I can't seem to figure out how to stream, it won't be even let me login from mobile or desktop.

That's a risk I'm willing to take, I reported selling a bit of shitcoin on my tax return 2 years ago and the IRS still hasn't processed my return.

I've just consigned myself to never letting my bitcoin touch an exchange again, the IRS can't tax what they don't know about.

I think of it like a flat place to work, all major world religions hold the tenants required to build a functional society in the long term; leaving those building blocks up to the short sighted whims of man has ended in disaster, dare I say, every time its been tried. The soviets thought that logic and reason could solve for all prices in the economy, their people starved; the Nazis thought logic and reason could solve for the morality of their population, and they murdered millions.

I'm wouldn't say I'm religious, but I have serious reservations about the idea of man about putting their faith in themselves rather than a higher power; there seems to be no reasonable stopping point to that, so then, at the logical conclusion you see any behavior justified under the guise of fixing a cultural issue (genocide), furthering mans knowledge (forced medical experimentation), fixing the economy (inflation), etc.

That's my, "I'm a PC bro" level understanding of what I'm seeing being near the center of the sun.

I think its going to come down to AMDs experience with chiplets and bus tech (their infinity fabric). These models are too big to run on any single chip; the bus speed is proving to be a serious bottle neck because its not something the industry has had to deal with yet. The last few generations of AI tech has had major architectural changes as the industry feels out the technical requirements, so its fair to say things will change rapidly, but I think scaling across multiple chips/hosts/racks is going to take center stage.

No, they can't, its smart to have some money in the major silicon companies, especially as the government money fountain rains on anyone willing to keep manufacturing out of China. That said, Lisa Sue has basically planted the AMD flag on Intel's grave, I think AMD will overtake nvidia next as being the superior GPU manufacturer too, after maybe a few generations. AMD GPUs are being used for the bleeding edge AI stuff right now (when I say bleeding edge, I mean racks hitting the floor that haven't even made it into the cluster yet, we will see if that holds up).

Thank god, be gone vc swamp creatures.

They'd have to know about it first, which a quick overview by an apple employee might miss. Fiatjaf suggested utilizing it on every platform, then apple has to pressure Facebook, twitter, mastadon etc.

Fiatjaf woke up and chose violence.

I'm inclined to agree with you, and on a case by case basis its always my recommendation. But there are a lot of people on apple who aren't switching in the foreseeable future and we should still try to reach them in any way we can. Subvert the means of control in any way possible.

I would definitely not trust my analysis of the ethereum centralization. I wish the big bitcoin podcasts paid a bit more attention to this stuff because it stands as excellent examples of what we want to avoid. I'm not exactly worried about the current state of bitcoins L2, I think there's just a lack of utility; if I was receiving my paychecks on lightning you are damn straight I'd have my own lightning node, but for zapping plebs I'm sticking with WoS.

I think something similar to creating a webpage on WordPress would be cool, you can drag and drop all the UI elements you want, change their icons and stuff, and then you click submit and it compiles a client for you would be very cool. I'm skeptical of building those features into existing clients would work well, it seems like any program that does that lags like a mofo.

As a separate matter I think having a similar tool to create something like a storefront would be awesome. I can imagine a store where the seller could live stream themselves building the products in the center with a few products arranged along the sides, and then you can live chat the seller asking information about the products.

My fingers are sore, I need a physical keyboard for my phone.

This is going to be a wall of text, I apologize in advance, maybe consider a copy of "the block size wars" on audible instead, its a great listen!

You might get some hate for asking questions like this, but its a good exploration into the very early game theory of bitcoin, and you might find people that enjoy a reprieve from the geopolitical and macroeconomic talk.

There are other proof of work chains that have survived and are basically copy paste bitcoin with tweaks to things like block production times (litecoin), block size (BCH), block rewards (doge). These would represent the closest analogue to having multiple bitcoin blockchains, though in these cases it also implies having separate currencies too, which opens the door for Gresham's law. Gresham's law implies that people will sell their weaker currencies (alts, or silver) for harder currencies (bitcoin or gold).

I think you are referring more to "sharding", where the network is fragmented into multiple pieces. Sharding is an attractive idea to networks like ethereum because there is too much data for any single node to understand the state of the entire network. Ethereum isn't constrained by a software limit like bitcoin, it is constrained by the physical ability of any single computer to be able to process the massive amounts of altcoins, smart contracts, NFTs etc. on the ethereum network; this massive amount of data was bottlenecked by proof of work because of the limited vram of graphics cards used for mining. To bypass this bottleneck they switched to proof of stake, causing a massive shift towards centralization, where very few entities are capable of writing to the ethereum block chain; while the ability of a compute cluster at AWS to create blocks has increased the limit for data that can be added, it still is not enough because even professional servers are only capable of operating at limited scale.

Introduce, sharding, where there are multiple interoperable ethereum block chains. The key point to take away from why ethereum is moving to sharding is that they are trying to cram far too much junk on the block chain in the first place; this is why its so important that we prevent this behavior through meticulous screening of new code, and point out the logical flaws inherent in thinking art is "scarce" just because it is on the block chain. Preferable to sharding, which would create a massive "attack surface" for bitcoin, would be a simple increase in the block size (don't flame me!).

The block size was introduced to ensure the network is secure and decentralized by making full nodes cheap to run and offering plenty of time for downloading and verifying new blocks, satoshi had expressed that he believed this block size limit would grow as technology became more accessible, but due to its implementation it would require a hard fork and that means there are even more preferable solutions.

Segwit and taproot are like, a beta and a version 1.0 respectively. They were intended to build towards even higher goals of on chain throughput and transaction types without requiring a hard fork and without changing the block size. Version 2.0 would be graftroot, still in development and... I lost any hope of understanding this shit past segwit, but it would allow an incredible increase in the number of transactions and types of transactions allowed on bitcoin. This still requires a softfork, and after the ordinals debacle there might be a lot of scrutiny before anyone adopts this change, but

1. It couldnt possibly increase the attack surface as badly as sharding

2. It wouldn't pose the risk of the network splintering like a hard forked block size increase would.

Finally, the most preferable solution for near term use, is layer 2! You can send a technically unlimited number of transactions instantly with essentially the same security guarantees of layer 1! Here, have a zap, and know that it wouldn't even be realistic to send this amount of bitcoin over layer 1 because of the transaction fees!

The kids have gotten soft! Back in my day the baseball team would sodomize initiates with a broom handle! Fucked up but true, some dark humor for you.

Hardware nerds rejoice, the era of swappable motherboard chipsets is upon us!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrKZeEmu6UA

They wouldn't be stable, the smaller chains would be susceptible to 51% attacks that rewrite the block chain to allow double spends. The more risk that there is for this to happen the lower the price of the forked coins, which corresponds to lower mining rewards. The lower mining rewards pushes miners onto the main chain, making the forked chain yet easier to attack.

There have been a few issues with transaction volume over the years, we are just coming out of one now caused by ordinals hogging block space. Ultimately, more important transactions push the transaction fees up encouraging layer 2 scaling solutions like lightning, and discourage users from wasting block space on jpegs and small transactions that can be done on L2.

I used to be the same way, now, I'm skeptical that those measures can adequately explain what you experience subjectively.

A Keynesian economist for instance believes that economic understanding can only be empiracly derived by strictly looking at the data. Without an a priori concept of economics you wouldn't even know what charts are relavent, so its a non-starter for me that there is no bias at the outset of this theory. Given the unwillingness to examine the a priori concepts and how they match with reality, it is a given that they are operating under bad assumptions. Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources, but more foundationally are concepts like subjective value theorem and marginal utility, which clearly are a sociological phenomena. Any serious economic analysis has to have baked in the fact that economics is about the subjective decisions of the individuals making choices, as Rothbard put it "Man must act", humans make choices based on what they see in front of them, not on statistics.

*sounds of a drink being finished off with a straw*

That's not true. The feature was updated, its up to the user to decide if they want content filtered out if accounts they follow report it. This feature was updated shortly after onyx (tony) hit the market.

I'm just thinking about whether now is a great time, I don't want to throw a bunch of public relays under the bus if the feds come knocking. We should be able to do it with anonymous relays behind VPNs, but I'd want to consult the relays before I bring heat.

🤔i wonder if relays would block me for posting torrent links, this could actually be a good platform for discussing media in that regard.

Interesting, how does blocking users who aren't logged in cause this behavior though?

I always figured people were being a bit hyperbolic, guess not.

OK, fair enough. The US government is responsible for ~11 million dead civilians in the middle east, and we have continuously voted for it.

Sure, and Hitler was democratically elected. Has the introduction of democratic elements made China a country more free than the time of dynasties?

All of them, take your pick. If you are using violence or coercion against peaceful people to get your way then that would be tyrannical, no political process of voting or delegates could dissolve this, it can only obscure it.

As far as the practical distinctions between something like a democracy and a monarchy, we can evaluate the game theory of incentives and power structures play out (How a dictatorship would be distinct from a monarchy seems blurry, I'm only going to address a monarchy to keep things simple).

In a monarchy the king has an incentive to preserve the wealth of the nation for their grandchildren, the future monarchs. In a system of elected representatives like we have, the incentive is to abuse the system as much as possible to maximize returns over a short term limit. There are several examples of kings that proved to rule better than democracies/republics have shown, the king of Norway is well respected to this day, Serbias monarchy is generally held in high regard too, the Brits love their monarchs but they have limited power to affect change at the political level. Contrasted with democracies, which always trend towards social programs, taxation, war, and destruction in due course, Greece, Rome, us.

Using quotes to falsely define a term like tyranny is the best way of getting me to break out dictionary definitions. No, I am not for centralized authoritarianism, which is precisely why I do not support democracy or any other form of government. You said that democracies categorically couldn't be tyrannical, and I argued that they absolutely can be; I would further argue that the current order of democracies is in fact tyrannical, and that this is basically inevitable. Is it worth going that far though? My arguments about the categorical requirements of tyranny appear to have disturbed you and now you are resorting to personal attacks.

There is also the iron law of oligarchy, even under a perfect democracy the distribution of social/political influence will not be equal. Someone will always curry more political favor with the public; saying someone who holds a majority of political favor couldn't be a tyrant, even under a democracy, doesn't seem to follow.

If you acknowledge that an oppressive majority can exist, and you read the definition as clearly as I did, why are you singling out "synonym: dictatorial" as opposed to "despotic and oppressive"?

Even "dictatorial" does not mean "dictator", see #1

A psyop, I'm gay and think this whole thing is insane, all I care about is equal treatment under the law. Give me my freedom of association, my property rights, and the same tax benefits as everyone else and I'm happy. The majority of gay people I know feel the same, the only one who doesn't is a diagnosed schizophrenic.

Is it that you can't envision an oppressive majority rule?

No its not, gang rape is tyrannical, and power is held by the majority.

I usually scrub with a "dude wipe" when I get home. I think most Americans would consider bidets to be unsanitary (myself included), its not about whether that's true or not, I'm just not convinced that some degenerate hasn't splattered the nozzle with explosive diahrea. I knew a guy that said he loved his bidet, and when left without one he'd spit on the toilet paper, he'd say "what! Its not gross, its my own spit!"