Here I hope I'll be able to put it together in a way it's understandable this time.
Statement is "LN UX is shit"
That's a generalized statement that don't hold true when you consider the % of custodial vs non custodial use.
You come adding a new parameter and you say you want self custodial use. You change the equation. It's no longer "LN UX is shit" it's "LN self custodial UX is shit" (hard)
By adding a new parameter, you changed the initial statement, then you'll get a different answer.
You claim to know "Physics/C++/", yet you fail to understand, or you intentionally make a disingenuous argument when you add additional parameters to something, the outcome will likely change.
Are you admitting you don't know how simple equations work?
I hope that helps.
You might be like "crypto doesn't mean shit w/o self custody" that's your opinion (also mine) many just simply don't care. They just want and easy and cheap way to play w/ their shiny sats. Masses are not self custody cypherpunk crypto fundamentalists, and likely they'll never be.
Soul Reaver
npub1nu…wndfa
2024-08-04 21:28:29
in reply to nevent1q…rutv
Author Public Key
npub1nu78yt3grwq7jdp0twz56ral4ez6s2xx9zt96yjz8p89grvmzu5sdwndfaPublished at
2024-08-04 21:28:29Event JSON
{
"id": "1a8ddb0a9abccfa1b1979985be29ec706dd5a7350f461228cfcee88305d9b4aa",
"pubkey": "9f3c722e281b81e9342f5b854d0fbfae45a828c628965d1242384e540d9b1729",
"created_at": 1722806909,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f2ca489c93ca11bfddd5cb7533e537fdfb6f2d59037f8b3c7d4228a86a71a2c3",
"wss://bostr.bitcointxoko.com",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1ba4efb5f214f2d7476416c8efdb323ad621eb3b5b8bbf3527390cd229c69b26",
"wss://bostr.bitcointxoko.com",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"577de06dce160a0379163a4bb7b680be3e0a0e1c68de6e6ba8c01134b44064dd"
],
[
"p",
"9f3c722e281b81e9342f5b854d0fbfae45a828c628965d1242384e540d9b1729"
],
[
"p",
"d0debf9fb12def81f43d7c69429bb784812ac1e4d2d53a202db6aac7ea4b466c"
]
],
"content": "Here I hope I'll be able to put it together in a way it's understandable this time.\nStatement is \"LN UX is shit\"\nThat's a generalized statement that don't hold true when you consider the % of custodial vs non custodial use.\nYou come adding a new parameter and you say you want self custodial use. You change the equation. It's no longer \"LN UX is shit\" it's \"LN self custodial UX is shit\" (hard)\nBy adding a new parameter, you changed the initial statement, then you'll get a different answer.\nYou claim to know \"Physics/C++/\", yet you fail to understand, or you intentionally make a disingenuous argument when you add additional parameters to something, the outcome will likely change.\nAre you admitting you don't know how simple equations work?\nI hope that helps.\n\nYou might be like \"crypto doesn't mean shit w/o self custody\" that's your opinion (also mine) many just simply don't care. They just want and easy and cheap way to play w/ their shiny sats. Masses are not self custody cypherpunk crypto fundamentalists, and likely they'll never be.\n",
"sig": "4a260b97696265eef25b137c8daeb13974bbcbd758f7d696d672318713017ac533827aa294ce2d06d1de2e790cab847c290f9c04196fa80f9b21c4e63a265508"
}