Wen dip?

Yes, but that, like the "you can make money" marketing argument, appeals to people who: 1. want to create content, even if it's simply putting their opinions out 2. have opinions/content that is susceptible of being censored on the mainstream platforms (at least until now) 3. are unwilling to change how they present those opinions/contents, i.e., would rather give up the platform As far as 1. is concerned: a large majority of users are lurkers/readers who only want to be fed content, not produce it. 2. is just a small subset of all the people who post stuff. 3. is an even smaller subset. My point being, it seems a lot of people in here haven't really done a minimal analysis of what the real addressable market is, so how do we expect to find answers and ways to engage with it? A lot of this smells like desperation to "make money". If you come to Nostr (or any social media platform really) with the expectation to be paid for your content, well, you're not gonna make it. View quoted note →

What is this good for though? Will they sell their BTC and "realize" the "profits" -- and be out of BTC? Is the BTC on their portfolio taken into account as far as the country's solvency goes, for instance if they want to issue debt, or take a loan from the IMF? The fact that they accumulate BTC for the future is great in itself. Keeping count of the "profits" not so much. View quoted note →

As much as we all may like the man, gentle reminder that Bobby Kennedy Jr did not win the election. Trump did. Just saying, because based on the amount and type of RFK Jr content I'm seeing these past couple of days, it would seem many people believe he's the one taking possession in January and that it's his platform that's going to be implemented in full. And he hasn't even been nominated for any official position yet, let alone one so important as to require Senate confirmation.

I've no idea what their fees are like now, but I do know BTC's. If I think using BTC for retail and quasi-retail payment is already nonsensical, imagine using ETH. View quoted note →

I contend that sustained issuance is in fact GOOD for a cryptography- and blockchain-based currency like BTC. The function of currency is to be spent, not accumulated. As long as it depreciates at a moderate to slow pace, there is no downside or "robbery" in that. On the contrary, as coins get lost (that applies to physical cash too), they should be replaced with newly issued ones, to keep prices stable. In other words, an uncapped supply would be ideal or even required -- if you really want BTC to be currency. That idea is at odds with the concept of a store of value, which definitely requires and benefits from a capped maximum supply. So not only we must separate money and State, but also currency from store of value. View quoted note →