M0053 (Balakay2b edition)

nostr:nprofile1qqswswmx4rkj6d7q05dtafhpkqq2z42fc62s37jvtp642m2jkpfxc2cpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wf6xjueww3jkx6p0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9u73zhvg can explain joke please?

You could certainly try, but seeing as that there are Blake2b ASICs out there I would assume that trying to do so with a CPU would be fairly ineffective.

I appreciate this very thoughtful and thorough answer. And I agree with most of it. Your simple paragraph of the negative side of the trade-offs monero makes is quite good. Where I believe we differ is on the current state of Bitcoin and the implicit state of it in the future. I agree Bitcoin is being used for all kinds of tomfoolery and silliness with blocks full of transactions that are out of sync with the purpose for which it was originally developed. It's interesting, continuing to contrast Monero to Bitcoin, some of the reasons the former has emerged *currently* as a superior transactional money are exactly those same reasons. Monero is actually being used as transactional money because it is more fungible as well as private. Ordinals on Bitcoin, for example, require a transparent base layer. You couldn't really do those on Monero. Its design makes that impractical if not impossible. You said Bitcoin is mainly used for speculation. I think that is ignoring the store of value property that Bitcoin is also doing quite well at the moment. People complain that a good store of value is not volatile. But I almost think that's economic propaganda more than truth. Bitcoin is still bootstrapping, and in the last decade and a half its volatility has been diminishing. I foresee that once Bitcoin has established itself as a trustworthy, worldwide, trust minimized, decentralized asset, that transactional uses will follow naturally. Of course, most of these will not be on the base chain. That has always been true since the moment of Satoshi's first email. But these are just computer science problems. Some solutions already exist. I believe Bitcoin's transactional use will outbid the spam in the end. And I believe that SOME data on the chain is important for things like transactional systems to be built on top of it. (honestly, I think op_return just being large enough for a a few hashes to be stored is probably enough, but...) Bitcoin's design originally and with the people who have carried the torch since the beginning has prioritized its continued decentralization over its transactional use. I think this is the right decision. If Monero's use grows to the point that it is being universally used transactionally, its blockchain will become huge. And it will centralize. But since we're not there yet with either Monero or Bitcoin, Monero has the advantage. The reason I'm engaging with you is I have enjoyed your posts ever since I've been reading them and I share a lot of your views. I've also been in the Bitcoin "space" for a long time. I've seen good people branch off into other projects, not chasing after the latest shiny thing, but because they believe there's a mistake being made. Bitcoin Cash and several others frankly. Monero did not start that way, but it ended up there too. But I think any blockchain-based cryptocurrency is going to face the same problems. And a lot of work has been done on Bitcoin to begin to solve those problems. It is also the clear schelling point in this whole realm. I agree that parts of Bitcoin's development have been bad choices, particularly recently. But I also believe we're not going to get another chance at this. And I think we must be careful not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As much as I respect Luke Dashjr, I believe that's what he's doing. Anyway, if you read all this, I appreciate it. And, again, I appreciate your heartfelt, articulate thoughts.

Kind of both actually. I'm usually watching it and over the years I've just learned to stop caring about it. So I guess yes to the frequently watching question, but no to the obsessively part.

Do you not think that to actually separate money from state you would have to have number go up? Don't get me wrong. Majoring on that, concentrating on it, making it a pillar of your religious faith in Bitcoin is a mistake. But the world is not going to use a form of money that does not hold or gain value. I have been watching Bitcoin for a very long time. In every cycle, there's a new bad guy, a new entity that has captured Bitcoin. It's been mtgox and China and tether and the banks and the treasury companies and the ETFs and each time we add a new bad guy and drag all the other ones back out of the closet again and parade them around. I respect your thoughts on this, and I understand where you're coming from. I am not truly a maxi in the sense that I think most people mean. I am a giant Monero fan, for example. But Bitcoin is for everyone. It's for the people we don't like. It's for the United States government and Iran. It's for the banks. It's for the billionaires. And if it can't survive, those people trying to control it, then we never needed all the bad guys. It was going to fail on its own.

Let me know if you have any time to get on to the architecture for the onboarding process for new positions. You know, sometime, you know, this week, next week, whenever you can, because we just filled another new position, (which actually happens to be you) that you will need to train and lead through the onboarding.

But then you surprise all of us by playing this right after taking the biggest rip. https://npub1qktjyk0vdqlfss7wztawdnka5phx2p3vlvq50x0z402jk2fjhtnqlx9qas.blossom.band/d6c4b635ae1715f3c27efa878f59f8cc02b994e64020517cafcd9f963aeba954.mp3

This honestly makes me sad. I have been in Bitcoin almost as long as Luke may be exactly as long. Luke has been one of the most important contributors to the project from the very beginning. He has a natural strong bent towards contrarian and adversarial thinking. He tends to believe and act in the extreme. I believe he cares about what Bitcoin is deeply and probably even sees the project as something that would protect against evil currencies in the digital age. I agree with him on so many parts of why he is fighting. This is not a minor loss to Bitcoin. But Bitcoin is not about one guy. Sigh. nostr:nevent1qqsf6fa59qm2djywz6xs3rvktlwq8qx9ftucgk9wqgd7qhufs3ee9ucpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyruwd3jrgtc7q5jgqccwylsszmwwxh7r5c2wvpp5lm625fgrx2x2jqcyqqqqqqg3lfkrj

I don't see this as a black and white thing. People have been involved, paid by coinkite, promoted coinkite, sometimes even VCs for coinkite. So I would think some of it's kind of a sliding scale. The deeper those things were being promoted, the more onus I believe those influencers would have had to run audits, maybe even pay for audits on the code. This is such a glaring and hideously gaping hole that we were falling back to a tinker toy RNG. It really becomes close to inexcusable for anyone who was profiting from the sale of these devices. I have heard some really good podcasters that coin sessions comes to mind owning their part and apologizing and I find that to be admirable. Interestingly though, we are still waiting on more input from some of our more "humble" "thought leaders". I'm not ragging on people, I'm not angry, but the truth is the truth, and people are gonna need to own this shit.

Some of these people combing the code, as you say, will next be combing through likely addresses. It looks as if entropy was severely reduced. In my opinion, if someone reading this produced their private key via the cold card, they should not trust that private key. Whatever the extent of this issue, the way that an exploit can work is by narrowing down the possible private keys because of the busted entropy. But Evans, advice here to take your time and be calm and careful is of paramount importance. It is probably more likely to shoot oneself in the foot than it is to have your keys guessed.

Here you are describing the US-American culture to some extent. My generation was particularly targeted by the message that things other than being a wife and mother are more desirable for women. And it permeates my culture enough still that even just saying this could draw ire from people who see that as an attack on women. I believe this shift in a culture was part of a revolution that is still being attempted that is kind of like the "four olds" from China. Do away with the old ways. Women can work. They don't need to have children. And this benefits the state. In the US, it's no longer a choice, really. Without two incomes, life becomes very difficult for a family. Some of the women of my generation gave away the most amazing thing humanity can do to be able to be a slave to the system. And it was called freedom liberation.

Oh no! I will see if I can describe it. It compares three words Horror, Horrible, and Horrific. And then a similar construction Terror, Terrible, and TERRIFIC! ;) The last work in the second set is a HAPPY word. The point being English does not always make sense! But you are still learning it!

nostr:nprofile1qyvhwue69uhnzvps9ccnzdfwxg6rwt33xger5dpcxsuqzsmhwvaz7tmeddnx6mm3dekkg6r2v9mnguttd958vutfvaexz7tfw4ekxmrxw9uxv6pjd36rxenjw3k8j6m0v3un2amhwe3kv6ty9ehku6t0dcqzpajgmy3c532pcyq5tugas5ev22ggn0az8sqhcxu4n3wzdkpq67aehmxx0r This joke made me think of you! You are learning English so well even though, as this picture shows, it can be confusing sometimes! 😄 https://blossom.primal.net/e6814392b3874d10305d80d5fe7eb61c8d9688f8d179d3da777dfb40a3c283cb.jpg

The thought that the US is doing these things entirely out of stupidity is probably the prevailing thought, and certainly the message in all the various Lego movies, etc. Now, that could be possible, but at the same time, it's probably the less likely one. People who like Trump (still somehow) are losing trust in him because he COMPLETELY reversed on "no war". People who hate him make the mistake in thinking that he (and, more importantly, this administration) is just an idiot and take things at face value. I would suggest what's happening right now has been a plan for a very long time and I would bet $100 that it hasn't just been Trump's posse doing the planning. The military objectives which have been said over and over: destroy navy, deplete rockets, destroy nuclear program, destroy leadership... These have been fairly well executed, but these are not the only objectives during this action. Not even the main ones. I have asked before why is Scott Bessent talking so much? There is something much bigger in play here. One theory could be that the U.S. is basically choking off the energy supply to the world establishing viable energy supplies in the western hemisphere. And then there's the NATO angle. The US has been projecting power on behalf of NATO for the better part of 100 years. It seems to me this administration is setting up the stage to actually have our old allies ask us to leave and then I wouldn't be surprised if we did exactly that. And the conflict is much more pronounced for the eastern hemisphere than the one the U.S. is in. Sadly, this may also not be an accident. Cuba, Greenland, areas in Central and South America, Canada, all this bluster. Why? Well, it fits into this thought. This is our hemisphere. This is our empire. Why would we want energy/Chem/fertilizer to be cut off? Perhaps to force populations into the corner where they have no choice but to take things like digital ID so they can then have universal Basic Income and eat again. All issued in a digital dollar straight to your phone, et cetera, et cetera. When an enormous swath of the people can't feed themselves anymore, they're going to line up to get the things that they're rightly fearful of currently. I believe it's possible that while the often ridiculous President of the United States is broadcasting constant confusion and chaos, the actual plan that has been in the works for quite some time is rolling along just as they would wish. I don't think it's likely that this is just one big blunder. I do think it's likely it's one of the most risky gambits that has been played in probably centuries. Most nations outside of China, at least, are not positioning themselves to avoid the inevitable collapse. They're positioning themselves to survive and profit from it. At least the smart ones would be. But I don't know who's who.

I think this is where the discussion becomes very interesting, because almost unbelievably it is following a predictable divide. People who value community highly enough to feel it is righteous to ask others to make sacrifices for the community based on what the community wants those sacrifices to be. And People who value individual liberty, individual property, and personal responsibility above what the community needs while believing that adhering to those core values is the best way to serve the community in the end. It's two fundamentally different world views that are always fighting one another, both with a pretty reasonable narrative and a good argument to be made.