Aside from the scamy nature of this company, would a "staking pool" be useful for lightning? I don't know enough about liquidity. Could a covenant or some such proposal be used to allow a pool to use your funds for this, and you have recourse to get your funds back if you ever want them back? Or are there better ways of doing it?

-I'm not sure if its real

-the biggest influence I can have on it I'd opting out of fiat

-Im sorry the Tau are invading you, but I'm caught between the imperium and the tyranids in a battle to see whether I'll be dominated or food and the best I can hope for is I don't get butchered.

Rubin may have a good proposal, I can't speak to the technical details but he claims it doesn't allow recursive covenants. The issue is, he went about it very poorly, he basically just asked one day "OK, so I'm gonna launch a UASF because I don't see any disagreements". Then, because everyone told him no he got mad and said "bitcoins ossified and we can't do anything!" He comes across as very narcissistic, and that's fine to a degree, people that smart are probably not the best people-persons, but he has to learn patience, let these ideas rattle around for a while and the best covenant proposal will win. We aren't making any progress by turning this into a game of political football.

I think covenants will unlock quite a bit of potential for us, and you can see a lot of the inflooencers starting to be more amenable to it even though they started as "fuck this I'm voting with my node". Bitcoin is not ossified, we literally just got full RBF and it looks like its picking up adoption, and its possibly going faster than existing service providers can adapt to, in fact there are services that simply will not be able to provide the same functionality because of it ie. 0conf layer 1 to layer 2 swaps. Completely lost in these discussions seem to be in what exactly the new transaction type would entail, and a game theoretic analysis of whether the " miners become custodians" argument is valid, and I'd love to have those discussions and learn for myself.

Min-strone-ee

Not sure if this fixes some of the issues I've been having but I'll give it a try, thanks.

I think that bottom one is actually, "I loved you anikan, you were my brother!"

So it learns what content tends to get algorithmically boosted, hunts down content that could fit those traits, then let's the DoD know to "deploy countermeasures". They want total narrative control; along with their new classifications of what constitutes terrorist activity, like criticising environmentalism or government spending, they'll be targeting anything that isn't mundane pop culture drivel. I guess this just means they are getting an AI boost to censorship they were already doing. Crazy how open they are about the DoD taking an active role in censorship.

I'd have said it doesn't, you can link payment details to it, it can call other apps that do perform payments, but it doesn't itself handle payments.

Sats for raw milk

Being around a bunch of boomers for the last week had me having dreams about bitcoin price, god I hate it 😂

Its also maybe worth reflecting on as to how you treat yourself. When I was younger I never cared for fitness, I was intelligent, so I thought fitness was vanity, as I've grown older I realized there's other advantages to fitness. Similarly, dressing well, god I hate it, but the boost you get from a compliment puts a pep in your step that makes you feel more confident about other activities.

I'm sure there was cheating involved if that's what you are asking. Its probably biased in several ways, but then that also mimics that some people are naturally more charismatic etc.

Yes, the minings main goal is to confirm transactions to the block chain in a way that makes it costly to falsify. The block rewards are a temporary subsidy to incentivize people to secure the network until enough value is locked in to allow transaction fees to take over; its also probably the best way of initially distributing the total sum of bitcoin, its a subsidy and subsidies are wrong, but this is the least wrong way of doing it.

If that's the term for it, probably. People still like it, its conditioning from a lifetime of being shown that's what matters. Despite having known this for a while it still has something of an effect on me, seeing likes etc., but it has gotten a lot better. I don't know whether its a product of the platform or me just being conscientious about what I'm doing or if its because of the platform, but I find myself more interested in talking to people I respect or sharing in a cultural moment (even if its like, 15 people on nostr) than I do about my absolute level of engagement. I have resigned myself to the notion that I'll never be sats positive on the platform, if I was that just means my outflows need to be higher, and the amounts will never mean I get a mansion.

Err, higher numbers are more desirable and lower numbers are less desirable, but yea.

We all stand out in the parking lot, the teacher gives us sticky notes that have numbers written on them, but we aren't allowed to look at our own number, we put them on our foreheads so others can see them. When the experiment begins we all walk around and look at other peoples numbers stuck to their foreheads, we all want to find the highest number that will accept us as a partner. If you have a low number you subconsciously pick up on peoples rejection, if you have a low number you subconsciously pick up on peoples desire, by the end of the experiment everyone self sorts such that people are closely matched, 20-23, 12-14, 6-8. Although, one thing I forgot is there is the odd 9-22, but I think those are explained by their mutual lack of finding a partner as happens in real life, less common but still true.

Its good for gathering rye, and ergot.

I remember an experiment in psych where we were given sticky notes with numbers on them but weren't allowed to look at them. The higher the number represented being more attractive, we were tasked to pair up with someone with a good score. Its remarkable how the class sorted itself where partners were closely matched despite never being able to see their own number. Yes, probably, based on that experience.

You are saying that with a Montero side chain, there's no guarantee the peg would actually hold? I think that is kind of the idea behind being able to pull out of a sidechain, but I am somewhat concerned that a sidechain comes along that gathers mass adoption and then turns out to be flawed. I think we need a clear vision for what bitcoin as a base chain should be able to do first.

What'd they get liquidated for? What could they be trading right now?