verification of ideas already exists in the data world with peer-to-peer transfer from known address to known address, identity to identity, mind to mind, computer to computer, etc.
provability of source is not the same as potential. most are having them as the same conversation. if you have an identity, that does not mean you will always have great ideas - that is the false premise of these 2 scrambled concepts. that is a risk model built for profit, not for maximising quality; no one would buy seeds if they did not have an inherent reputation for becoming a plant. the same with ideas - many "buy into" an idea with encouragement or other ideas because that is the nature of free exchange of information.
if no one trusted to whom they spoke, everyone would be suspicious of their idea being taken. (ha ha). peer-to-peer identification erases this mistrust so the source is always understood and interaction may continue freely. mistrust arises from abuse of concept and misinformation about how that happens - NOT because of anything else; and that is based on retargeting the source question of the probability of a seed to do seed things somehow being contingent on who had the idea or if there is a god making seeds for nature.
current bitcoin core development in human terms for digital finance asks about the risk of god's chances of making a seed that will sprout or a human to form an idea. they do not ask whether it's a neat idea or if it is original against other available data. the profit is focused on commodifying the human not the idea; like selling a seed based on its diagnostics not the plant the seed would become.
see how messy that gets?
odeliah
npub1r6…mvxdf
2025-05-28 23:23:15
in reply to nevent1q…cr3s
Author Public Key
npub1r6j2apq944wxh5xuxks2eql9frzg29p98rs7p3226s89hdv69t5q5mvxdfPublished at
2025-05-28 23:23:15Event JSON
{
"id": "3567d4cef3f4823fbc275c8cc47dddc8eb08cebf081e10e04e25d84c869a5774",
"pubkey": "1ea4ae8405ad5c6bd0dc35a0ac83e548c485142538e1e0c54ad40e5bb59a2ae8",
"created_at": 1748474595,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1d8d28e8ff93c628b57523aa1ca29ad7eedbafc8326087c3686c6fadb5eb8b57",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c5ca22b46fe59046c2639d937a73a500c4d5228fb821a7909729507a96fdd429",
"",
"reply"
]
],
"content": "verification of ideas already exists in the data world with peer-to-peer transfer from known address to known address, identity to identity, mind to mind, computer to computer, etc. \n\nprovability of source is not the same as potential. most are having them as the same conversation. if you have an identity, that does not mean you will always have great ideas - that is the false premise of these 2 scrambled concepts. that is a risk model built for profit, not for maximising quality; no one would buy seeds if they did not have an inherent reputation for becoming a plant. the same with ideas - many \"buy into\" an idea with encouragement or other ideas because that is the nature of free exchange of information. \n\nif no one trusted to whom they spoke, everyone would be suspicious of their idea being taken. (ha ha). peer-to-peer identification erases this mistrust so the source is always understood and interaction may continue freely. mistrust arises from abuse of concept and misinformation about how that happens - NOT because of anything else; and that is based on retargeting the source question of the probability of a seed to do seed things somehow being contingent on who had the idea or if there is a god making seeds for nature. \n\ncurrent bitcoin core development in human terms for digital finance asks about the risk of god's chances of making a seed that will sprout or a human to form an idea. they do not ask whether it's a neat idea or if it is original against other available data. the profit is focused on commodifying the human not the idea; like selling a seed based on its diagnostics not the plant the seed would become. \n\nsee how messy that gets?",
"sig": "63566eed15e99328a3f15f1b7ff0927526a9b064bf884ae5822f2460488a835818dca2f6b1bd5043c52452de397c9346dbf4331d4da4883b632808d192a53645"
}