At this size ($1.5T) I just don't think a 1,200% gain in 1 year is in the cards anymore. those days are over.
$1M in maybe 8-10 years, which is still a super high 30-40% CAGR
1m next year? No way, almost zero chance
'not your keys, not your coins"
nostr:note12pt0sftwfw7f8l6svjr9nnwthdxfngrwj29sn5nx98tn66pmz70q0ryd02
yeah these types of scenarios show the importance of nostr.
I would agree with you also in that it won't shift many to it. Most people do not care about KYC right now and that isn't reason enough to shift. they are used to it.
I personally do not see #nostr becoming mainstream any time soon. Don't get me wrong, I think it is superior, however there is no urgency to use it by the masses
Historically free, open, decentralized software projects have lagged greatly to closed for-profit centralized projects
The biggest value in nostr will continue to be as a safeguard. It is extremely important to maintain and improve it as it is a "check" that could very well be needed one day (same as #bitcoin)
That being said, I do think the potential is there. I'm not technical, only interested in privacy and decentralized projects. I stumbled upon nostr and was able to use it. It works.
#bitcoin #nostr #linux #selfhost
checking out mullvad it says that it's site isn't secure??
I'm ignorant. Why is it very very very bad?
We all forget about nostr:npub1sn0wdenkukak0d9dfczzeacvhkrgz92ak56egt7vdgzn8pv2wfqqhrjdv9?
Not good especially for a system that requires the ponzi be paid into so those retiring and dying out of it can maintain what they put in
https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/how-american-households-have-changed-over-last-65-years
This highlights the destruction of the American family (traditionally the backbone of a stable society):
From 74.3% married (44% with kids, 30% no kids)
----To 47.3% married (18% with kids, 30% no kids)
I appreciate everyone working on operation opt out. Open source decentralized technology is a safeguard against tyranny. You are all doing very important work!
I think if Bitcoin succeeded, which is has, it was inevitable corporations and nations would buy it too. They aren't going to altruistically leave the good money all to the people.
We're still at stage 1: denial although a few are in stage 2
No one is deprived of basic care. We have medicaid.
We have giant insurance pools already (both public and private). They don't work great.
Like I said, I don't have a solution, but centralizing power doesn't seem to be the best option
Everyone in America currently has a right to healthcare (shouldn't be denied for discriminatory reasons).
No one has the right to slave labor. (also why income taxes are immoral)
America's healthcare industry is an enormous rat's nest. I don't think single-payer is the best answer. I'm not sure what is, but right now I do know insurance companies have WAY too much say in dictating care. Shifting all that to the federal government doesn't seem like the best solution.
Bernie talks a good game, but socialism isn't the answer to America's problems.
There are people making 6-figures living paycheck to paycheck. You cannot legislate and "safety net" irresponsible spending. Ironically, the best safety net is no safety net. Humans will actually take care of themselves if they have to. People will be charitable to those in true need, America has always done this.
Relative wealth inequality is irrelevant (other than a political football), so long as absolute wealth rises, which it has. America's poor are more wealthy than the average income person in the world.
Finally, the way you get big money out of national politics is to make federal government less powerful so it isn't worth buying. Reduce the federal government back to it's original intended size. Centralization of power will always lead to corruption/waste. It is inevitable.
Elon just needs to tell him how popular it would make him
Correct. Freedom means different things to different people. One can mean actual freedom, while another is for people to live the way they demand. Words can be the same, values diametrically opposed. For example "freedom from poverty" or "right to affordable health care"
Proper politics isn't to vote to "better" anyone, but to leave everyone alone to their own actions as much as possible.
Voting in this way (to try to better some group) means you are forcing someone to do what they don't want to do, or rather, you know better how they should live their lives and spend their money than they do.
nostr:note177274ajt0u9fflxtltduv3ey3u7cmxeffl0vm3cek4jpu7e6w6uqrk77hd
That is the natural course unfortunately. It doesn't "have" to be that way, but it presupposes strict self-control and shared morals/ethics. For example, it is in your immediate best interest to vote yourself favors/money, but ethically you shouldn't as it would be wrong to take from others or tell them how to live.
This standard, can persist, but it is such a high standard for the masses and breaking it can be done so privately and carried out through a 3rd party so that history has shown this standard always falls, without fail, given enough time.
