memestr
memes
palestine
philosophy
bitcoin
economics
Dude jacks the price so we get less bitcoin for our labor and expects a pat on the back.
'Hey, I just cut your pay. Thank me later!'
Thats the narrative here anyway. Fact is Biden's more to blame by bringing Putin and Xi onboard thanks to dollar sanctions.
South Korea’s president has declared martial law. The country's currency slumped to a two-year low on Tuesday after the declaration
https://cdn.nostrcheck.me/8021d11cadab29920bf8ea2317f5ed30240d213e7ffbea4b48d8b14dd2ce19f6
#Press | #PlebChain
So, the won lost.
That's not confusing at all.
Miners thought they had this power. Then came the blocksize wars.
They don't.
Nodes do.
The point of Bitcoin is to provide a form of durable, fixed supply money that can be transmitted over long distances without relying on any one or few gatekeepers of infrastructure, thereby preventing censorship as well as dilution of value through fractional reserve banking.
I'm wary of both companies not being able to be sufficiently airgapped. An xpub should not be considered any more public than a bank statement as it ties your utxo's together and makes you easily surveilled.
Biggest argument for a Coldcard right here.
This must be why the deli clerk started talking to me about cryptocurrencies today, completely out of the blue. And here I was thinking that I actually must have laser eyes.
#GM folks. Listened to the most recent episode of TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast with nostr:nprofile1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3jamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwdhx7un59eek7cmfv9kz7qguwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxy6t5vdhkjmnsv9exktnrdakj7qgkwaehxw309ajkgetw9ehx7um5wghxcctwvshszgrhwden5te0vf5hgcm0d9hx6ctcd9kkzmrfwd68xtn0dekxjmn99uqzq3e0gs8jnmued6f2rp4c6vs07xqvs4vs8zpwt82smcdch4txjvq76a53gx yesterday, and it was a very timely discussion with Jim Crider on how to talk to friends and family about #Bitcoin in a way that will be effective and not so...zealous. Crider has a great history of working as an investment advisor with older folks who aren't looking for Bitcoin and crafting the conversation in such a way as to not leave them defensive, and has a lot of great tips in this one. If you're like me you have a drive to get where you're going (or cooking when you'd rather tune out other noise), so why not consider it a pre-game for those orange pill conversations later today over the #Tthanksgiving feast? https://fountain.fm/episode/yJDbQT7AMTWfByvvCiKP
What about stonewall 1 and 2, ricochet, and stowaway? Did they go the way whirlpool did?
Haven't had a chance to do the research on the back end -- didn't realize any of this was centralized enough to be shut downable.
This is why if I spend bitcoin, it's to be immediately replaced now.
Happy to support the ecosystem, less happy to have more of those $100,000 rent months.
I saw a coinbase screenshot last night of a fill at over 100k. I'm not quite sure how prices are reported though; it was an autofill for a $50 order, so I assume a market price, and that it was filled over 100k would have been due to coinbase's spread. I'd still sort of think that would be reported though, but if not, is it perhaps only limit orders that would count? I sort of assume coinbase sets their bid and ask as a spread around the last market price, so allowing a market order filled at their asking price to push that upward as long as they're the only activity would be...problematic. So it's not impossible that's what's happening. And given the fill at 100,112 or so, it'd imply that with a 1% spread (theirs may be higher these days) the price they were spreading around would have been more like 99,600ish.
Obviously could have just been a fake screenshot but it didn't give those sorts of vibes.
Make sure to diversify your portfolio...
It’s all about balance ⚖️
Hodl bitcoin in cold storage, ex: nostr:npub1jg552aulj07skd6e7y2hu0vl5g8nl5jvfw8jhn6jpjk0vjd0waksvl6n8n
DCA Bitcoin on your favorite Bitcoin-only buying platform, ex: nostr:npub1ex7mdykw786qxvmtuls208uyxmn0hse95rfwsarvfde5yg6wy7jq6qvyt9
Mine wild Bitcoin at home or with a responsible host, ex: nostr:npub10vkwadgkfkg9vzpe04a6rhpzrd8rlw0r84qelag5hgtycrykgz3qvty3ep
Get paid in Bitcoin for hard work, ex: your next job
Zap Bitcoin to other plebs on Nostr, ex: this note 😉
Stack freedom Bitcoin through p2p trades, ex: nostr:npub1p2psats79rypr8lpnl9t5qdekfp700x660qsgw284xvq4s09lqrqqk3m82
Earn Bitcoin in value-for-value apps, ex: nostr:npub1v5ufyh4lkeslgxxcclg8f0hzazhaw7rsrhvfquxzm2fk64c72hps45n0v5
Did I miss anything? 😎
#plebchain #v4v
Perhaps "keep the surveillance bros on their toes with tools like Ashigaru Wallet" (the fork of Samourai).
Sweet dreams of 58k!
Monero is more like stacks of non-sequential $100 bills. It's an awful store of value. But it does provide privacy, which beats bank accounts, and can be transferred without physical travel, so there's some value add. All depends how much you're willing to pay for that in devaluation while using it. Given how much fiat gets wasted muling money around in the conventional financial space, this seems to suggest that monero is here to stay -- it just shouldn't be mistaken for a great savings vehicle.
Especially when the tools from Samourai Wallet (and the now forked Ashigaru Wallet) do a lot to close the gap using bitcoin-native methods.
We could easily do this too. You can post lists on Amethyst and follow individuals from the list. We're just missing the follow all button nostr:nprofile1qqsyvrp9u6p0mfur9dfdru3d853tx9mdjuhkphxuxgfwmryja7zsvhqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7anfw3hhytnwdaehgu339e3k7mf0qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tch2deau.
app.coracle.com already does this, though I'm not sure how much it's a coracle thing only, or how many people really use it.
You mean, something like these? (I'm using https://app.coracle.social)
Turkey at the store: $0.99/lb (or $2.18/commie units)
Cracked corn at the store: pennies/handful.
Live #frugal
A discussion, today, reminded me of this excerpt, from G.K. Chesterton's, [_What's Wrong with the World_](https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1717/pg1717-images.html):
> This book must avoid religion, but there must (I say) be many, religious and irreligious, who will concede that this power of answering many purposes was a sort of strength which should not wholly die out of our lives. As a part of personal character, even the moderns will agree that many-sidedness is a merit and a merit that may easily be overlooked. This balance and universality has been the vision of many groups of men in many ages. It was the Liberal Education of Aristotle; the jack-of-all-trades artistry of Leonardo da Vinci and his friends; the august amateurishness of the Cavalier Person of Quality like Sir William Temple or the great Earl of Dorset. It has appeared in literature in our time in the most erratic and opposite shapes, set to almost inaudible music by Walter Pater and enunciated through a foghorn by Walt Whitman.
> But the great mass of men have always been unable to achieve this literal universality, because of the nature of their work in the world. Not, let it be noted, because of the existence of their work. Leonardo da Vinci must have worked pretty hard; on the other hand, many a government office clerk, village constable or elusive plumber may do (to all human appearance) no work at all, and yet show no signs of the Aristotelian universalism. What makes it difficult for the average man to be a universalist is that the average man has to be a specialist; he has not only to learn one trade, but to learn it so well as to uphold him in a more or less ruthless society.
> This is generally true of males from the first hunter to the last electrical engineer; each has not merely to act, but to excel. Nimrod has not only to be a mighty hunter before the Lord, but also a mighty hunter before the other hunters. The electrical engineer has to be a very electrical engineer, or he is outstripped by engineers yet more electrical. Those very miracles of the human mind on which the modern world prides itself, and rightly in the main, would be impossible without a certain concentration which disturbs the pure balance of reason more than does religious bigotry. No creed can be so limiting as that awful adjuration that the cobbler must not go beyond his last. So the largest and wildest shots of our world are but in one direction and with a defined trajectory: the gunner cannot go beyond his shot, and his shot so often falls short; the astronomer cannot go beyond his telescope and his telescope goes such a little way. All these are like men who have stood on the high peak of a mountain and seen the horizon like a single ring and who then descend down different paths towards different towns, traveling slow or fast. It is right; there must be people traveling to different towns; there must be specialists; but shall no one behold the horizon? Shall all mankind be specialist surgeons or peculiar plumbers; shall all humanity be monomaniac?
)
> Tradition has decided that only half of humanity shall be monomaniac. It has decided that in every home there shall be a tradesman and a Jack-of-all-trades. But it has also decided, among other things, that the Jack-of-all-trades shall be a Jill-of-all-trades. It has decided, rightly or wrongly, that this specialism and this universalism shall be divided between the sexes. Cleverness shall be left for men and wisdom for women. For cleverness kills wisdom; that is one of the few sad and certain things.
> But for women this ideal of comprehensive capacity (or common-sense) must long ago have been washed away. It must have melted in the frightful furnaces of ambition and eager technicality. A man must be partly a one-idead man, because he is a one-weaponed man—and he is flung naked into the fight. The world’s demand comes to him direct; to his wife indirectly. In short, he must (as the books on Success say) give “his best”; and what a small part of a man “his best” is! His second and third best are often much better. If he is the first violin he must fiddle for life; he must not remember that he is a fine fourth bagpipe, a fair fifteenth billiard-cue, a foil, a fountain pen, a hand at whist, a gun, and an image of God.
## The frustration of not being an expert
I read that, in my early 20s, stumbling across the late, great Chesterton, while trying to decide if marriage is my proper vocation (and then immediately reading all of his nonfiction, as it's all so brutally, casually, brilliant). It immediately made my own "talent stack" clear to me: **I'm best at doing lots of different things quite well**, but not at doing one particular thing to a level of highest expertise.
)
This is actually an extremely difficult position to be in because young people are under constant pressure to find That One Thing that they are to specialize in, and I could never find That Thing, despite being at the top of any ranking of People Doing Things.
Could I write well? Yes.
Could I write really well? Yes.
Could I write really, really well? Nope.
Could I program well? Yes.
Could I program really well? Yes.
Could I program really, really well? Nope.
Could I cook well?...
And so on, and so forth, for nearly every task I tried. Perpetually stuck in the upper quintile, never a top-tenner.
Much has been written about chronic Imposter Syndrome among the very-smartest women, but I think that's just a fancy way to explain this phenomenon of being at the top of your game and atop all of the other women playing the same game, but quickly discovering, to your dismay, that the men at the top are a wee bit topper than you. And there's always one a wee bit topper. There must be an endless supply of men-slightly-better at That One Thing, someplace. A factory, where they are produced by dark forces, like the Orcs, in _The Lord of the Rings_.
It is enough to make a girl pout, very cutely.
)
## Titles matter
I've written, before, about how I see my development role as being the project teams' "Girl Friday". I pick up all the tasks that fall to the wayside, but shouldn't be forgotten (like marketing, testing, arranging financing, and customer support), or substituting for someone who is away. Although men and women are partially redundant, so that there's a Boy Friday for every Mrs. Burns, it seems clear to me that humanity really is generally split up into these specialist/generalist roles.
Women tend toward generalism, but often no longer have a natural outlet for it, so many of us are therefore in a state of employment frustration. We cling to various titles, without fully identifying with them. Drifting from one title to another. Earning a new title. Going off to find ourselves. Earning another new title. No, this one also doesn't fit... Seeking, but never finding. The incongruence and impermanence can be painful. Aimless drifting.
Stacking up certificates and qualifications, but immediately bored by the myopic scope of the task and -- if we're in a male-dominated trade -- frustrated by our difficulty in topping The Toppers; struggling to find some niche, some branch, where our generalism is an advantage.
Life is unfair. Boys are mean. Someone do something.
## There used to be a specialty for generalists
)
But someone had done something. A long, long time ago. In fact, we are generalists today because of what that one woman did, back then: she married.
The bride is the star of every wedding and being a wife often brought a change in title (from _Miss_ to _Mrs._) because it is meant to be a _vocation_. It is as if you have been hired to be the household generalist, by the specialist, whose title reflected his particular specialty. If you actively joined in his specialty, it would simply be tacked onto your original title "Miller's Wife", "Lawyer's Wife", "Politician's Wife", "Farmer's Wife", "Engineer's Wife", "Butcher's Wife", "Bitcoin Influencer's Wife". (Angela Merkel's spouse had the title "Chancellor's Husband", but the construction remains.)
The point of all of this, was to build mixed-sex pairs, with overlapping skillsets, with one generalist and one specialist. This was a solid construction, for millions of years. Turning the tasks of the generalist into a series of professions, in order to financialize and tax the output, undermined the core concept of marriage by eroding its value-added to the participants. That is why marriage is now often seen exclusively as a romantic, long-term-fling, rather than the practical and efficient basis of any sustainable family and economic system.
## Marriage is about the economy, stupid
That is why _marriage equality_ became such a hot topic, in the 90s. If marriage is just about hanging about in the house with someone you find attractive (i.e. "roommates with benefits"), rather than the basic building block of society, then why shouldn't everyone doing that be considered married? Then everyone could have the same status, as married people did. This was a logical argument that won because society had completely abandoned the counterargument: **Marriage isn't that.**
Marriage was a specific construct to serve a specific purpose with maximum efficiency and efficacy. Society honored it because everyone benefitted from people engaging in it, even if they themselves did not. Society didn't honor marriage because it was good for the people in it; they honored it because it was good _for everyone else_.
Because, within marriage, there is room for a Jill-of-All-Trades, and the people outside of the marriage don't have to pay for her labour or subsidize her retirement, at the same time that they profit indirectly from it.
But, the generalist wife is not the star of the entire world, she's the star of one particular man's world, and for many women, that world was simply too small. They needed a bigger stage to perform on.
Even being _The President's Wife_ isn't title enough, for some, when they hungered to hold _The President_ title, directly.
)
The consequent and purposeful destruction of the marital institution -- and the denegration of generalism, that necessarily went along with it -- is, I am convinced, the reason that we can't have nice things. And it's the reason why women gaining power hasn't lead to their increased happiness or more-stable and fruitful families.
In the end, a specialist title isn't enough, for most of us. What we want most, is to be loved and honored and cherished for what we are. And we are generalists.
And that is why I chose to stay home and bake cookies. In this little house, in our home economy, I am the best cookie baker because I am a good-enough cookie baker. I only have to be good-enough.
Having read a fair few sagas from medieval Iceland and Norway, among other historical texts, it occurs to me that the role of wife used to have a lot more respect to it, because the home itself was recognizeable as a much more important economic unit. It wasn't just a place where a man and woman lived with their 2.1 children and a dog and a cat (and the kids' goldfish), but rather, a place where many others toiled to eek out sustenance from the ground, the livestock, the hearth, and the furnace. Being assigned to managing domestic duties wasn't a demotion to women of this era. At least in Scandinavia -- things do seem slightly more skewed in other regions, though none seem quite as bleak as the early-mid 20th century. Strangely enough, it almost seems that a major driver of inequality can be realized in the abolition of slavery -- though perhaps it's better to remember that this arrangement also came to an end with the advent of industrialization. The home went from being a powerhouse of the economy to little more than a dormitory, and the family unit little more than an old time hobby men had when they weren't busy out drinking, or carrying on with their corporate office life. And for a time, women were largely resigned to simply do as they said, because their power had been taken by the machines, and there had been no place made for them, en masse anyway, in this new world. We've of course had a pushback to that particularly problematic situation as women asserted that they would not simply obey and be servile -- though I do always wonder how much of this was truly liberation, and how much of it was the fiat world forcing women into the workplace as families could no longer subsist on a single income, and we may as well frame it as liberatory rather than the impoverishment it in many cases was. And of course, all the while, as women took on the same roles men already had, often at a disadvantage, they were still expected to carry out the domestic duties of homemaking and child rearing, which, even in the more standalone smaller home environment, are not trivial tasks -- particularly as the various other personnel that went along with the larger homes of old are long gone, and public schooling, the television, and the iPad are sorry replacements that often bring at least as much hindrance as they bring help.
I feel somewhat compelled to tidily draw conclusions about solutions for this situation, but at the same time, it feels like it'd be forced (not to mention, likely a bit patronizing). There is perhaps value in illuminating the situation, at least as I see it, so as to at least provide some recognition of the problem. If nothing else, though, it does seem like prosperity, and the means to make decisions about how to address the situation and carry out those plans, would be helpful, even if we certainly can't just throw sound money at the situation and consider it solved.