She did campaign for Goldwater, though generally I think she despised politics as a method for social change.
Deryk Makgill Name and picture from twetch — not on-chain. The signature is; the profile is not.
1HsARx3TiY2iYHWoyu4XF88fZq9rih32gH
- 0 Following
- 0 Followers
- 488 Posts
Activity
I don’t know if that’s easy to calculate, which is also part of the problem. Does all of this node price fixing not seem a bit central-planny to you? How could they know the “ideal” fee or ideal node cost? Why not let miners do that?
I think Saifedean’s and Tuur‘s predictions are accurate: fees in the thousands of dollars and specialized services managing on-chain transactions.
I wonder what kind of interesting incentives this could create?
Dickensian cliffhangers on every page!
I just disagree it’s would be an economic majority. I think the situation you describe will be a relatively small number of economically active nodes and we are worse off than before.
But you can sort of do some rough math on current transaction volume and fees that would be required to replace the block rewards and it’s not very encouraging even at this very small level of demand. Tuur seems to think on-chain will be specialized.
How does it do that if transactions are too expensive for you to use the chain? A node isn’t useful if it’s not making economic decisions, no? Otherwise I could run 10k nodes on AWS.
As I understand it, the way to create the best incentives to run nodes is to enable a high volume of on-chain transactions. Even if running a node is more work and cost, there is a profit incentive for hundreds of thousands of businesses to do so.
Sure but I think that same logic would apply to big blocks. 100,000 businesses running nodes to accept on-chain transactions seems like a powerful check against bad behavior too.
Question: how do full nodes secure the network if nobody but a select few people can afford to actually transact on-chain? If you can’t use the chain, running a node doesn’t matter, no?
There’s an order of magnitude difference in degree though and gold was still useable in a lot of daily commerce. See the many examples of gold coins of all weights! Bitcoin becomes unusable.
And there are other ways in which gold becomes more useful with an increase in demand—higher value per ounce means you can carry smaller and smaller weights of gold (less costly) at the same value. But Bitcoin just gets more costly to move.
After centuries of being pounded with the doctrine that altruism is the ultimate ideal, men have accepted it in the only way it could be accepted. By seeking self-esteem through others. By living second-hand. And it opened the way for every kind of horror.
Well....he shouldn't have disclosed like he did IMO, but it's still Metanet's fault for being grossly negligent....
Many people will get hurt. Once your ID is online it can be used by scammers to defraud people and worse.
Was Metanet ICU really storing passport scans on a trivially accessible WordPress site?
So in summary:
- More acceptance of BSV and BSV alone worldwide = good idea
- More acceptance of all cryptos and shitcoins with some ideal about "they can compete" = not gonna help. Might actually hurt.
Just help BSV not those other shitcoins.
I’m not following.
Who are these consumers holding NZD that weren‘t before?
I don’t know. Kiwi’s already hold NZD. I don’t see how it’s different if they trade their NZD for USD at an airport exchange (status quo) vs just spending it at a merchant who then goes and dumps it for USD.
Dump the bumper stickers and foam thumbs @4179 and go work with these guys.