pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @CruncherDefi 9h \ on: The power of being lazy. FiresidePhilosophy
Doesn't seem like a good time investment. Optimizing something by ~2% is almost certainly not worth the mental cost and lost time on the research.
You deciding to sell might make some people think the coin is worthless (maybe they know you're a legislator who knows that the coin is going to be made illegal soon) but the other side of you deciding to sell is someone else deciding to buy.
I just provided examples for that. There are HODLers who don't care and DCA every week. There are speculators who sway easily. This creates asymmetry.
Therefore, you can't assume your decision to sell will have any more effect on the market than your trading partner's decision to buy does.
You seem to assume that information asymmetry doesn't exist. It does. Markets exists because of information asymmetry. If everyone had perfect information there would be no need for markets - resource allocation problem would be solved.
Her reasoning seems to assume that asset preferences of market actors are static. If you assume that it checks out, sure. But it's not a good assumption. People preferences are dynamic and even can change overnight.
Some traders might have strong, not easily shake-able belief about asset like bitcoin.
But there are also speculators and uncertain people who didn't yet form strong beliefs. Their preferences might change after seeing big dump that exhausted order books. They follow the crowd. They can get scared. They can panic sell. As price falls down liquidations can put it even further as system unleverages causing more people to suddenly change preferences.
The reasoning doesn't seem to hold under the dynamically changing preference landscape.
Don't think about it as double taxing. Think of it as splitting tax in 2 components, in which one component scales linearly with resource usage.
Game theory is a harsh mistress.
Decentralized still worthless because nobody is going to use your resolver.
No. Every device and webbrowser are going to have built in resolver and everyone is going to use it. It is really that simple.
See what I did? Arbitrary unchecked claims are hardly arguments. We need to wait and see.
not a spam on some other unrelated chain
Bitcoin is REUSABLE proof of work. Here we are just finding more USES for the POW in bitcoin network.
The fact that monetary usecase is the first usecase is just a requirement for self-bootstrapping of the protocol. Once it is bootstrapped its POW is much more general concept that can be applied to other use-cases requiring decentralization.
allowing any malicious spammer ability to set names.
It's not arbitrary. Control over domains is distributed by using POW. Similarly physical control over territories in physical world is distributed also by POW (but in a form of tanks and missiles). It works in bitcoin. It works for physical territories. It also work for names.
I call this the "CocaCola" problem. Any DNS system that lets an arbitrary user register 'cocacola.namespace' is fundamentally untrustworthy, and will never be adopted.
Same logic can be applied to bitcoin and its POW. "Any monetary system where arbitrary user (miner) can decide what transactions are going through is fundamentaly untrustworthy and will never be adopted". And yet you don't seem to have a problem with the same thing in a bitcoin.
Its never going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen.
It is gonna happen and you being confidently wrong about it not gonna change anything.
I have a policy that I don't engage for more than 3 replies (as a strategy of not wasting my time too much). So from my side it's a EOT. Hope you got something useful out of it!
There is no such thing as decentralized DNS.
Exactly, that's why they are trying to create it xD
We have a better chance of decentralizing the money (Bitcoin) than decentralizing names on the internet.
Yeah, and if you have decentralized money, you can use it to power other decentralized projects like decentralized domains.
And who you pay TO for that domain using decentralized money? To every participant pro-rata - that is the decentralized way.
If Namecoin failed and ENS failed and Handshake Failed and DNSchain failed and AlephZero failed
And that proves what? You do realize that before bitcoin there were dozens of failed projects, right? That's how you make stuff work - by trying over and over improving each time.
Also IMHO this idea is way better than shitcoin solutions like Namecoin. It directly uses bitcoin and its POW without any shitcoinery on top.
I never said anything about selling identity. As I understand the use-case here is something like domain registration.
Currently DNS system is permissioned and controlled by a human organization.
This allows for permission-less domain registration. When every web-browsers can resolve such domains we are one step closer towards truly decentralized and permision-less internet.
I had similar reaction at first, but after reading docs I frame it as "Names should be neutral and not personal, so you buy it out from everyone".
Winning an auction by burning coins is like paying everyone in the ecosystem pro rata. Which seems sensible for things like domains/names.
Saw the hint before trying to solve all by myself :((
k = sqrt(7-sqrt(7+k)) k^2 = 7-sqrt(7+k) sqrt(7+k) = 7-k^2 7+k = (7-k^2)^2 7+k = 49 - 14k^2 + k^4 k^4 - 14k^2 - k + 42 = 0
You can probably solve it analytically, but I quickly guessed k=2 looking at the numbers.
I just gave it as an visual example. Other app developers might not be constrained by legal reasons when it comes to transferring out.
Also as an app developer I might prefer using open source standard and protocol rather than 3rd party solution like Stripe (or some other closed integration).
In this vision each app would be a small bank for its users and for their purchases.
I always like to think that Ecash could be used by app developers to implement those various app-points or app-wallets thing. Think Starbucks app: you top up your wallet, you buy coffee later.
But that way instead of reinventing the wheel each time apps could use the common sound money protocol instead. Imagine the interoperability!
Slurp. That is some delicious russian propaganda! Do like!
I could point out methodological holes in your 'post', but we both know that you are not interested and would not care.
So you're saying that people need a "protector" and to delegate responsibility to him/her?
He never said that.
Having rules does not imply you have a 'protector'. You might be protector yourself. Or your community might enforce rules collectively. Or code/machines might enforce rules.
Communities were figuring out rules since all of humanity and it is okay.
Hashrate follows the price. If price goes up, more miners are spun up because profit margins get better.
The way I understand it is that it builds on the idea of using bitcoin paywalls as a DDOS deterrent.
For example, if you require 1000 sats for trying to open an SSH connection to your machine you effectively limit capabilities of unwanted people connecting to you.
And if you think what kind of 'resource' makes sense for such use-case, bitcoin is the one.
It's neutral (for example if you would use USD for paywalling, US could attack you as many times as they want, because they can mint new units).
It's physics-bound, so there is upper bound of how many trials they can use (USD has no upper bound).
Think about 'waiting in a line to a doctor'. Can the doctor be DDOSed? Not really, his waiting room won't accommodate 1000000 people - there is not enough 'physical space' resource to fit that many people.
Because bitcoin is physics bound as well you can replicate this kind of limitations in the cyberspace in some sorts.
Pick a switch A. Continually turn it off and on for a really long time (we want the light bulb to burn out).
Turn on switch B.
Switch C is turned off.
You go into other room.
Burned bulb was controlled by A, lit one by B, non-burned unlit by C.
Autistic, genuinely wants to progress humanity but with poor self-error correcting mechanisms. Also too much ego driven - he could use some humility here and there.
Have you considered that having a backup planet might be a good thing? It takes one unfortunate cosmic or geologic event to wipe us or significantly set us back.
Humanity must hedge those risks and going multi-planetary is the only way forward.
What about those "I confirm I am not from US/UK, as SN service is not available to those jurisdiction" modals? It seems this is the way many projects are going for.
When two things compete in the same category ("store of value"), they are either equal, or one is worse.
Nope. With enough experience you see that usually there aren't better/worse things - only trade-offs. Things are not one-dimensional as you suggest.
If they exist, blockchains and lightning channels are a worse place to do that than other systems like sql databases
What about people that are blocked from banking system? Uncensorability is the main feature of bitcoin blockchain.
They do not need to create these fiat-denominated obligations, and once entered, they usually have escape clauses
Citation needed. Of course most people have fiat-denominated obligations and saying they don't, won't change the factual reality.