i strongly agree with the sentiment that everyone should learn a lot from dark web marketplaces

Supporting LN payments is a gimmick to most companies atm, just look at bitrefill report.

for most its a marketing stunt or founder (or someone with decision making power) motivation. amount of people who actually spend bitcoin on daily basis (outside of shitposting here or zapping on nostr) is trivially small so the decision to do it must be fueled from either hoping to get free publicity or attract more customers with it.

good example will be to see how many big chains keep bitcoin payments in el salvador now that they are not forced to. it will probably be a good proxy for this in the future

existence as a slave of a nation state.

now think how much of this is actually caused by the fact that the government decides what you can do and how you can do it. let me give you a hint - all of it

shitposting on SN is one of them

it also just gave a country with very abusive civil forfeiture laws a great reason to seize more bitcoin.

“Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome”

"This means it will not cost taxpayers a dime" - it also never belonged to the government

"criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings" - government has no rights to any of this

ppl are celebrating this as a win, in my book is just another case of government stealing everything it can from the people

Not often enough

There never was. No government is good but some are particularly criminal. Like the one responsible for Ukraine - US of fucking A

I find this article uninformed and fairly misguided.

first of all there is no such thing as bitcoin jobs. Half of the article is dancing around the fact that most "bitcoin" companies are startups. some might have some of their treasury in bitcoin. Some offer payment in bitcoin. All of the have the same problems as every startup under the sun. And most have more problems due to the cyclicality of bitcoin.

The only difference (potentially, its far from the only industry where people want to work in it due to being passionate about something) is that a lot of people in this industry and either already independently rich and have companies because they want to do something in the space since they are bitcoiners or people who take significant pay cuts because they want to work on something they believe in vs random corporate job.

Also the insistence of "it needs to be a real job" is laughable. If anything the thing that could really enable cool "bitcoin" jobs is novel ways people could cooperate and coordinate without the need of permission of the state. the need of some bureaucrat telling you how a commercial transaction between two willing parties must look and what a company looks like. It is basically saying "i'm disappointed because I cannot get paid market rates in bitcoin while having all the social security and other nanny state benefits and promised income until I retire".

This article should've been one paragraph at best if at all exist.

I'm surprised you havent come across it before, its hard to have a company in this space and not be somewhat affected by it

https://archive.is/vQrhd for the nonpaywalled version

how do you define reasonable scarcity? We don't live in reasonable scarcity, we lived in imposed scarcity because we are enslaved by the governments and interests that those enable.

we could reasonably produce A FUCKTON more energy than we currently do, but we are trapped in our minds and way of thinking from 3 centuries ago.

If only we can free our minds and ourselves from the shackles put on by our "society" we have limitless opportunities and then scarcity looks a lot different than it does now.

generally the idea is that LSP commits to the fee structure at the time of the purchase (lets say i'll keep the fees at 100ppm for the duration of 1y). None of it is really enforcable so its more of a promise and reputation of the lsp to keep it.

In reality you want the LSP to be making money from your channel as that incentivizes it to keep it open forever. Of course how much and how is up to the market to figure out - maybe you prefer to pay a larger sum upfront for the opening and have zero outbound fees for the duration of the contract, or maybe you prefer to pay a fee every time you use the channel but have cheaper upfront payment (mostly to onchain fees otherwise the lsp is exposed to an attack vector)

if the channel is economically productive there is little incentive for the lsp to close it. if the channel is dormant then capital allocation is very poor if you don't close the channels after the duration for which you were paid for (1y in this case). Of course there is also the opportunity cost of closing the channel - will the onchain fees be higher than potential revenue from capital reallocation

another thing to consider is that users go away so you don't really want to keep the channels who are not doing any traffic since its also a high possibility that the user stopped using the wallet/lost keys/forgot about it. but this goes back to the efficiency of capital allocation from before.

I don't particularly care to explain the nuance of all the things you've just hand-waved away as your comment is very naive and simplistic.

point of my original comment was that bitcoiners for all their suppose believes in freedom and whatnot quickly slip into a very prescriptive mode of "i know best, you should do as i think". You keep going on with "everyone is free to do whatever they want" and "i know whats best for everyone" at the same time, so I'll stop wasting my time with this conversation now.

Savings is a use case. Its economically irrational to spend the hardest asset you own instead of shittier when possible.

I understand the sentiment but I think its also very contradictory to everyone being free to do as they please without people trying to bully them into spending their hard earned sats.