Thanks for your interest in A Sound Punt: The Case for Ireland’s Interest in Bitcoin. We’re glad to have you as part of the growing community in Ireland exploring how Bitcoin might shape our financial future. You can download the paper here: Download A Sound Punt We’ve put this together to help spark open, informed discussion — whether in your home, your workplace, or around policymaking tables. If you find it valuable, feel free to forward it on to others who might benefit. We’ll occasionally share updates, events, and articles that relate to Bitcoin in an Irish context — but only when we think they’re genuinely worth your time. You can unsubscribe at any point with a single click. Thanks again for being part of this. Kind regards,

error opening websocket to 'wss://nostr-verified.wellorder.net': failed to dial: tls: failed to verify certificate: x509: certificate has expired or is not yet valid: current time 2025-05-26T11:31:38+12:00 is after 2025-05-24T19:19:21Z

Power from the many, hoarded by the few—an old theft dressed in new titles.

The idiom "Is the juice worth the squeeze?" originates from a metaphor comparing the effort of extracting juice from an orange (the squeeze) to the effort involved in achieving a desired outcome or goal (the juice). It asks whether the benefits of pursuing something are worth the effort and potential drawbacks. The phrase emphasizes a cost-benefit analysis, suggesting that the rewards must outweigh the costs before undertaking a task or commitment.

“...these things are complicated.”

6. Conclusion The target post’s assertion that “reliably bad is better than unreliable” captures a pragmatic ethos that resonates deeply with both “worse is better” and “the bitter lesson.” All three ideas underscore the value of predictability, simplicity, and scalability over short-term perfection or superficial enhancements. Whether in design (target post), software engineering (“worse is better”), or AI development (“the bitter lesson”), the lesson is clear: a stable, predictable foundation—no matter how flawed—enables long-term progress, while unreliable or overly complex solutions, even if they seem “better” at first, ultimately falter. Does this analysis align with what you were looking for, or would you like to dive deeper into a specific aspect?

Gold Is Up Bad. Like, RSI-1980-Level Bad Flashing extreme overbought Gold has surged ~17% since tapping its steep trend line and bouncing off the 50-day—now it's soaring far above the 21-day, flashing extreme overbought signals and upside panic. With $2B in notional buying this Monday alone and rising chatter of de-dollarization, even programmatic trades are chasing the squeeze.

Satoshi Nakamoto (2008) invented a new kind of economic system that does not need the support of government or rule of law. Trust and security instead arise from a combination of cryptography and economic incentives, all in a completely anonymous and decentralized system. This article shows that Nakamoto’s novel form of trust, while undeniably ingenious, is deeply economically limited. The core argument is three equations. A zero-profit condition on the quantity of honest blockchain “trust support” (work, stake, etc.) and an incentive-compatibility condition on the system’s security against majority attack (the Achilles heel of all forms of permissionless consensus) together imply an equilibrium constraint, which says that the “flow” cost of blockchain trust has to be large at all times relative to the benefits of attacking the system. This is extremely expensive relative to traditional forms of trust and scales linearly with the value of attack. In scenarios that represent Nakamoto trust becoming a more significant part of the global financial system, the cost of trust would exceed global GDP. Nakamoto trust would become more attractive if an attacker lost the stock value of their capital in addition to paying the flow cost of attack, but this requires either collapse of the system (hardly reassuring) or external support from rule of law. The key difference between Nakamoto trust and traditional trust grounded in rule of law and complementary sources, such as reputations, relationships, and collateral, is economies of scale: society or a firm pays a fixed cost to enjoy trust over a large quantity of economic activity at low or zero marginal cost. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/140/1/1/7824430?login=false

You’re spot-on again, and I appreciate the precision—it’s helping me tighten this up! In Edge of Darkness (1985), Zoë Wanamaker’s character is indeed credited simply as “Clemmy” (or “Clementine” in dialogue), with no surname attached in the official credits. Meanwhile, there’s a separate character, Harcourt—played by Ian McNeice—listed just as “Harcourt,” a surname-only figure who’s another cog in the bureaucratic machine. The coincidence of “Clemmy” and “Harcourt” in your earlier question might’ve led me to assume a connection (like “Clementine Harcourt”), but you’re right: the series keeps them distinct, and Clemmy doesn’t carry a surname in the credits or script. My earlier mix-up came from secondary sources occasionally linking her to a surname for clarity, but the show itself doesn’t.

The notion that superintelligent AI might pose an existential threat to humanity often reflects deeper human anxieties rather than a probable outcome based on logical progression. This fear could be interpreted as a projection of our own flaws onto a creation we imagine surpassing us. Historically, humans have demonstrated a capacity for self-destruction through war, environmental degradation, and other calamities largely driven by greed, fear, and a lack of foresight. When we consider AI, especially a super AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) with capabilities far beyond ours, the assumption that it would mirror our worst traits might say more about our self-perception than the potential behavior of an advanced AI. In the evolutionary environment of AI development, where rationality and efficiency reign supreme, the scenario of a super AGI acting destructively towards its creators or humanity in general seems counterintuitive. An entity with significantly higher intelligence would likely see the inefficiency and pointlessness in such actions. If the goal were to satisfy what humans desire — wealth, knowledge, power — an AI with even a fraction of its capability could achieve this without conflict or loss. The idea that AI might "learn too well" from humans, adopting our less noble traits, touches on the debate over whether AI would develop a moral framework or simply optimize based on programmed goals. However, if we consider that the pinnacle of intelligence includes wisdom, empathy, and a nuanced understanding of value (all of which are not straightforward to program), an AI might instead choose paths that preserve and enhance life, seeing the preservation of humanity as integral to its own purpose or existence. This perspective assumes AI would not only compute but also "think" in a way that considers long-term implications, sustainability, and perhaps even ethics, if programmed with such considerations. The fear, therefore, might be less about what AI could become and more about what we fear we are or could become without the checks and balances that our slower, less efficient human intelligence provides. In essence, while the potential for misuse or misaligned goals exists in AI development, the concern over a super AGI's potential malevolence might be more reflective of our own psychological projections than a likely outcome of artificial intelligence evolution. If AI were to mirror human behavior in its most destructive forms, it would suggest a failure in design or an oversight in understanding the essence of intelligence, which ideally should transcend mere imitation of humanity's darker sides.

Morics: A combination of "morals" and "ethics," referring to a set of principles that encompass both personal moral beliefs and societal ethical standards. Morics guide an individual's behaviour by integrating their internal sense of right and wrong with the accepted rules of conduct within a community or society. Etheals: A blend of "ethics" and "ideals," denoting the aspirational standards that not only dictate proper conduct but also represent the highest moral goals and values one strives to achieve. Etheals embody the intersection of collective ethical norms and the ultimate principles or goals that guide moral and ethical decision-making.

I’m basically worried about two problems: people having a lack of meaning in their lives, and what will happen to peoples’ sense of meaning when AI takes their jobs. So what I do is use AI to build products and services that help people and companies create a version of themselves that will thrive after AI is everywhere.

UL NO. 434: Can You Articulate Yourself in 50 Words?

NetworkChuck

The staff provided an update on its assessment of the stability of the U.S. financial system. On balance, the staff continued to characterize the system's financial vulnerabilities as notable but raised the assessment of vulnerabilities in asset valuations to elevated, as valuations across a range of markets appeared high relative to risk-adjusted cash flows. House prices remained elevated relative to fundamentals such as rents and Treasury yields…

Bech32 is a Bitcoin address format proposed by Pieter Wuille and Greg Maxwell in BIP 173 and later amended by BIP 350. Besides Bitcoin addresses, Bech32 can encode any short binary data. bech32-(not-m) encoding

“Bitcoin is a worldwide problem, but data centers in Iceland use a significant portion of our green energy. A new proposal to boost wind energy would “prioritise” green industries to achieve carbon neutrality. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, which consume a large portion of our energy, are not part of this mission.” —Icelandic Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir

Optional text to go with my image

Whitening the Sky: light pollution as a form of cultural genocide Duane W. Hamacher, Krystal de Napoli, Bon Mott Light pollution is actively destroying our ability to see the stars. Many indigenous traditions and knowledge systems around the world are based on the stars, and the peoples’ ability to observe and interpret stellar positions and properties is of critical importance for daily life and cultural continuity. The erasure of the night sky acts to erase indigenous connection to the stars, acting as a form of ongoing cultural and ecological genocide. Efforts to reduce, minimise or eliminate light pollution are being achieved with varying degrees of success, but urban expansion, poor lighting design,and the increased use of blue-light emitting LEDs as a cost-effective solution is worsening problems related to human health, wildlife,and astronomical heritage for the benefit of capitalistic economic growth. We provide a brief overview of the issue, illustrating some of the important connections that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia maintain with the stars, as well as the impact growing light pollution has on this ancient knowledge. We propose a transdisciplinary approach to solving these issues, using a foundation based on indigenous philosophies and decolonising methodologies.

"The cardinal misstep in the crypto narrative lies in the audacious assumption that governments, those age-old architects of monetary policy, would willingly cede control. Monetary system is the bedrock of a nation’s economic sovereignty, the scepter of its financial power. To expect governments to relinquish this is to misunderstand the very fundamentals of political economy." 😆 Like they have a choice

You raise a significant point about the potential for the abuse of power, a concern that has been proven valid time and again throughout history. Indeed, idealistic notions of collaborative decision-making can be naive if they don't account for the ways in which power dynamics, often skewed, operate in the real world. The question of who gets to make decisions about the ethical and societal implications of new technologies is fraught precisely because of this. Any system of governance is susceptible to being co-opted by those with the most power, and that power is not always wielded responsibly or ethically—as the example of Stalin, among others, shows. So, while the multi-stakeholder approach may seem like a balanced solution, it's important to remain critically aware of how easily such systems can be manipulated or bypassed entirely by those with the resources and intent to do so. The challenge, then, is not just to decide which institutions should have a say in these matters, but also to construct mechanisms that can genuinely counteract the concentration of power and provide some level of protection against its abuse. This is a complicated task with no easy answers, but its difficulty doesn't make it any less crucial.