e7
nobody
e7eb4e8f9cbf1e5cd26b81f73a95d065f94380e0d85842303d782fc67e59bcc9
account deleted

“The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more. At the same time, the increased production would increase the difficulty, pushing the cost of generating towards the price.

In later years, when new coin generation is a small percentage of the existing supply, market price will dictate the cost of production more than the other way around.”

- Satoshi Nakomoto, 2010

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

A recent meme has been “Nostr Lyn” where I am more raw here than anywhere else. I love that. Nostr is raw truth. Here is some meat for those willing to be here, purposely enjoying a decentralized and small protocol/community. No filter; just me.

I eat healthy, I exercise, I minimize problems, etc. I am one of those people who, when I first experimented with a keto diet nearly a decade ago, measured my ketones with a blood test on a regular basis to ensure I was in ketosis, and plotted out my blood sugar and ketone level on a regular basis, to see how it matched with my subjective well-being and various biometrics. I was doing science and various if/else observations. And now that I have experience in this dietary regard, both subjectively and biometrically, I am more flexible in terms of seasonal ketosis, broadly low carb, mild/moderate cheat meals at restaurants, and so forth. In other words, I precisely know my dietary limits where I feel bad vs where I feel good generally. I bike most days, and run and lift where possible. I enjoy a nice glass or two of wine with a nice meal on occasion, but little else.

But on those very rare occasions when I disregard moderation, well, fuck. “All things in moderation, including moderation. Sometimes you gotta party”. During the depth of my recent burnout phase in the past two weeks, I went out and… I ignored moderation one night in terms of wine and such. In terms of numbers, I only get hungover like once per year. I do, afterall, live near Atlantic City, which has plenty of clubs and so forth. I don’t even like marijuana, but I did marijuana too (which is legal in this state).

The next morning? Holy shit. I hadn’t been wrecked like that in a few years. Not only was it my yearly fuck-up, it was my multi-year fuck-up. It was a culmination of working 16-hour days with no weekends for months in a row and then the release all at once. My advice: don’t do that if you can help it. Especially if you are in your 30s or older, where you don’t heal as quickly as if you are in your 20s.

I had an interview with David Lin at like noon the next morning and my base case was to cancel it at the last minute due to how rekt I was. But I had *never* done that before, and Lin is an amazing interviewer and an acquaintance of mine, so I couldn’t do that to him, and I knew he could handle it if I was a bit lackluster. Tens of thousands of people would see this.

So, I rolled out of bed, drank some matcha, and somehow got myself in front of my camera to try to replicate what I would normally do every day with no issue. While I was doing it, I felt so off-base, thinking, “Anyone watching will know I’m so fucked right now that I’m like almost half-drunk from last night. This might be my worst interview ever. They’ll notice, right?”

I was almost afraid to go back and watch it. I only watch a small subset of my interviews for iteration purposes, but because this was my potential fuck-up, I went back and watched it closely. And you know what? In terms of views and comments and content, it was above average.

Probably it was because I was so mentally focused at the time to not fuck up. Where I lacked energy, I made up for in focus. I looked for signs in myself in my after-review, and the *only* place I can see it is in my eyes. I often squint during interviews because I am thinking a lot, but in this interview my eyes are constantly squinted/dead because I am barely able to even be there. That’s the only small sign where my multi-year fuckup hangover becomes apparent. All of my verbal content is normal, and leans above average.

After the interview, since I was non-functional, I went back to bed, and vowed not to fuck up like this again. This was my biggest hangover as a serious adult. Sitting there and talking about macroeconomic content for 45 minutes was an all-out massive effort.

But I also learned something, which kind of goes back to my martial arts days, college days, early work days, and goes back to various business memes. A common business meme is, “Most of success is just showing up.” Much of that is actually true, but I would rephrase it as, “Much of success is taking initiative, finding ways to show up, and then be consistent with quality."

You can’t, for example, be 10/10 in most interviews and then 2/10 in some interviews. You need to be 8/10 or better all the time. So, whether it came to my engineering work, my analysis work, my media work, etc. You just have to *fucking show up in good order* no matter what. Consistency of quality. Every single day. You traveled and had jet-lag during an important meeting? Tough. Your baby kept you up all last night? Well, you're paid the big bucks to tank that anyway. You got rekt in Atlantic City? Deal with it.

The first order advice here is don’t drink and party at clubs in Atlantic City the night before an interview or other serious work as a way to relieve an unusual amount of work stress during the prior months of over-work.

The second and probably more important and broad takeaway is about minimizing your weaknesses- when you do fuck up, be able to handle it. We all have moments of weakness. Success is about showing up with intention and quality. When it matters, you need to be there, present. You have to summon the strength to get through an hour about math and macro and sociability or whatever it is that you do, where you are half-dead, where your problems are only visible in your eyes, and just get it done.

I’m better now, but that was a low point. I was still running my research business, concentrating finishing-touches on a year-long book, and just literally working 80 hour weeks. Sometimes we need bursts of that sort of thing but it’s important to minimize it and get back to work/life balance, and ultimately when you are at your lowest, still find a way to be there.

Anyway, this is the current issue of "Nostr Real Thoughts". Enjoy the interview. Spot my failures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXujV7P_hZc&ab_channel=DavidLin

I feel like I have a VIP subscription membership to Lyn Alden here on Nostr.

True, not directly backed like say gold to the dollar pre 1971. But the price of bitcoin will converge on its marginal cost of production, which is directly related to the energy used in mining.

Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

For reference, here are my main thoughts on the current Bitcoin softfork ideas/dramas to those who care.

For context with regards to wherever it might matter, I have a 12-year background as an engineer initially and eventually an engineering manager, including overseeing electrical/mechanical/software for an aviation simulation facility, but although I have written code here and there in my early days, I am certainly *NOT* a software engineer. My career work is on electrical engineering and multi-discipline engineering management, and my master's degree is in engineering management, with an emphasis on systems engineering and engineering economics. Any viewpoint I have is from an engineering/systems management perspective or an economics perspective, not a programmer perspective.

I follow multiple software Bitcoin experts on various topics, many of which disagree with each other, similarly to how I followed my various lead engineers when I was working in engineering management.

The U.S. Constitution is well-written but of course not perfect. It's a good document, especially after the amendments it has had. The most recent amendment was over 30 years ago, and it is minor enough that most people don't know what it is. The second most recent one was over 50 years ago, and that one is also pretty minor, imo, and most people don't know that one either. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a then a handful of key amendments after that to fix key issues with race and gender voting and so forth, have been the foundational aspects of this whole Constitutional project.

In order to change the U.S. Constitution, you need both a supermajority in Congress and a supermajority among States. Good luck getting that. And that near-immutability is exactly why the Constitution is valuable. Even if it was better written and included all sorts of things I liked, if it were easier to change, I would consider it to be a *worse* foundation than it is now. The near-immutability is the critical part. A nearly-immutable good document, is a great document, if it serves as the foundation of something important.

When it comes to Bitcoin, the aspect that I view as being the most valuable is its near-immutability. We have a global open-source ledger foundation that gives us savings and payment/settlement technology. It makes hard trade-offs in order to remain reasonably decentralized. And yet, Bitcoin can settle more transactions per year than Fedwire does, which is the U.S. base settlement layer, which handles (not a typo) 1 quadrillion dollars worth of gross settlement volumes per year. Bitcoin does that function but is global, open-source, and has its own scarce units. Various layers can expand that scalability, (Lightning, sidechains, fedimints, custodial environments, etc). Certain softforks to the base layer may also add some new scalability options (covenants, drivechains, zero-knowledge proofs, etc). But those softforks present risks to the whole project, unless they have a supermajority of support and are considered to be of low technical+incentive risk.

When I was an engineering manager for my aviation facility, if I were to approve a major new change and help fund it, it would be because the supermajority of my senior technical leads supported it, and because they could convince me of it. Objective truth tends to be easy to share between rational people that listen to each other. In contrast, subjective things that are more contested of course tend to be harder. If I liked a new change but it didn't have a supermajority, I respected these divergent opinions and wanted to know why they saw it differently. Unless it was in an area where I was *specifically* the facility expert in (in my case, the electrical/control aspects within our organization's aviation simulators), I would never go with a minority opinion among my technical leads and override the majority of my technical leads.

One of the most common problems I encountered in my career was over-engineering. Not a single person knows every detail about how an aviation simulator works (which was my field of work). There are software experts, graphical design experts, mechanical experts, electronics experts, pilot experts, and then business experts that have to figure out what is valuable to clients and how to get the required stuff and how to make the whole thing economical and thus well-incentivized. Systems engineering, practically by definition, is the science of managing a project that is more complex than any one human mind can possibly understand. Any major project engineer/manager has to deal with this dilemma.

As it pertains to over-engineering, many people often have pet projects that they care about, or want to make really cool complex things, that are not economical or not robust. Endless changes can create endless complexity, which are hard to maintain, are less reliable, and so forth. The most beautiful engineering designs are often the most simple at the foundation. Complexity can exist in layers or silos built on or around that foundation, which reduces contagion risk to the simple-but-robust foundation.

In short, if you you can't convince a supermajority, then maybe your idea isn't right or needs more work. Maybe the problem is on your end. Especially if the supermajority that you need to convince are intelligent relevant people (in Bitcoin's case: software developers, node-runners, miners, capital allocators, etc).

And of course, foundations like the U.S. Constitution or the Bitcoin base layer are far more important than the engineering frameworks of some random aviation simulation facility, so the standards are higher.

So, how do I assess proposed softforks as someone who hasn't written code in a decade but tries to follow the designs and economics of various proposals where possible? I look towards technical leads, and look for a supermajority of serious stakeholders, and need the proposal to clearly make sense to me technically and economically.

I view Bitcoin as being valuable due to its near-immutability. That is the source of its monetary premium. And so as follows, from a project management perspective regarding what is among the most serious of all possible projects:

-The first rule of Bitcoin is you do not break Bitcoin.

-The second rule of Bitcoin is you do not break Bitcoin.

-The third rule of Bitcoin is you do not break Bitcoin.

-The fourth rule of Bitcoin is that, around the margins, you try to find conservative ways to improve Bitcoin that are clear enough to get a supermajority.

Therefore, my view on softforks is that I defer to the supermajority of experts I trust, while also needing it to make sense to me personally. I'm agnostic towards many softforks, since I don't have the detailed software expertise to be relevant between similar proposals. As proposed softworks gain momentum, I check to see if they make sense to me, and then look for a supermajority.

Bitcoin is valuable due to its near-immutability. If it can be changed by minority factions, then the relevance of the project over the long arc of time is limited. To the extent that it's going to be any sort of important base layer, that near-immutability, much like the U.S. Constitution, is critical. To that extent, any proposed change to Bitcoin is not just a software thing; it's an economics thing as well.

Therefore, if proponents of a given softfork try to find a way to push itself on the network without a supermajority of technical experts and economic actors, then whether or not I like it, I will oppose it. That's a way to turn me from neutral to opposed. Because that near-immutability is what I would fight for. I only support highly agreed-upon changes. Whatever small piece that my node, my voice, and my money can do, I err towards the near-immutability.

I doubt there is anyone on Nostr who doesn’t care about what you have to say on any subject. This is brilliant, as usual.

Replying to Avatar jimmysong

Why Joe Rogan Avoids Bitcoin Discussions

Joe Rogan has sidestepped Bitcoin discussions for the past seven years, despite previously hosting Andreas Antonopoulous multiple times. What's stopping him from inviting more Bitcoin enthusiasts?

At the heart of it, Rogan simply may not be interested. Delving into Bitcoin discussions means wading into the relentless debates between Bitcoin and altcoin supporters. Every podcaster who touches on Bitcoin faces the pressure of giving equal time to altcoin enthusiasts. This tug-of-war is daunting, and Rogan likely prefers to sidestep it. Consider the case of Lex Friedman, who has faced criticism from both sides for trying to strike a balance. It's why Rogan doesn't have anyone on to discuss abortion, for example. It's a controversial topic and anyone you have on will destroy your standing with the segment that disagrees with you.

Yet Rogan is an outspoken critic of fiat money, frequently discussing its flaws and potential for corruption. He acknowledges the problems with central bank digital currencies and even mentions Bitcoin in these contexts. His audience likely wants him to have guests on about this topic, and this is why he had Antonopoulous on before 2017. But the Bitcoin narrative became more complex around 2017 with the rise of venture capitalists and altcoin advocacy, the so-called scambrian explosion. Rogan's ignoring of Bitcoin is the result of this shift. He has a knack for sensing underlying issues, which has undoubtedly contributed to his podcasting success.

Yet, Rogan's understanding of Bitcoin remains superficial. Until he fully grasps how it fixes the problems he sees, it's unlikely he'll feature a dedicated Bitcoin guest. While figures like Jack Dorsey and Adam Curry have tried to steer the conversation towards Bitcoin, Rogan refused to take the bait. It'll take a larger level of inflation or economic destruction for him to delve into this topic.

The controversy will remain on Bitcoin versus altcoins and that's not something he'll be able to avoid. He needs more conviction before he'll talk about it on his show and that's not something he has yet.

So instead of trying to bully him into having a guest on, just point out the obvious. Fiat money is the cause of a lot of the societal degeneration. Whether he gets it sooner or later will be up to him.

I think it is just that Rogan likes talking a lot more about taking cold showers and MMA fights than things like proof of work.

Ayn Rand is the author, 1957. 7 million copies sold. A libertarian masterpiece.

Replying to Avatar Mr. Fred Rogers

I believe it IS that simple nostr:npub1ul45aruuhu09e5nts8mn49wsvhu58q8qmpvyyvpa0qhuvljehnys4uyt0r . I have a worldview/religion that says that murdering people is always wrong.

Making theoretical death calculations is not my job. I’m not God.

Example, I could theorize that a daycare down the road is housing a future mass murderer. A few parents are super jacked up and are training their kids to kill.

I cannot go kill all those children because I calculate that it will likely save more lives in the long run. I don’t know the future and I have no green light to kill.

Honest question: where is your moral principle that gives you the right to kill innocent people? Do you subscribe to a religion that says this is okay?

So if you had the chance to murder Adolph Hitler in 1939 knowing his plans for the destruction of Europe/Russia and mass murder of the Jews, and you knew the likelihood of him being able to do it, you wouldn’t murder Hitler because you don’t know the future for sure and your worldview/religion that says murdering people is “always” wrong?

If he is young, this may be the best thing financially that will ever happen to him.

He will likely now be long term disciplined saver of bitcoin and not a degen trader.

If this had not happened now, he may have lost much more in dollar value in a reckless trade down the road.

Too many people think this so probably not. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a six figure price in 2025 though.

A more humane way to end the war IMO was to drop an atomic bomb on a military position or naval port which would have little civilian casualties, and then tell the Japanese that Tokyo would be destroyed next if they did not surrender that perhaps would have ended the war.

But it is very easy in 2023 to talk about what leaders in 1945 should have done. In August 1945 countries had just had more than a half decade of destroying each others cities and civilian populations already, and Truman was not going to risk the deaths of 100s of thousands of his troops to invade Japan. The Emperor would likely fought to the last man if not for the atomic bomb, based on historians judgement of the man.

The Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, and no doubt they would not have surrendered on August 15, if not for the threat of more atomic bombs being dropped on their populations.