tell me you are retarded, without telling me you are retarded:

With all the buzz around Buzz, lets provide the world some context shall we? It so happened we had a conversation at @BTC Prague on Nostr and AI. If you have any contact with the ''outside world'', who were not aware of Nostr before Buzz came along, perhaps this can provide them with some context. I would like to thank these three for making up the panel. @Jeff Booth @Tanja @npub1kzkr...p65n

Mood

Going live

Troll Room

In modern discourse, ''tolerance" is presented as some virtue, but it is not. For the most part you should be intolerant and seek to enforce what you deem proper behavior. From this perspective, tolerance is not the result of some virtuous consideration, but a practical one in light of an inability to enforce against that you in other circumstance prefer not to tolerate. In modern discourse, ''neutrality'' is presented as some virtue, but it is not. All it is an unwillingness to differentiate. For the most part you should not be neutral, and differentiate between what you deem to be right and wrong. From this perspective, neutrality is preverable if you have an uncertain relationship to the arbiter that would decide what is right or wrong. You opt for neutrality for the sake of the thing not turning against you, despite that it means it won't also turn against someone else you might dislike. Ergo, neutral systems, demand tolerance. This demand for tolerance is the direct other side of the neutral coin, it goes both ways. Bitcoin was designed as a ''neutral'' system. Outside of very clear and set rules, it does not differentiate. The thing is, this is not a technical property (such a thing is impossible), it is an emergent property resulting from decentralization. Within how the system is set up, and how incentives are alligned, even ''Satan'' wil eventually find some miner, or will employ his own, in order to get his transactions mined. And all you get to do, is tolerate it, you have no other option, except for disengaging with the system as a whole. Now Bitcoin has some sensible guardrails....perhaps a bit arbitrary sometimes, and established in a messy way, but non of that really matters. The moment you started using Bitcoin, you implicitly agreed and accepted it for what it is. Whether that its distribution including patoshis million, or its blocksize limits. The consensus rules are what defines Bitcoin, and that consensus is established over time with every new participant perfoming this implicit agreement the moment he or she started to interact with the system. But...the rules are not ''hard'', again, they are this emergent property as a result of human behavior. The BIP-110 crowd (and this is the only post i will be making on this topic), is confused. First up, they don't seem to realise the requirement for tolerance. "Spam" is intolerable to them; well if that is the case, a neutral system is not for you, because appearently you can't seem to bear the consequences. Second, they appearently never realized that the system they joined, ran under the assumption that 1-4mb per block was the ratelimiting sufficient to not let things go out of controll on the one hand, and the assumption that ultimately fee's will determine what will get mined into a block. You don't get to say what the chain composition will be. On a per block basis, miners get that say, and on the aggregate, nobody is in control. All you get to do, is sit down, and tolerate it; accept it for what it is, seeking refuge in the notion that it won't get worse than at a 4mb/10minute basis. This whole BIP-110 business is a neurotic desperate attempt at control, because the lack of control is intolerable. Nothing changed in Bitcoin, the consensus rules are the same as they were before those relay policies got altered. But somehow a whole lot of you were hoodwinked into being anxious; first seeking control on the relay level while that cat was already out of the bag; and failing that, escalating to seeking control on the consensus level with the most retarded set of proposals from a protocol/engineering perspective. The sky is not falling, if you don't trust in Bitcoin, then switch to gold or whatever, but realize that all of this bullshit ultimately boils down to your inability to tolerate the consequences of a neutral system that has to deal with the realities of information theory that there is a difference between data and information. Information is what results after you interpreted data. And that means that you cannot, fundamentally can not, determine what the intended information is based on the data, based on the bits. SO IF YOU DONT LIKE WHAT THE INFORMATION IS THAT IS ENCODED IN THE BLOCKCHAIN THAN TOUGH FUCKING LUCK BECAUSE NO COMPUTER CODE ON FUCKING EARTH CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT. Boohoo, Bitcoin is supposed to be for money blablablabla. The only way that will ever be true, is if fee's dictate that that is the only viable usecase for claiming blockspace. There.is.no.other.way. And whether you were aware of it, you already agreed to this the moment you started using the system. It might be a cold shower if you only just now realize this, but throwing a tampertantrem won't change the facts of the matter. So stop acting like a bunch of pathetic children that are not getting their way. This was not an argument, this was a public service announcement. I have no interest to debate the matter. You will be ignored.

I like to live on the edge

Yesterday i was monitoring the twitter thread of the announcement of Buzz, and i noticed there atleast start-ups that realized they were r3kt because Buzz was something similar to what they were doing/planning to do. I was in a voicechat with the soapbox people at that moment and @MK Fain responded that they were one of them. But she was wrong. This is the nice thing about Nostr, is that because you are no longer offering a platform where its binary in terms of users being either on your thing, or on someone else's thing, and the biggest thing being the winner of it all. No, instead, the users of your thing don't miss out because they are not on the other thing, and you never lost out in terms of competing. At any moment, you can have a better offer, and users can switch with very low to 0 friction. There is no 1 thing that is the winner, other than the standard* itself. Nostr *assuming people play nice and are thoughtfull in terms of those standards. View quoted note →

So he executed on his exit strategy, as a true buzzkill RIP View quoted note →

Looking at the interactions on Twitter, Jack should have just mentioned Nostr right then and there. All that happened by omitting it was confusion and others having to point to Nostr in order to give some clarity. Inb4 'but people don't know what Nostr is anyway' Yes, that is the point. They need to read the word first, before they even know what to investigate to get understanding. Inb4 'people dont need to know about Nostr' Yes, they do. View quoted note →