When moving from BTC to Monero trust is generally required for the trade with some exchange or service, & anonymity is often compromised, fees are often high. Exchange rate volatility is a problem & holding Monero long term is financially costly, so things being built on/for Bitcoin will tend to make more sense.
Money laundering is a made up crime that wouldn't exist if the world wasn't dominated by criminal gangs running protection rackets that need to frame any effort to avoid or evade their racket as a criminal offense.
Drug dealing is providing people with products they want in voluntary exchange. Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with that.
"Terrorist" is the label that the criminal gangs give to people who resist or fight back.
Congress & the Senate attract the dumbest & most corrupt people in the world. The real question is why are Rand Paul & Thomas Massie there & how is it not completely soul crushing to stay? Rand's opponents have had him physically attacked & they set his home town office on fire. He's literally working among the shittiest people on the planet.
I hope we get a decent dip. I'd like to buy more.
I'll say shit, nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx. Saylor is not here for freedom maximalism, has attacked the idea of Bitcoin as a MoE, and, based on what you're saying, doesn't support Bitcoin development.
End the hero worship. It's never a good look.
Saylor should not be worshipped, but I genuinely think it's probably better for Saylor not to support any change to Bitcoin & to set an example for all the dumbass legacy finance people to not support any change to bitcoin. They don't mine, they don't run nodes, we are still capable of making changes that need to be made. But there isn't much else that should be done to Bitcoin anyway. CTV & CISA would be amazing, but Bitcoin will also probably be fine without them.
Keep shitcoining, you definitely deserve it.
Idk man, you're still talking about a change in a GAS that currently makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. It just seems ridiculous to think that has any appreciable impact on warmth. It seems to me, given the dramatic impact of moisture & water vapor on temps, combined with the effect that greater amounts of CO2 has on plants, CO2 could legitimately cause temps to be lower because plants with pores that don't have to open as much to breathe will lose less water to evaporation...?
I think to whatever degree there are problems it all tends to really center around the lack of permaculture in terms of farming practices, the increasing loss of topsoil, & what all of that does to moisture retention. And then the lack of stable moisture levels leads to greater temp swings & potentially increases the likelihood of fires & other issues. But CO2 just seems to have nothing to do with any of it. It's like they just paid someone to come up with some mildly plausible thing to justify communist policies based on the fact that CO2 lasers exist & to apply the idea in a way that really makes no sense ouside of the gas mixture in a laser tube. And the idea that the atmosphere can actually be managed based on controlling a gas of such tiny % is like peak hubris. It seems far more ridculous than trying to manage an economy & we know how well that works.
I think desertification & micro managment & killing more than we grow are really the major problems, & those are the only things that really put us at odds with the environment or the atmosphere or anything else. The environment created us. If we just figure out what makes more things grow & do more of that, then we are on the right track. And I think more CO2 means more plants, & more plants mean more animals, & more animals & plants together create more stable water cycles, & all of that means more food, which means better lives for all of us.
CO2 absorbsion should be a non-issue, reflection might make some sense because other stuff holds heat, but gasses cannot possibly hold enough heat to matter. A desert isn't going to be any less cold at night because you increased the CO2 in the atmosphere. Desert temp swings are basically proof that moisture is about the only thing that is relevant anyway.
Their educational stuff is great & the way I see it we absolutely have to have stepping stones.
Milton Friedman & Thomas Sowell are far from agorists or ancaps, but I became an ancap about 6 months after finding Milton Friedman. He was an important bridge between worlds.
Swan is like a door out of the legacy financial system, we need as many of those as we can get IMO.
So long as it remains the best store of value will almost certainly become the primary MoE.
Ossification is a reasonable position to take. More changes could absolutely introduce more problems than benefits. Most of the tools built into bitcoin have not even been put to use yet. And the last thing we want is for legacy finance people to come in with trillions of dollars & millions of retarded newbs that they can mislead, thinking it is their job to change bitcoin or to influence how bitcoin changes.
Make no mistake. This is a war. The easiest way to win it is to let incentives do the work without the people who have everything to lose realizing it's a war.
It's good to stay vigilant & pure & principled, but we should be cautious of friendly fire when we have people doing good things.
My brother is or has been sponsored by Swan, & he is a pretty heavy Nostr & Keet user. I don't think it helps anything to assume the worst of people who have generally been doing good things. But no one is perfect.
I just don't think CO2 can ever practically make up a significant enough % of the atmostphere to have any meaningful effect. I think it's literally all an excuse to sell the idea of spraying industrial waste into the skies & to advance authoritarian goals. CO2 levels have naturally been orders of magnitude higher in the past according to ice cores. And in any case, a warmer earth supports more life, not less.
But large corps have been pulling these environmental scams for decades. The hole in the ozone nonsense was an effort to get refrigerants with expiring patents banned so Dow (or which ever major chem corp it was) could be the exclusive seller of replacements. Flouride is costly waste so they convinced govts to spread it thinly into the water supply. Demonization of CO2 just gives the govt a new way to tax all production & all life, while corps get a new reason to spray out more things they can't easily dispose of.
Companies used to pay for glass didn't they? There must have been some cost benefit if they were buying it back? Or were they just buying back whole bottles & steam cleaning them or something?
Waste oils appear to perform within a few % on dyno & fuel mileage tests from what I have seen with pretty low tech diesel engines.
CO2 is just NOT an issue IMO, it's plant fertilizer, & actually appears to be a completely desirable thing to put into the atmosphere. I think sun cycles are the real driver of average temps, but to whatever degree we are causing climate problems, monocropping, destruction of soil, & city building are at the heart of the human tendency to produce deserts.
There will never be anything that is perfectly or completely circular in terms of all inputs, but there is a ton of waste that can be recovered.
IMO the trick is to improve efficiency of smaller scale energy production & then just do things without asking. In a lot of cases it seems that there is available tech that just hasn't been applied everywhere that it can be. And often old ideas that worked were phased out for some limitation that has since been overcome without the old idea being properly revisited.