it seems to me what is being called "pseudo value" is that t...

mleku

npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku

hex

7e5737578245584631587343732a34533dab350910000af850c37b37238e7d95

nevent

nevent1qqs8u4eh27py2kzxx9v8xsmn9g69x0dtx5y3qqq2lpgvx7ehyw88m9gprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsyeqqz27jc32pgf8gynqtu90d2mxztykj94k0kmttxu37nk3lrktcv4ht5d

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2025-12-11T18:33:41Z

↳ Reply to Sat Nakamoto (npub1zmtk7f3tdzdmrgel4gklj4xmu7k8z7fhlt28vks9mhaw8kkf9ptqj22fyn)

What’s the theory on establishing true property? Can’t just be I call dips first or I have a bigger gun?

it seems to me what is being called "pseudo value" is that third party judging, as opposed to the free market principle of the owner having the absolute right, granted that they are not infringing on others in whatever others may judge to be foolish or in some other way untoward.

that's why i raised the point that this seems to also be about intermediation (other people's opinions of your actions). it should always be the case that so long as they aren't gonna step on your property, e.g.: build a giant skyscraper right in front of your ocean view, or similar, like, installing a coal fired power plant next to a settlement full of families.

if intermediation is needed, in the form of adjudication, then the thesis seems to be that this is "pseudo value" because it is not about the right of the owner to dispose of their property as they see fit, but the lack of a legitimate right, of a third party to force the rightful owner to limit their own desired use of their property.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "7e5737578245584631587343732a34533dab350910000af850c37b37238e7d95",
  "pubkey": "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f",
  "created_at": 1765478021,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "28e8077e130519db74ec712d7875f32a02fafeed9081446c831137014c915d4d",
      "wss://relay.orly.dev/",
      "root",
      "55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "ffbb312e181ee593007651d81276cdafe9fd72ab867dd91494edc2141ff5d444",
      "wss://relay.nostr.band/",
      "reply",
      "16d76f262b689bb1a33faa2df954dbe7ac717937fad4765a05ddfae3dac92856"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "16d76f262b689bb1a33faa2df954dbe7ac717937fad4765a05ddfae3dac92856"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "9a21569255d0a3a9e75f1de2e4c883c9be2e5615887f22b2ecf6b1813bcd587d"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "jumble"
    ],
    [
      "alt",
      "This event was published by https://jumble.imwald.eu."
    ]
  ],
  "content": "it seems to me what is being called \"pseudo value\" is that third party judging, as opposed to the free market principle of the owner having the absolute right, granted that they are not infringing on others in whatever others may judge to be foolish or in some other way untoward.\n\nthat's why i raised the point that this seems to also be about intermediation (other people's opinions of your actions). it should always be the case that so long as they aren't gonna step on *your* property, e.g.: build a giant skyscraper right in front of your ocean view, or similar, like, installing a coal fired power plant next to a settlement full of families.\n\nif intermediation is needed, in the form of adjudication, then the thesis seems to be that this is \"pseudo value\" because it is not about the right of the owner to dispose of their property as they see fit, but the lack of a legitimate right, of a third party to force the rightful owner to limit their own desired use of their property.",
  "sig": "d0ddcf13ba4d8f9fba5217eee37866b9fa573e076d430ba75211d81281e8766cc6e4de7991a4d0036703c8ed42f6a2bef100b14d1987950eaa590f7831d578e5"
}