The Amethyst "one per follow" list is great. I wish it would return more notes. It seems to be limited by time or count.

#Alaska

What do people use these days to drop inactive follows from their list? Some old tools seem to no longer exist. #asknostr

It's getting harder to find non-bitcoiner content on nostr.

Three weeks ago when I purchased a pizza stone I didn't realize it would be for today.

"Zapped you some nanos" doesn't seem so bad. It's slang for nanobitcoins which explains itself. I don't like explaining "satoshis" to anyone new to the concept.

I think "sats" and "satoshis" really is a bad name that confuses newcomers. I don't think it honors Satoshi. I don't have an alternative suggestion. I used to favor "bits", but now that is muddied up with some wanting to use "bits" to refer to 100 sats.

Most of my friends that refuse to use encrypted messaging and insist on using SMS I'm just like, "Man, I wish we could have a private conversation." It's like I have to make mental notes about what to discuss with them next time we hang.

To clarify my position, since I've replied in many threads for the debate of the day, I wish that an OP_RETURN limit was part of the chain consensus rules, but I don't disagree with removing it from node relay filters. The "is it spam?" discussion is a distraction. It doesn't matter. We're talking about whether or not a currently existing feature of bitcoin should be changed or not. That is, on chain OP_RETURNS, not the filter on Core. Much like the fullrbf debate, it illustrates the state of reality about how bitcoin actually works. Bitcoin is not the filtering rules of a single node implementation. Removing a filter doesn't "change bitcoin forever" if users can already bypass it. I think some good that will come of this is a renaissance of alternative implementations and, less as likely, a possible consensus change. #bitcoin