pull down to refresh
You're preaching to the choir :)
You're correct to point out that a lot of the opposition might be oblivious to Moore's law in addiction to the chain size growing slower than rate of technological advancement in general, or they're just using it as a red herring.
But we want a low base-line for decentralization purposes. Nodes need to be geographically dispersed, with a large percentage in areas where microcomputers are the only thing available/affordable. But NGU should outpace the cost to run a node efficiently, so that will become less of an issue.
i've been using bitcoin all this time perfectly fine.
This. For a couple years they've said spam's effects will get worse and it's only gotten better in my experience. They are bothered that people don't use the chain the way that they would and want you to believe that bitcoin is somehow turning into ethereum, with some hand-wavy explanation. The chain has a capped growth rate that's much slower than the affordability/availability of mass storage. One is linear, the other is curved upward. Then they go with their scary illegal/immoral content FUD, as if it's not already on chain and preventing more of that will magically flip fiat brains and lead to a strategic bitcoin reserve and hyperbitcoinization.
Why are you broadcasting that you got trolled?
Oh, because there's no reputation hit to an anon. You're hoping someone else falls for it too.
Compared to when people started speculating that the US was going to implement a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve? You're right, it's not working for people who bought then based on that and hoped to have more command over economic goods at this moment. Was that you? Sorry if that happened to you. Not really.
It's just the Liz Warren / Jamie Diamond "only drug dealers and terrorists use it" scare tactic. You just have to counter that with "you've never heard of a government supporting those things before?"
And, "the US and its allies could eradicate WMDs if they were the only ones who possessed them, but they aren't, so therefore they can't give them up. And by that same logic, I will never give up my Bitcoin, which subverts all state violence and agents like Epstein"
history repeats itself.
When was there a global decentralized triple-entry ledger with fixed supply backed by a PoW algorithm that only requires the necessary circuits, electricity and internet connection to operate?
We'll evolve past fiat, just not linearly or predictably.
Merry Christmas y'all! I wish everyone here a very prosperous 2026, full of integrity, kindness and health.
One thing to note here is that umbrel's docker system will redeploy the unmodified umbrel-lnd.conf file, so to get around that, just run sudo docker restart lightning_lnd_1 to restart
Your dad called you idiot as a kid, didn't he? It's okay, made you tougher probably. Didn't have any positive effect on your powers of persuasion though.
You posted something objectionable and couldn't handle any objections. Don't be such a thin skinned bitch.
"you really just took a lot of den's words... The value of a satoshi fluctuates and adjusts to the relative demand for various goods across the economy."
He put in 48pt font size "A perfectly stable dollar, sometimes referred to as a fixed dollar, would be a dead dollar"
There's a conflation here between fluctuating prices of goods and services (emergent, ephemeral information determined by supply & demand) across the economy and the fluctuating exchange value of the currency (determined in part by the number of units in circulation).
What bitcoiners are referring to when they say they want a fixed yard stick is stable purchasing power, which ignores relative fluctuations in the economy, because as individuals, we can't always operate on supply & demand curves. We have ranked preferences (ordinal utility) and when something costs more, we'll buy the cheaper brand, not 5.375 oz. less laundry detergent. If all laundry detergent is more expensive, then it must shift the demand curve for other goods to the left, or we all walk around with smellier & dirtier clothes, but you catch my drift. If other goods have less demand, that lowers the clearing price, so net, there should be no effect on purchasing power.
Central bankers are always printing though, so those fresh dollars (not the ones "in" your bank account) just chase all goods, the detergent that got more expensive and the goods that would have had less demand aren't affected as much. Purchasing power declines as a result.
That is the bullshit fluctuating dollar we're here to bury.
That's what you quoted! And I quoted!
Rather than name-call, how about explain who stretches and compresses the dollar, and why individuals can't assess the exchange value of their preferred MoE.
Since 99% of prices of goods we see are measured in fiat, the only way to reliably measure the value of a sat (relative to other goods) is to use its CURRENT fiat exchange value, which is an effortless process using modern technology, so we used that fluctuating unit to agree on a price, but I fail to see what the previous or future value of the fluctuating unit that's helping us price in sats has to do with a the trade occurring at a SINGLE point in time.
Whatever the buyer and seller agree to. I would choose something not subject to the political whims of men. I thought virtually everybody on this platform would as well. I guess I was mistaken.
Yes. What does that have to do with the fixed nature of the medium of exchange that a buyer and seller use to facilitate their trade? Are they not able to gauge the value of the MoE and isolate it to the trade without it reflecting economic conditions?
Ad hominem. No, I understand completely: you like a fluctuating yardstick because you believe central bankers are better planners than individuals and should protect them from their own incompetence. This is the Fatal Conceit Hayek described back in the 80s. Have you heard of it?
I will never read anything that contains something so nonsensical as this: "Importantly, we don’t want money to be a fixed unit in the way a meter or kilogram is. We want money to fluctuate — to stretch and compress — because it is through those changes that money performs one of its most vital functions: signaling economic conditions. Transmitting relative price changes, in response to underlying conditions of supply and demand, is among money’s key purposes..."
That is prescriptive Keynesian drivel.
What about LOTS of phones? First I just thought about it being harder to track and hack someone who isolated activity & data across multiple phones, but what if instead of or on top of that practice you were able to constantly throw them away like in a Hollywood spy movie. They don't have to be disposable though. We just need some sort of tamper-resistant/tamper evident phone and then a service that ships you a random phone every week or month. Wipe and put the old phone in the return box - i[ncognito]Phone /spitball