful if you can't get funds out!

So I'm posting here in case it forms a useful component for building something. Good luck!

* Christian Decker nominated this a "Nero protocol", which I like.

Some based girl scout group should start selling their own shit made with lard and natural ingredients and profit off the MAHA stuff going on

Well well well, the cows come home now huh