I saw a few things that peaked my interest in the codebase and I wondered if it was worth pursuing further. Are you able to disclose the value and severity of the previous payout?

Does stacker news have a bug bounty program?

So far seems like a slight improvement over GPT-3. Nothing groundbreaking though.

Anyone know how to pass it an image via the ChatGPT interface?

Is the SEC going to seize my cowboy hat?

Because I don't believe in state sponsored violence (bombs, borders, etc) and I don't want responsibility for its many horrors.

Because I don't like having my own human labor value stolen from me via monetary debasement.

Because I don't trust fiat currency or banks.

Yea something like that. Just seems like we have a solid community of bitcoiners here so it would make sense to move toward a closed loop economy by offering a way to get paid in bitcoin (jobs), and a way to spend in bitcoin (services).

Fear could do it.

#1 is a great idea - you could have it integrate with other social media platforms too and auto generate profiles using NLP, ie, linkedin, etc.

(Above written by ChatGPT)

In the future, a DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) will run a distributed NLP (Natural Language Processing) model that provides services to create a thriving society. The DAO will be entirely opt-in, and members will pay a service fee to the network to access protection, healthcare, and other beneficial services. The governance of the DAO will be decided by the NLP model influenced by the free market actions of its members.

The NLP model will use this mechanism of free market decision making internally by offering multiple competing services, which members can vote on through funding or staking. This will allow the DAO to constantly hone in on the optimal suite of services. Members will have a say in the decision-making process, and the DAO will allocate resources and services based on the results of the NLP model's data analysis.

The free-market approach will address the potential issue of governance, as members will have the power to create and participate in the DAO's decision-making process. If the DAO does not act in their best interest, they can fork the DAO and subscribe to a new model that better suits their needs. The NLP model's use of competing services will ensure that the DAO is always striving to provide the best services to its members.

The NLP model's potential for error will also be addressed through the use of competing services and DAOs. If a particular service is consistently found to be ineffective, the NLP model will adjust its decision-making to allocate resources elsewhere, resulting in a more efficient and effective system.

Overall, the DAO will offer a free-market alternative to traditional governments, providing services to create a thriving society through a decentralized and opt-in system. The governance and decision-making process will be entirely in the hands of its members, ensuring that the DAO operates in their best interest. The NLP model's use of competing services will result in a constantly evolving and improving system, providing optimal services to its members.

In a previous life I was a specialized developer with a career built over many years on a particular software package. The knowledge base inside my head was considerable, and valuable.

Then, the package developers decided to change direction and rewrite from the ground up using an entirely different underlying framework. Most APIs were changed or replaced with little or no backwards compatibility. The codebase went from functional to OOP. The templating system was replaced entirely.

Almost overnight basically the entirety of the specialized knowledge I had spent years accumulating was nullified. Rendered obsolete. It was fairly hard to come to terms with.

I suspect that many, many more people are about to encounter a similar feeling.

Some of them will say fuck it, and become a plumber instead. They will flood the physical labor market and that $300 job will become $30.

Others will attempt to remain in their cognitive field, now competing in an arena with entirely different rules, and different players. Sure, their productivity might increase 10x, but the AI will outcompete them 1000x. The $30,000 iPhone app will become $30, generated by a simple prompt to an NLP.

The vast majority of people in both segments will fall into poverty.

Maybe the Luddites were on to something?

To understand Bitcoin you must first understand central banking.

I have found that a good way to approach the topic is to imagine a hypothetical game of monopoly where behind the scene you are printing more monopoly money for yourself and using it to buy up all of the properties on the board. In this scenario even a child can see that the game is rigged yet for whatever reason many people have a hard time applying this logic to the actual economy which works the exact same way by design. People can see that the houses are getting more expensive but they do not understand the mechanism behind it, or why huge investment funds can buy up so many houses when they cannot afford even a single one. They don't understand that those nearest the printer win the game and that the only solution is not to play.

Bitcoin creates a new game where everyone is equal and you can compete on even footing. It eliminates the dishonest player from the board.

The reason many people insist that Bitcoin should have a single implementation is that Core has been captured (clear to anyone who witnessed the block size wars), and multiple competing node implementations would challenge their current total control over the network. As it stands the only time the network has seen a change of primary developers was when the current core cabal essentially performed a hostile takeover of the core repo, kicking out the original developers through the use of incredibly impressive social engineering and PR. Unfortunately the tactic was successful and now many apparently free-thinking humans believe that only core can lead the project and the possibility of the free market choosing which software to use is blasphemy.

I'm certainly not happy with how government / central bank monetary policy works, that's for sure. I'm grateful that Bitcoin gave me a way to opt out of that system at least.

Jobs give you a built in sense of purpose even if you don't really like the particular job. I have for-fun projects now but it's too easy to get distracted and I inevitably end up jumping around from thing to thing somewhat aimless with no real purpose. It's not all bad, just think it was maybe better before. Wage slavery only seems terrible when you don't have a clear understanding of the alternative. Grass is always greener, etc.

I'm happy but I think I was happier when I was working

This was quite a while ago and I'm going off memory, but I found this - https://bugs.gentoo.org/531634

*edit - also https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pfgjg/exposed_lukejr_plans_on_forcing_blacklists_on_all/

He did so with the intention of blacklisting certain "spammers" (his words) which included SatoshiDICE which at the time was extremely popular. Very slippery slope imo.

Luke Dashjr did exactly this with Gentoo, adding address blacklisting to bitcoind.

I agree with that. Inertia is maybe one of Bitcoins biggest strengths. Nevertheless, there is a subset of miners who will run virtually anything released by Core, with no care for its substance. I would love to see Core try to introduce an obvious but non fatal bug, just to see what percentage of the network would run it. It would be an interesting experiment to see just how much control they actually have over the network, and how many of the miners are actually paying attention.

Prominent Bitcoiners will proclaim that Bitcoin development is entirely decentralized, but then those same Bitcoiners will viciously attack any competing client thus ensuring that Bitcoin development remains centralized around a single github repo. It's a pretty huge flaw in the system imo. The community should do everything we can to support alternate clients.