pull down to refresh
I think we both said the same thing, but yours used the more precise technical language and i was trying to be more colloquial
That seems like a pretty disingenuous argument from Peter. Anyone can cherry pick timing for any investment and say it was good or bad.
@k00b can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's right.
What you're doing is that you're giving SN a string that gives them permission to give instructions to your node to send and receive zaps.
But because SN cares about security, the permission is not a blanket permission. It still requires you to send authorized instructions to SN. The key that enables that authorization is on your browser. But if you lose your first browser, but you still have the key, you can still just use a second browser to do that. First browser doesn't need to exist.
What does need to exist and be operational is the lightning node.
Totally. A phrase I like to use is just "what side of the hill are you on" when people are struggling to decide between two extremes. It's meant to show them that you don't need to go to the extreme, you just need to figure out what direction to start moving.
Ok, but who is asking for a bailout from treasury??
We must tar and feather that person, and chant shame
sigh
More bad press for Bitcoin.
I imagine they don't want people to try and help. In a kidnapping situation, that could be dangerous to have amateurs interfering.
What's weird to me is that kidnapping seems to be an extremely inefficient form of getting money. Makes me wonder if there's something more personal underneath it all.
So cool.
Anyone can do anything these days. The only thing stopping you from accomplishing your goals is yourself.
It only needs to be valued by one person to develop an exchange rate.
Personally, I think the Regression Theorem (applied to money) is a pretty weak theory.
Yet the rational economic theory on which is based, and the theorem itself, explicitly rejects empiricism.
This seems to be a major weakness of the Austrians. They are so against empiricism that they reject a lot of useful methods of gaining knowledge. IMO, there shouldn't be such a conflict between empiricism and deductive reasoning
The idea is a reasonable empirical theory on the evolution of the concept of money, but invalid as a rational theorem to distinguish money from non-money
Again, a very frustrating dichotomy. It's totally rational how the value of Bitcoin arose from predictions regarding the future, or even how someone simply wanted some (for any reason) and was willing to trade some goods for it.
It seems to me like people think there are a lot of dichotomies in economics which don't actually exist that hard among practicing economists.
One is crossposts with both AI and lol divided by crossposts with AI. The other is divided by cross posts with lol
Oh, that's not a good sign