It is a social media platform intentionally created to enable a P2P V4V BTC denominated community.
Originally Stacker News (SN) custodyed sats on behalf of participants but the threat of government regulatory prosecution on the pretext of money transmitter forced a move away from the custody of sats by the platform to the platform enabling participants to send sats via their wallets.
To achieve this participants need to attach wallets to both send and receive sats. Where participants do not or cannot attach LN wallets transactions will often default to Cowboy Credits.
This change was a compromise forced by the threat of government prosecution. The difficulty of attaching both sending and receiving wallets is moderate- it takes some effort and newbie or non tech people may struggle with it, but most competent Bitcoiners can succeed in attaching wallets and thus enabling sats denominated P2P transactions.
But a number of Stackers have chosen not to attach wallets- in particular sending wallets which enable you to send sats into the SN community.
Very few have attached just a sending wallet- many have attach just a receiving wallet. Those who only attach a receiving wallet can receive sats from others but cannot send sats into the community. They may feel that as content providers they have no need or obligation to send sats into and within the SN community. I disagree.
Where these receive but not send (horse but no gun) Stackers proclaim to be Bitcoiners but refuse to enable a sending wallet they are demonstrably hypocrits. They claim they want to build and grow the BTC LN MoE network but they cannot be bothered contributing toward that growth by attaching a sending wallet and demonstrating they are not just talking, but are also walking and supporting a sats denominated platform.
If we do not use the LN wherever and whenever we can it will not grow and develop.
Some claim it is too hard to attach wallets- its too hard on their self custody nodes or wallets- this just highlights how much work the LN still needs before it is capable of anything approaching 100% reliable MoE capability.
But the best way to grow and strengthen the LN is it use it – despite its remaining flaws and glitches. When wallets are supported by people using them they receives transaction fees and can develop liquidity and systems further. When LN wallets are not used the LN decays- it does not have the usage and fees income to grow.
So when self proclaimed advocates for BTC and LN refuse to attach wallets (especially sending wallets) I see hypocrit.
I will continue to see hypocrit until and unless someone can explain why I should not.
Calling me a Nazi, trolling and making fun of me crudely seeking to avoid the issues I raise will not stop me from asking why are you claiming to be a Bitcoiner but refusing to attach wallets and use the LN here where we can help it grow. Now some are deliberately concealing their wallet status, as if this is about a right to privacy.
Concealing your wallet status means nobody else can verify whether or not you are serious about using BTC LN, or whether you are just an all talk no walk hypocrit.
Do not trust- verify.
What about this fundamental principle do they not understand?
And then they talk about 'content' being more important than whether or not you have attached wallets - in this context the intentional lack of attached wallets undermines your credibility as your actions do not match your words. Your submitted content may be great, but you as someone claiming to be a serious Bitcoiner are undermining your credibility and the credibility of your content by being a hypocrit.
Your content, is tainted by your verifiable hypocrisy.
SNs needs both good content providers and those who pay for that content if it is succeed. I am more in the latter group than the former but both are required overall or the model does not work.
So as a net contributor of sats and thus a net consumer of content I object where content providers refuse to engage in the P2P V4V ethos by refusing to attach both sending and receiving wallets and I will both withhold my contribution of sats and sometimes downvote in response.
V4V needs to work reciprocally or it will not work at all.
The content providers need net sats contributors/content consumers who send sats into the platform, or the entire platform fails.
Yes its not compulsory. Using Bitcoin should never be compelled upon anyone.
But if you want to verify you are serious about using and supporting the growth of LN then showing a horse and gun does that.
I don't have a problem if someone cant be bothered doing so, but if that someone then spouts grandiose narratives about how Bitcoin is so important, but have not bothered to attach wallets, then I might quite justifiably call them out as a blatant hypocrit.
Agree that BTC can obviously be useful in grid balancing and improving the viability of renewable electricity generation by providing a stable floor price for renewable generation.
Just a shame that many Bitcoiners do not seem to take climate change seriously...as it is a real and major problem facing us.
So mining helps in solving the pollution problem from power generation.
What does it mean to you to "take climate change seriously"?
To me, it means having dinners with your buddies while you congratulate each other for "taking climate change seriously" and doing this whole posturing thing for the end purpose of accumulating more power at the expense of individual liberty.
I do take the pollution problem seriously. It is in my interest to breathe clean air, and I know that if there is too much pollution our survival is in danger. But, wtf does "climate change" even mean? Stop hijacking language for your benefit.
What does it mean to you to "take climate change seriously"?
To agree that it is a serious problem that already affects the climate and environment and all living within it. Only once that is acknowledged can you agree on and take the collective action required to start reducing GHG emissions.
What is "climate change"?
Climate change in this context means human activity such as C02 and methane gas emissions causing measurable change in the composition of the atmosphere which in turn causing warming of the planet and multiple subsequent consequences. More extreme weather events such as flooding, tornadoes, heat waves, droughts etc.
I see the same pattern as with the covid "pandemic": "If absolutely everybody without exception is not on board with our agenda, we are all in danger."
With Covid some people were a lot more vulnerable than others and the exact nature of the virus was a moving target constantly changing - so some medical authorities and governments took an overly cautious approach.
Millions did die. Millions were also saved via vaccines and lock downs.
With climate change there are similarities for sure. It is very hard to know the exact extent and nature of the risk climate change poses because the climate is such a complex interactive mechanism, but imo a cautious approach is justified because otherwise you might not know until it is too late...if it is not already.
The scientists talk about tipping points where arctic tundra 'permafrost' starts melting (it already is in places) and methane is releases in huge quantities triggering a spiraling vortex of GHG emissions beyond the control of anyone.
Do you think we have the right to endanger to future viability of the climate for human life and habitation based on short term economic imperative, or are we responsible to some extent to leave the planet in as reasonable condition as we can for future generations?
What was done in relation to covid, including the release of the virus itself, the lockdowns, curfews, movement restrictions, the pcr tests, the masks, the injections and everything else was a series of crimes against humanity. It affected me personally greatly and so did it affect many other people, and so far there has been no acknowledgement of the damage and no reparations. They knew perfectly what they were doing and yet they did it because they could; they weren't just being cautious. It's like claiming that Hitler was just trying to protect and help the German people, oh, the poor guy.
The current attacks on individual liberty are horrible. Without individuals, there cannot be family nor society.
I do not accept judgement from those in power on how I am doing my part in leaving the world (planet and society) in a reasonable condition for future generations, in part because I believe those doing the judging are doing a very poor job themselves. I don't claim to be perfect, but I am the underdog, and they are the ones in power.
I don't know what the "short term economic imperative" means, but it looks like the people in power need to keep destroying the planet and the society to stay in power, while they put on the sheep costume and pretend they "care" about the planet. Bitcoin will shift that in due course, but it requires a huge shift in people. It's happening very slowly, but it's happening.
What is Stacker News?
It is a social media platform intentionally created to enable a P2P V4V BTC denominated community.
Originally Stacker News (SN) custodyed sats on behalf of participants but the threat of government regulatory prosecution on the pretext of money transmitter forced a move away from the custody of sats by the platform to the platform enabling participants to send sats via their wallets.
To achieve this participants need to attach wallets to both send and receive sats.
Where participants do not or cannot attach LN wallets transactions will often default to Cowboy Credits.
This change was a compromise forced by the threat of government prosecution.
The difficulty of attaching both sending and receiving wallets is moderate- it takes some effort and newbie or non tech people may struggle with it, but most competent Bitcoiners can succeed in attaching wallets and thus enabling sats denominated P2P transactions.
But a number of Stackers have chosen not to attach wallets- in particular sending wallets which enable you to send sats into the SN community.
Very few have attached just a sending wallet- many have attach just a receiving wallet.
Those who only attach a receiving wallet can receive sats from others but cannot send sats into the community. They may feel that as content providers they have no need or obligation to send sats into and within the SN community. I disagree.
Where these receive but not send (horse but no gun) Stackers proclaim to be Bitcoiners but refuse to enable a sending wallet they are demonstrably hypocrits. They claim they want to build and grow the BTC LN MoE network but they cannot be bothered contributing toward that growth by attaching a sending wallet and demonstrating they are not just talking, but are also walking and supporting a sats denominated platform.
If we do not use the LN wherever and whenever we can it will not grow and develop.
Some claim it is too hard to attach wallets- its too hard on their self custody nodes or wallets- this just highlights how much work the LN still needs before it is capable of anything approaching 100% reliable MoE capability.
But the best way to grow and strengthen the LN is it use it – despite its remaining flaws and glitches.
When wallets are supported by people using them they receives transaction fees and can develop liquidity and systems further.
When LN wallets are not used the LN decays- it does not have the usage and fees income to grow.
So when self proclaimed advocates for BTC and LN refuse to attach wallets (especially sending wallets) I see hypocrit.
I will continue to see hypocrit until and unless someone can explain why I should not.
Calling me a Nazi, trolling and making fun of me crudely seeking to avoid the issues I raise will not stop me from asking why are you claiming to be a Bitcoiner but refusing to attach wallets and use the LN here where we can help it grow.
Now some are deliberately concealing their wallet status, as if this is about a right to privacy.
Concealing your wallet status means nobody else can verify whether or not you are serious about using BTC LN, or whether you are just an all talk no walk hypocrit.
Do not trust- verify.
What about this fundamental principle do they not understand?
And then they talk about 'content' being more important than whether or not you have attached wallets - in this context the intentional lack of attached wallets undermines your credibility as your actions do not match your words.
Your submitted content may be great, but you as someone claiming to be a serious Bitcoiner are undermining your credibility and the credibility of your content by being a hypocrit.
Your content, is tainted by your verifiable hypocrisy.
SNs needs both good content providers and those who pay for that content if it is succeed.
I am more in the latter group than the former but both are required overall or the model does not work.
So as a net contributor of sats and thus a net consumer of content I object where content providers refuse to engage in the P2P V4V ethos by refusing to attach both sending and receiving wallets and I will both withhold my contribution of sats and sometimes downvote in response.
V4V needs to work reciprocally or it will not work at all.
The content providers need net sats contributors/content consumers who send sats into the platform, or the entire platform fails.
Never attached a wallet... and yet I'm still here shrug
Yes its not compulsory.
Using Bitcoin should never be compelled upon anyone.
But if you want to verify you are serious about using and supporting the growth of LN then showing a horse and gun does that.
I don't have a problem if someone cant be bothered doing so, but if that someone then spouts grandiose narratives about how Bitcoin is so important, but have not bothered to attach wallets, then I might quite justifiably call them out as a blatant hypocrit.
@DarthCoin for example.
Just me... but personally I pay by QR code.
In 25 years Bitcoin has ~ 1 billion daily users.
Agree that BTC can obviously be useful in grid balancing and improving the viability of renewable electricity generation by providing a stable floor price for renewable generation.
Just a shame that many Bitcoiners do not seem to take climate change seriously...as it is a real and major problem facing us.
So mining helps in solving the pollution problem from power generation.
What does it mean to you to "take climate change seriously"?
To me, it means having dinners with your buddies while you congratulate each other for "taking climate change seriously" and doing this whole posturing thing for the end purpose of accumulating more power at the expense of individual liberty.
I do take the pollution problem seriously. It is in my interest to breathe clean air, and I know that if there is too much pollution our survival is in danger. But, wtf does "climate change" even mean? Stop hijacking language for your benefit.
You do not perhaps understand the economic concept of externalities?
I do, or so I think. But you don't get to always determine the externalities (whether CO2 is actually an externality).
We know that the ultimate power lays in shaping the narrative.
Yes, for now your ilk seems to be having the upper hand in this debate, but that will change.
You don't answer the questions that matter:
What does it mean to you to "take climate change seriously"?
To agree that it is a serious problem that already affects the climate and environment and all living within it.
Only once that is acknowledged can you agree on and take the collective action required to start reducing GHG emissions.
What is "climate change"?
Climate change in this context means human activity such as C02 and methane gas emissions causing measurable change in the composition of the atmosphere which in turn causing warming of the planet and multiple subsequent consequences.
More extreme weather events such as flooding, tornadoes, heat waves, droughts etc.
Thank you.
I see the same pattern as with the covid "pandemic":
"If absolutely everybody without exception is not on board with our agenda, we are all in danger."
With Covid some people were a lot more vulnerable than others and the exact nature of the virus was a moving target constantly changing - so some medical authorities and governments took an overly cautious approach.
Millions did die.
Millions were also saved via vaccines and lock downs.
With climate change there are similarities for sure.
It is very hard to know the exact extent and nature of the risk climate change poses because the climate is such a complex interactive mechanism, but imo a cautious approach is justified because otherwise you might not know until it is too late...if it is not already.
The scientists talk about tipping points where arctic tundra 'permafrost' starts melting (it already is in places) and methane is releases in huge quantities triggering a spiraling vortex of GHG emissions beyond the control of anyone.
Do you think we have the right to endanger to future viability of the climate for human life and habitation based on short term economic imperative, or are we responsible to some extent to leave the planet in as reasonable condition as we can for future generations?
What was done in relation to covid, including the release of the virus itself, the lockdowns, curfews, movement restrictions, the pcr tests, the masks, the injections and everything else was a series of crimes against humanity. It affected me personally greatly and so did it affect many other people, and so far there has been no acknowledgement of the damage and no reparations. They knew perfectly what they were doing and yet they did it because they could; they weren't just being cautious. It's like claiming that Hitler was just trying to protect and help the German people, oh, the poor guy.
The current attacks on individual liberty are horrible. Without individuals, there cannot be family nor society.
I do not accept judgement from those in power on how I am doing my part in leaving the world (planet and society) in a reasonable condition for future generations, in part because I believe those doing the judging are doing a very poor job themselves. I don't claim to be perfect, but I am the underdog, and they are the ones in power.
I don't know what the "short term economic imperative" means, but it looks like the people in power need to keep destroying the planet and the society to stay in power, while they put on the sheep costume and pretend they "care" about the planet. Bitcoin will shift that in due course, but it requires a huge shift in people. It's happening very slowly, but it's happening.
~bitcoin_Mining
Not secret anymore. Thanks a lot, Joe. 😡