One sign of being a radical/fundamentalist/cult member is seeing only one variable in the world. This shows up in many forms, for example thinking that all problems in the world are fixed by your favorite software, your favorite religion, your favorite politician, etc. Being a fundamentalist is appealing as it is a shortcut, a way to avoid the hard work and responsibility of thinking about things deeply. It’s a way to avoid the effort of juggling all the nuance and complexity in the world.

If I could wave a magic wand & everyone in the world would understand one thing, it would be this: humans are social creatures, our survival adaptation is co-operation w/ one another. Domination is not our survival adaptation, those instincts are hold overs from our more primitive past. What has brought us success is our ability to peacefully co-operate. Americans especially need this. We have a “I don’t need anyone” fetish. I know, I grew up with it. As a kid I read books like Robinson Crusoe and books on edible wild plants and wilderness survival. I had, in hindsight, the rather insane idea that if I couldn’t survive alone in the wood that I was a failed human 🤦🏻‍♀️ Of course it is plausible to survive in the woods by yourself. There are some well documented cases of it happening! But that is not a life that humans are built for nor is it a life that makes humans happy. For evidence see the studies on loneliness and all cause mortality. We are a social species that thrives on interdependence. And no this is not a support of communism. Large scale communism fails because it is not co-operative, it is authoritarian. Nor is this a disrespect for individuality, in fact, we can not have voluntary, co-operative, community without individual rights. This is support for getting better at peaceful co-operation. This is support for understanding that when your neighbor suffers, your quality of life is diminished as well.

I do not want to look like I'm 25. I do not want anyone treating me like I'm 25. That shit was awful.

A good protector doesn’t just protect in moments of crisis, they prevent moments of crisis. Someone who makes rape jokes has failed as a protector.

It’s a growing sentiment, the idea that mocking others, “dunking” on others, is an effective tool for changing minds. It may feel that way, especially on some social media platforms. But… # of likes ≠ winning hearts and minds. In fact it’s generally the opposite. I don’t engage in mockery, not because I’m a superior human, but because I know it is not only ineffective, it is counter productive. Here is what happens when you “dunk” on others… - You “energize your base” and excite those who are looking for emotional revenge. - You silence those who aren’t willing to step into the shit storm. - You demonstrate to the people watching that you are not safe to engage in real conversations with. - You hurt and shut down those who were on the other side but curious about your views. - You inspire revenge from those you’ve insulted, and can expect their blow back in the future. - You further the division. Mockery can feel like winning, especially on some social media platforms, as it is an effective short term strategy. In the short term you excite your base, get likes, and drive away dissenters. But you lose the hearts and minds of anyone outside your core base. You show yourself to be not worthy of real engagement. You push those on the fence over to the other side. And in the long run you’ve put yourself and your team in a much worse position. It might feel really good in the moment, but it’s a small short term win in exchange for a large long term loss. Mockery is an indulgent, short term strategy.

Well, I'm trying.

Just conversation about trains and monetary theory.

How exactly should we define the success or failure of the Lightning Network? And how we define success is a can of worms. Are we looking from a technical point of view or from a user adoption standpoint? If Lightning does scale Bitcoin is that enough success? Or do we need all humans to have a Lightning channel to have achieved “success”? ….and, how long should it take for us to achieve these goals? - Criteria for success: What is the purpose of the Lightning Network? Well, first, to scale Bitcoin! And also, to become(or enable) the payment layer. And here is where things get personal. Different people have different goals for Bitcoin and for Lightning, so here I’ll have to give you my personal motivations and goals, but my thoughts are a rather common set of sentiments. I came here for the separation of money from State. I want Bitcoin to be money; global, decentralized, censorship resistant money. Lightning is a tool to achieve that end. On-chain transactions will by necessity be slow and expensive to maintain decentralization. Lightning enables fast and cheap Bitcoin transactions. LN does not have the same decentralized properties as on-chain but should remain resistant to centralization and censorship. Let's define a technology as “successful” when it reaches ubiquity and becomes standard household or business practice. What does that look like in the Bitcoin world? When most people have a wallet that runs on Bitcoin infrastructure and/or a wallet with just a few clicks access to Bitcoin transactions, and when BTC is a standard for international or B2B payments then Bitcoin has succeeded (I would find this to be functionally a pretty good barrier between money and state). If we don't achieve this, or if we do but Lightning is not a central part of that equation, then indeed Lightning has failed. - What it means for Lightning to be a central part of that equation: As Lightning currently exists, not everyone in the world can own a UTXO and join the Lightning Network. I expect that the number of people who can own a UTXO will increase as we get improvements in the protocol, better channel factories, etc. But I would not say “everyone on Lightning” is necessary for success. Even today Lightning functions as an interoperability layer between differing protocols: Ark, Liquid, ecash, etc. And I expect this to continue. I do not think that all BTC payments need to be happening on Lightning for the tech to be a success. I imagine an ecosystem, enabled by Lightning, but with a wide variety of other protocols. Things like ecash are very likely to be central to our separation of money and state goals. And while protocols like ecash are not technically 3rd layers, they are functionally 3rd layers. And I’m all for that. If it turns out that we reach ubiquity, but other protocols that do not rely on Lightning are where the majority of the transactions are taking place, then Bitcoin has succeeded but Lightning has not. And I would be totally cool with that! I don’t want Lightning to succeed, I want Bitcoin to succeed and I work on Lighting as I see Lightning being necessary for Bitcoin’s success. - How long it should take: Well let’s look at other technologies, for example, adoption of the automobile. We can call the launch the release of the Model T in 1908, and the automobile reached global ubiquity somewhere around 1950. So about 42 years. But perhaps a more close comparison is the internet. Let’s call the launch date of the internet Jan 1983 with TCP/IP standardization. What is much more tricky is defining the date when the internet reached “success”. But let’s say when it became pretty ubiquitous and standard procedure for business. That would be somewhere in the early 2000’s. So it took the internet roughly 20 years to become a success. However, Bitcoin to the Internet is not an apples to apples comparison. There were certainly some existing communication networks pre-internet, but replacing communication lines isn’t quite the same as replacing the money we use. Fiat currencies are actively propped up by governments often being a legal requirement, and unit of account, etc, is more strongly embedded and more sticky in the human psyche. So how long should we give it? I’d say double the amount of time as the internet… barring a major fiat financial collapse. So with Bitcoin being launched in Jan 2009, then we have until Jan 2049 to make it a “success”. But honestly, if Bitcoin is ubiquitous and standard business procedure in my lifetime, I will consider that wildly successful. - Summary: Here is how I would define the success or failure of Lightning - If in 2049 Bitcoin has not reached ubiquity, or if it has, but the majority of the transactions are taking place on 2nd/3rd layers that do not rely on Lightning, then Lightning has failed. Disclaimers: None of us have a crystal ball, we are all guessing, the universe may throw us a curve ball at any moment. These are my opinions and not the opinions of any business I’m associated with. I don’t care if Lightning succeeds, I care that we achieve separation of money and state, I work on Bitcoin/Lightning as that is what I see as our current best shot at achieving that goal. But do you disagree? Tell me why!

And then, after I used the majority of my roasted veggies to make a veggie soup, which I of course added some mayo to, I used the leftover squash, mixed it with some cinnamon, a bit of honey, and some eggs to make a fabulous gluten free "cake" for myself 😁

I really am such a white basic bitch. Mildly seasoned roasted veggies and mayonnaise make me happy.