Avatar
Uvas
f007899e33569985cf7a20d9fc231bf2207d473c59d57d62d72b0976b9df3ea6
tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Strange, I searched it in my audible app and it didn't show up.

But when I searched it on Amazon, there it was saying it is available on audible...

Replying to Avatar Vitor Pamplona

Alright, Nostr fam, what's a "Zap"?

Are we just slapping the word on any digital tip jar, or are we sticking to a core value? Because frankly, if I wanted vague financial gestures, I'd use Venmo.

Words are important. And our users need definitions.

Here are some options:

- 1: The "Participation Trophy" definition:

Oh, you sent value, any value as a reaction to a post? That's a Zap! Doesn't matter if it's sats, seashells, or your grandma's IOU. You can "Zap" anything, through any means: on-chain, lightning, cashu, whatever. It only has to transfer value.

Pros: Everyone gets a gold star! (Even if they don't deserve it.)

Cons: Turns "Zap" into meaningless digital confetti. (Isn't confetti fun?)

- 2: The "Bitcoin Or Bust" definition:

It's gotta be Bitcoin! It can use any chain, any L2, lightning, cashu and even BTC bank accounts, either custodial or self-custody. The method is irrelevant as long as it is valued in BTC.

Pros: Bitcoin-centric

Cons: Custodial shenanigans.

- 3: The "Any Lightning" definition:

If it didn't come through the Lightning Network, it's not a Zap. Period. However, Taproot assets count as lightning. So, It can be any token.

Pros: No other L2 shenanigans

Cons: Cashu is out. Might hurt nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgkwaehxw309a5xjum59ehx7um5wghxcctwvshszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qrxnfk's feelings

- 4: The "Lightning and BTC" definition:

"Bitcoin, Lightning, no exceptions. If you're not doing it this way, you're doing it wrong."

Pros: Clarity. Precision. Dictatorship.

Cons: Still hurting nostr:nprofile1qqs9pk20ctv9srrg9vr354p03v0rrgsqkpggh2u45va77zz4mu5p6ccpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qgkwaehxw309a5xjum59ehx7um5wghxcctwvshszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qrxnfk

--

So, which is it? Are we watering down "Zap" until it's just another internet high-five, or are we maintaining some semblance of integrity?

How would you define the boundaries of what a zap is and isn't? Should a cashu zap count as a zap? Or should we name it something else?

You get zapped by lightning, get it?

Replying to Avatar Riggs

Nano has all of these qualities and it has less inflation than bitcoin.

Why isn't Nanos price higher than bitcoin?

it doesn't matter how disinflationary something is if there is no demand for it.

Although I agree that a deflationary thing is much more sensitive to demand!

Replying to Avatar BootyDust

Llama 3.1 405b summary:

The paper "On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward" analyzes the potential instability of the Bitcoin network when the block reward, which is the primary incentive for miners to secure the network, dwindles to zero. The authors argue that in a transaction-fee-only regime, miners may deviate from the default protocol and engage in deviant mining strategies, such as undercutting and selfish mining, which can harm the stability of the network.

The authors identify three phases of deviant mining behavior:

1. Petty compliant: Miners deviate from the default protocol by mining on the block that leaves the most transaction fees unclaimed, rather than the oldest block.

2. Lazy undercutting: Miners intentionally fork the chain to "steal" transaction fees from other miners.

3. Aggressive undercutting: Miners optimize the tradeoff between maximizing transaction fees and minimizing the chance of being undercut by other miners.

The authors also analyze the impact of selfish mining in a transaction-fee-only regime and find that it can be more profitable than in a block-reward regime. They propose an improved selfish mining strategy that takes into account the value of the block being mined.

The paper concludes that the block reward is integral to the stability of the Bitcoin network and that a transaction-fee-only regime may lead to instability and harm the ecosystem. The authors suggest that making the block reward permanent, as Ethereum does, may be a small price to pay to ensure the stability of a cryptocurrency.

Key findings:

* Deviant mining strategies can arise in a transaction-fee-only regime.

* Selfish mining can be more profitable in a transaction-fee-only regime.

* An improved selfish mining strategy can take into account the value of the block being mined.

* The block reward is integral to the stability of the Bitcoin network.

Overall, the paper highlights the potential risks and challenges of a transaction-fee-only regime and the importance of carefully designing the incentive structure of a cryptocurrency to ensure its stability and security.

Indeed as the block reward finally peaks, this will become the most important thing devs will be working on.

2 drinks is just fine. No headache or hangover. 2 drinks is the perfect sleeping pill.

I used to drink until I blacked out every day. Then I decided that I was tired of feeling like shit everyday and being poor. So I quit.

Now I will maybe have 2 drinks on a Friday evening. But I haven't had a drink in 3 weeks, and wow, I'm still here.

If your payoff is being shitfaced, you are just destroying your health and finances and relationships.

can you make one with Dan Held's forehead?