1AjUnN…Kqin

I mean, some people buy champagne just to shake and waste (in presence of others mind you). Owning a costly NFT could be part of similar puzzle, I don't know.

Is the drive to collect art part of an evolutionary dynamic (costly signal)?

Wondering if the NFT craze to some degree has do with costly signalling ("I can afford the original") which may justify spending money on "nothing"...

You all read sex into this sentence, admit it you sleezebags.

None of your business.

Ok, think I found it. 16$, oof.

Is the Bitcoin ABC chain forking of BCH still alive? Does it have a price?

In the wars, 18 and 19 year olds died en masse in needless battles, robbed of long and happy lives. Today, 70 year olds die of the flu, just like any other year. This propaganda is despicable.

https://twitter.com/skarlamangla/status/1370179090523639808?s=19

The $1.9T "anti-poverty" bill is a poverty bill. You confiscate, we shrug.

People are running with masks, despite it not being mandated. And you wonder how on earth people historically so easily went along with whatever murderous, totalitarian edict that was hailed as necessary back then.

The latest company loading up on BTC thinks "the concept of money is in essence somehow unknowable".

These people are going to get rekt.

I twetched about Menger and lost followers. So here is another of his insights for you. Property stems from scarcity, and the protection of property is the best course of action in a world that can't fulfill all your wants and dreams.

Menger on the ridiculous notion of a Labor Theory of Value:

Sue me

Deryk is right, there seems to be no reason to have smaller blocks than when the cost to store and validate data forces all the nodes that can't afford to transact on-chain to give up and go off-line. It's a lower bound for minimum viable block size.

One weak line of reasoning in Phil Wilson's story relates to central planning. He had the foresight of seeing the evils of central planning through managed inflation, yet he himself goes full central planner in trying to "boil the oceans" for space travel.

Not in old assembly forum posts either.

According to Phil, 42M was chosen by him due to him liking Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. He then constructed issuance schedule so that with an initial block reward of 100 coins, max supply would end up being 42M. The others tweaked it to 50 coins.

I know it's a longshot, but I still think it's interesting Phil Wilson's only fanfiction revolves around the mining of very scarce metals. Also confirms his interest in sci-fi, which would make Bitcoin's 21M to be non-arbitrary (related to the number 42)

Regions in Spain with a lot of tourism have had way less severe restrictions imposed, than neighboring regions. This lends some support to the idea that scaling a network decreases the likelihood of harsh laws issued against it, all else equal.

If the company itself has engaged in censorship, lawsuits etc, I wouldn't support that obviously, but I don't know if that's been relegated to certain individuals or not. What I do remember is I ran a BU node back in the days because I was pissed.

Couple of things here imo: It's weird so few maxis want multiple implementations (I do, for decentralization). Voskuil does as well. Also, I can be quite neutral about the company yet still think it despicable so few there spoke up against censorship.

I find it interesting that Scronty uses space after parentheses ( like this ), in his Bitcoin story blog post, but not so on his archived webpage.

Friendly suggestion not to fall for charity scams on Twetch. They spend hours thinking how to best deceive you, while you spend a couple of emotional seconds judging their pitch.

I'm just trying to figure out how businesses can afford bearing costs of hundreds of full nodes having to store their data, rather than letting three companies provide that service. Cost of storage/byte is not subjective.

Why not have legal contracts with centralized services saying you own the data? And again, you get the redundancy, as three diffrrent companies are not to be hacked or shut down simultaneously.

What's the rationale of storing data on BSV? Surely cheaper to store on three different centralized services and still have redundancy?