pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 2h \ on: Bitcoin future prospects: an LLM conversation bitcoin
You've inspired me to try conversing with them. I normally ask it to find something specific or solve a problem. I haven't used them like this much. I've heard great things about using them to talk about research as you're conducting it.
I don't like arguing generally and rarely find it appropriate, so when I disagree with something I read and want to vent in a low effort low responsibility way I write in here.
These are what people call "sub-tweets" on twitter.
Ownership, possession, and control are different things. They're very different things when you're talking about information.
Last time I tried to get
o1 to give me book recs it hallucinated some. It did a really excellent job here even if it echos a lot of the prompt as usual.The issue appears to be that we don't know it's in code blocks so we assume we might have to render it. Any non-example and paid-for image would've worked.
You might've gone too far with your propaganda when the people building things aren't allowed to question it and premise their work on it.
Oh copy-paste it here in a code block by wrapping the contents in three backticks.
This is what I get fromm the console 
You can't rely on people who benefit from your corruption, and their own related corruption, to report on your corruption. This is why every community that actually cares about ethics encourages prominent and repeated disclosures of conflicts.
We can lower our allowed expiration. I thought 5 minutes was a reasonable cutoff. I'll look into lowering it.
It means we're scaling if you think more people own bitcoin. Afaict we're mostly scaling in the wrong ways - paper/custodial bitcoin.
It also looks like a bunch of new miners came online suddenly or we had a stochastic abnormality: #872748
Having said that, please don't be surprised when some users are critical (super testnet being one of them?) about the new CCs instead of Sats.
It will get better. Our goal is to surprise no one. We've done a poor job of making it easy to avoid surprise. You sharing what you think helps us do that so I appreciate it.
I didn't know they didn't have the ability to receive those sats, no attached wallet for example.
We intend to allow you to see what kind of abilities people have. It's just non-trivial and we have a lot of energetic misconceptions to correct in our communication of this stuff.
'takes their cut'
We take no cut of zaps. SN ONLY makes money from territory founders paying for their territory. Otherwise all sats and CCs on SN end up in the rewards pool or as territory revenue.
No, that's money transmission. If we allow you to send CCs that others receive as sats (money), those CCs are custodial bitcoin (money) that we are just calling CCs temporarily. Reward sats and territory revenue is OUR money that we are choosing to pay to people of OUR choosing. Your scenario describes customers storing CCs with us that are treated like money (except in name). Money transmission: taking custody of money from person A, then sending the money to person B on person A's behalf.
For the sake of understanding the decisions made here: imagine I've had lots of legal counsel, 18 months to think about the decisions involved, I'm at least average intelligence, and I have every motive to have you all receive real sats.
No, that's money transmission. CCs exist because we can't custodially assist you transferring money to each other. If you want to send sats, attach a sending wallet and we will prioritize sending sats from it, and reserve your CCs when paying SN for stuff or when the receiver doesn't have a receiving wallet attached.
I'd need to see the post contents to help. Something makes us think there's a media upload with id=1.