pull down to refresh
Unrelated question: these 512 sats, where do they go? They don't change the balance I see in the header. Just curious.
A friend gave me this link: https://t.me/hiveblockchain
You could ask in there.
Steemit was a pioneer, I'm shocked that Stackers don't know about it.
Yes, it was a shit coin, but it couldn't have been done on Bitcoin at the time, and it did find PMF until government broke down. It was the only shitcoin at the time whose value didn't track Bitcoin's, it found a completely new audience and onboarded them to crypto, unlikely basically all of the new people at the time who came through Bitcoin. In that regard it was more successful than SN, which has never found PMF outside Bitcoiners.
The purists moved to a fork called Hive. They will meet in places like Kuala Lumpur.
Perfect illustration of the folly of libertarianism and market fundamentalism.
Most cooperation is not rooted in trade. Trying to price everything in a singular unit of account is the market equivalent of the Soviet Union trying to centrally manage the price everything. A person cannot price everything that they attend to any more than a bureaucracy can price every good or service in the economy. I'm both cases there are computational limits.
fundamentally different
I agree that Nakamoto Consensus is special, but only because it abstracts the process that life has been engaged in since there emerged selection mechanisms.
And I agree that all other forms of proof of work are contingent on their environment and context, where as Nakamoto Consensus not, being mathematical and computational.
It's the difference of analogue and digital, or Plato's Nous vs Soma.
But we've been aiming towards and purifying our consensus mechanisms for millennia. The Rei Stones of Yap, the megaliths, sport, democracy, the education system, these are all proof of work systems with a clear and unreliable trend towards attraction, from the physical to the digital.
Part of human enslavement dynamics is propagating garbled nonsense to increase noise and decrease signal.
You cannot foster trust without repeat interactions. It's impossible to get a foot on that ladder without first having a shared PoW system that two or more parties can orient their attention. Trust is derivative of PoW.
It's not a dilution. Bitcoins proof of work is an abstraction of what all consensus is built on. If there are not other forms of proof of work then bitcoin comes from nothing, and nothing comes from nothing. That's magical thinking.
Proof of work is used in all selection games, anywhere that it needs to be determined whose opinion matters more, or how to divide up resources, or settle conflicts.
It's not qualitatively different, because it all comes back to a sacrifice of energy, whether it be peacock feathers or spending energy finding a sufficiently small number amongst large numbers. The difference is the degree to which systems fulfill the criteria of proof of work:
- difficulty
- verifiability
- universality
- sovereignty
Yes, I think so. Above the Dunbar number. As neighbouring tribes interbreed they carry cultural references and converge on the same monetary medium. I'm not sure that this started as trade though, it's more likely an extension of the internal patronage system employed to settle conflicts. If one tribe continuously defeats neighbouring tribes there comes a time when taking territory isn't practical, because the victor cannot defend it or harvest it's resources. It's better to take a commodity that can be stored, like cows or salt or gold.
Tribes that are subject to the violence of some local thug, who keeps taking our their fighting males, end up giving a ransom. This ransom needs to be something that doesn't degrade before it can be used, and it also has to be portable. At a certain point it's recognised by the thug that the ransom need not be used at all, it's better to keep it as a social signal to other tribes ("I'm the daddy in this region, don't fuck with me").
That's the point where the utility value competes with the monetary value, and there is always a reason to accumulate this commodity because:
- it's evidence of excess wealth or power
- it can be given up as a sacrifice to preserve fighting strength or crops or something you need short term to survive.
Because it's always worth accumulating it solves the coincidence of wants, and that's the point you get trade and can really scale up cooperation.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for MMT. The local thug may choose between a subset of local commodities. Maybe it's boggy in their region and storage capabilities are different. Or maybe it's some legacy from before a migration that determines which commodity is preferable, or the preference of the thug he just defeated. But the monetary medium is always ultimately subject to physics. Is it hard to get, easy to verify, universal, and sovereign (SoV). And is it portable, divisible, fungible, durable (MoE).
This is probably why our species scaled up and defeated the Neanderthals. By orienting a much larger group of people towards the accumulation of the same subset of durable commodities we could efficiently avoid violence on first contact. It was not worth fighting until a group knows what they are going to gain in wealth, so I one tribe knows what the other has it's important to show up with some desirable good of their own to entice them into combat. Eventually the violence becomes ceremonial, what we know as sport, and the goods are traded directly.
Then the tribes agree on specific dates to settle disputes and disagreements, and they invent giant clocks, sundials, at the top of hills in the boundary points between tribes. These become henges, ceremonial burial mounds, temples, and eventually cathedrals, all oriented towards the sun to mark a specific gathering day when multi-polar inter-tribal competition and trade takes place.
Repeat interactions increases trust and you get a ratcheting effect towards peaceful cooperation. But if a bigger society comes in a destroys your temple, as the Romans did to the Jewish tribes, you lose your centre of gravity and consensus breaks down, and that's the point at which societies became oriented around books instead of temples.
Sats should always be used to purchase things that help you accumulate more sats. That can be a home, it can be a social life, it can be basic necessities, it can be a commercial investment. Beyond that, if all you can do is keep the sats that you have then do that and lean into the grind.
At a certain point in life you will not be able to accumulate sats nor keep the ones you have, and that is when you draw down.
If you draw down to pay for a holiday before you have a family then you're missing out.
Bear market rationalisations are just as irrelevant as the hopium.
Bottom line: everything stable in the world is built on proof of work. Bitcoin is the ideal, the most perfect proof of work system based upon the criteria:
- difficulty
- verifiability
- universality
- sovereignty
It will breeze past all of these short term sentiments because it's agnostic to the environment around it, like the media paradigm we live in, the tech stack we use for communications, the geopolitical landscape. Things change, tick tock next block.
If quantum is a threat bitcoin will adapt, painfully or seamlessly, and on the other side quantum will be behind us.
I was on the upper deck of a bus that was about to stop. As I got up I told my 2yo and 4yo to hold on, but my 2yo got up anyway and walked to the stairs in front of me while I collected our bulky bag from the seat.
Then the bus stopped, and my son went head first towards the stairs.
Hands full and unable to reach him, I stuck out a leg and caught him by the belly with my foot, which gave me enough time to grab the back of his shirt.
Averted a trip to the hospital.
I use AI to research things I care about, because I care about too many things to spend huge amounts of time on it. If you're paying for bleeding edge models they are more efficient at researching basically anything, given that you are steering them.
We are now habitually using it in cooking, gardening, personal finance, developing policy proposals for local political groups, many things.
It's kind of like online dating back in the days before tinder, when you had to pretend you didn't have a profile because it was considered something for desperate losers. Ironically online dating created way more desperate losers than were on it back then when it was uncool. Probably something similar will happen when the bubble pops and the economics make the current delivery models unsustainable, when OpenAI embraces the ad model and Anthropic gets acquired by Google and subsumed by it's ad services.
Like the internet itself this productivity window might be brief, supported by venture capital in order to overcome behavioural barriers only to sucker punch the consumer like social media.
I'm Speechlys!