WorriedDenizen

I write about bitcoin and philosophy.

Public Key

npub198s02fadhyd3lyk5meuqdvgqqefqzgyggtxskp8f0aclyn6gny6sl85paj

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsznc84y7kmjxcljt2du7qxkyqqv5spyzyy9ngtqn5h7u0jfayfjdgaaareh

Author Public Key

npub198s02fadhyd3lyk5meuqdvgqqefqzgyggtxskp8f0aclyn6gny6sl85paj

Show more details

Last Notes

2023-03-01 14:13:44

Submitted a short sci-fi story to the Konsensus Network yesterday. Excited to see if I make the cut.

2023-03-01 14:12:53

I think I need to have a serious look at my relay setup. Any good guides out there?
I've been paying for a few of them, but I forgot which, and the ones I do remember keep disappearing.

2023-03-01 14:06:53

- reply

They never replied 🤷🏻‍♂️

2023-02-28 20:23:27

Nostr reveals how Bitcoin was underestimated by everyone
The human brain is a closed physical system that carries out operations. Therefore it is, by definition, a computer. Even though it is different from your laptop in numerous ways, the brain is a kind of hardware, and the mind, including all its unconscious sub-routines, is a kind of software.
Going forward, I hope you’ll ignore the question of how accurate this description is. I’m merely trying to invoke a perspective that will help us see a deeper truth about what Bitcoin and Nostr have in common, and what sets them apart from other kinds of software. From the very beginning, I had a strong sense that Nostr is very similar to Bitcoin, and apparently, I’m not alone. The best guess seems to be that both protocols are examples of “minimalism”, but what does this minimalism consist of - especially with respect to Bitcoin? And why does it work so well?
I don’t think that even Satoshi appreciated this dimension, which isn’t all that weird when you think about it. Technological breakthroughs are always underestimated, even by those who make them happen. Gutenberg cannot possibly have imagined that his invention would cause the destruction of medieval culture, and according to legend, Newton invented calculus in the process of working out his theory of gravity, not even bothering to include it in his Principia.
Similarly, the Bitcoin whitepaper lays out a protocol for digital cash without mentioning the system’s uniqueness in terms of software engineering. Saifedean Ammous once commented that Satoshi Nakamoto seems to have been unfamiliar with Austrian economics, and speculated that he had nevertheless happened upon a software implementation of its principles by sheer force of engineering (I've tried and failed to find that clip, sorry). As I see it, this amounts to a claim that the Bitcoin network not only depends on human minds but more specifically the efficient coordination and flexibility offered by free markets.
As it happens, Bitcoin has two security mechanisms, and these in turn rely on the unhackable software of human minds to keep themselves stable in the face of unpredictable circumstances in the real world.
To deal with external threats, costly proof of work relies on a brutal incentive structure that requires miners to invest in expensive machinery and receive rewards whose value is mostly derived from the health of the network. Ultimately, the linchpin of PoW is that miners respond to these incentives in a way that is economically rational, and use their creativity to counteract all threats. In other words, the creative program running on the miners’ brains is one of several wetware components that keep the bitcoin network going.
To deal with threats from within, there is an inverted version of the same incentive structure. To safeguard the software itself, and counteract the self-interest of miners, a network of cheap nodes enact a political system where all citizens are forced to vote with their feet. Bitcoin developers play the unenviable role of would-be legislators under perfect anarchy, where the only way to get a law adopted is by convincing people into submission. Human distrust and risk aversion secure the network from the inside.
Nostr also depends on self-interested human minds. Traditional social media are centrally planned to suit the “average user”, to the degree that his needs can be squared with the wants of advertisers, regulators, and shareholders. Nostr will eventually provide whatever is in demand, but until then it is dependent on entrepreneurial pioneers who are willing to invest time and resources in the hope that the future reward them.
As an open marketplace, Nostr doesn’t need a strong incentive structure. Indeed, foisting any particular incentive on anyone would ruin everything. What makes Nostr so clever is that the basic infrastructure that enables trade - relays, apps, wallets - is just as subject to competition as everything else, leading to a different kind of robustness. Instead of Bitcoin’s iron fortress, attackers will face an endless game of whack-a-mole, and an arms race they cannot hope to win. The game theory is still the same as Bitcoin though: Attackers incur a higher cost than defenders, and for no benefit whatsoever.
Looking at the technicalities and counting lines of code, one may conclude that Bitcoin is a more advanced protocol than Nostr, but that is a parochial error. Nostr can rely on amazing software for social networking that is already running on every human brain. If humans had a natural urge to enact responsible monetary policy, Bitcoin wouldn’t need all that code. In both cases, the network consists of an amalgam of software running on microchips and brains.
It’s too soon to say how Nostr is going to develop, but as an uncensorable digital marketplace, it fits rather nicely with an uncensorable digital currency. And the ecosystem is already developing faster than anything I’ve ever seen. When a software company tells us that a new feature is coming, it means that users will wait for months while the proposal gets subjected to a litany of corporate management, bug testing, and legal scrutiny. When a Nostr developer says a feature is coming, it means he’s already started working on it, and when it goes live the next day his users will voluntarily pay him for his work via the lightning network. The development of every subroutine that is needed to operate a social media platform is now opened up to competition and monetization.
If what I’ve said so far is right, it implies at least five interesting conclusions:
First, Timothy May was right: Crypto-anarchism is the way. We’re now seeing the emergence of a fully-fledged digital civilization, where all freedoms are absolute, and money is incorruptible. In this world, jurisdictions are forced to compete for hyper-mobile citizens, and evil despots will quickly find a dearth of citizens to exploit.
This implies the second conclusion: Anarchy works pretty well. Most popular arguments against anarchism invent a world with only one state or no mobility. If citizens are free to choose, governance is solved by the free market.
Third, we’re about to get an interesting test of what a truly free market looks like. Judging by the productive frenzy that is Nostr, those who would defend government “stimulus” and “initiative” have their work cut out for them.
Fourth: Nostr is web3. Without slick designs, dedicated development teams, or as much as a penny in VC funding. Looking at the bloated carcass of Ethereum, the narrative of “exciting blockchain technology” is one step closer to oblivion. (But when will the markets catch on?)
Fifth: We’re at the turning of an age. Like Bitcoin, Nostr doesn’t have to take over the world to win. The purpose of these protocols is to bring real competition to a monopolized market, and it really doesn’t matter what the endgame looks like. So long as the monopolies have to compete, consumers will benefit.
There are no guarantees. These open protocols won't have many friends in high office, and the future is shaped by the things no one had thought about. But looking ahead it seems likely that online communities will increasingly delineate themselves and keep developing their own cultures and collective coffers, eventually wielding substantial political and economic power in the real world. To be sure, this will cause its own problems.
But still, with the economy heading into recession and our institutions falling under the sway of authoritarian do-gooders, the future has never looked so bright.

2023-01-24 23:18:37

The bitcoin blockchain would not work without PoW, but PoW would not work without the proper incentive structure. Satoshi Nakamoto needed a machine that would operate flawlessly as a central bank, with no authority, under conditions of the worst internal and external animosity imaginable. So, perhaps without realizing it, he emulated the conditions of a City State facing a barbarian horde.
The result was an unassailable digital castle, filled with digital gold. After 14 years Nostr is finally populating this Castle, and the great migration into digital anarchy has finally begun. Those in power have but two choices before them: Compete by offering the same freedoms, or, see their power wither away as people take their talents, their bright ideas and money, and move outside their reach.
This is the year. It's happening.

2023-01-24 23:00:01

Imagine if the enlightenment thinkers had believed that the biggest favor one could do for the next generation was preserving the environment as it was in 1700.

2023-01-24 22:35:03

https://nostr.build/i/nostr.build_9b9647dcc8e174c41d481c0f3d2a5c570b583a8ebfaab85715f5f968df3d5e66.png

2023-01-19 20:59:51

- reply

...and a "blind spot" of about 80 trillion more in Eurodollars

2023-01-19 20:31:16

- reply

Awesome! Normal-D@nostr-check.com :-)

2023-01-19 10:47:57

It's my birthday today.
I think Nostr is the future, and I'm working on a piece that, if Bitcoin Magazine will publish it, is going to make some heads turn to this space.
Keep building, plebs 💪

2023-01-16 23:04:38

anyone here who lives in africa?

2023-01-13 11:25:34

- reply

Appreciated. I'll make sure to pass it on :-)

2023-01-13 11:13:31

@5e7ae588d7d11eac4c25906e6da807e68c6498f49a38e4692be5a089616ceb18 Verifying My Public Key: @NormalDenizen

2023-01-11 10:09:37

- reply

Just so you know, I would have tipped you a few sats for your reply but you don't seem to have connected your lightning wallet yet :-)

2023-01-10 22:24:48

- reply

They do if you don't just wing'em all. Even then I suspect it helps you get clear about stuff 🤷‍♂️

2023-01-09 13:37:04

#[1]

2023-01-09 13:26:35

- reply

If GBTC blows up, we'll see bitcoin all over the place

2023-01-09 10:12:38

- reply

I wrote an explainer too, if you want to add it to the list. I'm a noob though, so it's mostly good for people who are slightly more noobish than me.
https://audaciousdenizen.substack.com/p/my-quick-guide-to-nostr

2023-01-09 08:59:35

What are these posts about? #[2]

2023-01-09 08:54:13

I watched @ShellenbergerMD's two debates on crypto. They were both interesting and painful to watch, and though I expected both of these reactions they were triggered for slightly unexpected reasons.
Here are my impressions, and a wishlist for the next debate:
Backstory:
Shellenberger wrote a piece/thread on crypto. It was a real Gell-Mann moment for me, having followed Michael for a while, and a reminder of how it can look from the outside.
He challenged critics to debate him, and they were all too willing.
For reasons unknown, the first invitation he accepted was from some YouTuber named "Hotep Jesus", who wanted Shellenberger to come on his channel to get schooled by another stranger to me, @cyprianous.
The debate can be found here: https://youtu.be/U44E9y11cUE
First impressions are ~OK. Cyprianous' real name is apparently Vin Armani, which a bit of digging turns out to be a Las Vegas gigolo turned reality-TV star, who is now introduced by Hotep Jesus as a "leading authority on cryptocurrencies".
Colorful... I actually loved it, to be frank.
The first 20 minutes or so of the debate are alright, I guess. Michael repeats his main criticisms, and Vin Armani finds a decent attack vector to answer them. Two things bother me:
Hotep Jesus nods sagely while Armani's speaking, and frows whenever Michael opens his mouth
...and while Vin Armani has been quite explicit about Bitcoin being special, ostensibly talking about that the whole time, "cryptocurrencies" is also used interchangeably as a synonym for it.
He seems to understand how this stuff works, but I increasingly have this ominous feeling...
And around the 24-minute mark, it all becomes very clear. Vin Armani goes:
"I work on a fork of bitcoin called ecash, XEC [...] there have been forks, forks, forks, basically schisms. It's very religious"
Ah...OK 🤦‍♂️
So e.cash...
Not much to say. Run-of-the-mill shitcoin scam, glossy design, roadmap (going for 1TB blocks 🤣).
But as a friend of mine commented when I announced that Shellenberger was getting a crypto education from a shitcoiner: "Didn't we all start that way?"
I sure did.
But that's the main problem in this debate. Vin Armani is likely fully aware of what makes bitcoin awesome, but has to watch his step so he doesn't put his shitcoin in a bad light. So certain arguments are off-limits, and he has incentives to promote crypto generally.
For a shitcoiner, Vin Armani actually makes a decent case for decentralization, eliminating middlemen and secure payments. That said, he becomes dominating and unpleasant after a while, and makes quite a few mistakes. These include, but are not limited to the following:
"The US dollar was pegged to the Mexican dollar"
No, it was pegged to the *silver content* of the Mexican dollar
"Miners are compensated by fees"
Hardly. They're compensated by block rewards.
"My business is more profitable the lower the price [of XEC] is"
lol
"In Bitcoin, no one can pretend to be you"
Just false. If they get your keys, they ARE you from the perspective of the network.
But again, the bigger issue is that Michael is being used as a marketing prop.
And I could not bear listening much past the hour mark. Vin Armani is a reasonably talented con-artist, and he knows things, but it becomes obvious after a while that his main goal is to sound smart and humiliate Michael.
I say this because Vin Armani:
- Makes claims he has no idea how to back up (repeating something he once heard Balaji say I guess)
- Doesn't keep the conversation on track (what track would that even be?)
- Contradicts himself often
- Goes into long and pathos-laden appeals
I feel kinda sorry for Michael, but props to him for going into this and sticking to his guns. I wish he had known more about the subject, and that someone could have told him what he was actually part of here. It was only a nominal debate, at best, but mostly a marketing scheme.
And the fact that Michael still didn't come out of this debate too well just goes to show that this is pretty complicated stuff. Shellenberger is primarily informed by financial authorities. But if you don't want to read a book, you have to search dark corners of the internet to get properly informed.
What I wish Michael had heard:
- There is no such thing as "Blockchain technology"
- Only bitcoin has actual use cases
- Bitcoin mining is a virtual extension of the energy grid (still not useful?)
- Bitcoin cannot be stopped (Vin Armani *almost* managed to argue this point)
What needed to happen in this debate was for crypto to be taken completely off the table. The same actually goes for third parties, currency and generally most of it.
In its place, a single proposition to be defended: The Bitcoin network enables things that were not previously possible. No one actually knows what it will lead to, but it has already enabled:
- setting up a fully functional bank for a fraction of today's cost, in hours.
- making profits from stranded energy.
- instant and free global payments.
...and then it would be up to Michael to argue that these things are A) untrue, B) not useful, C) not new.
So a missed opportunity, and kinda frustrating, but oh well.
Next, I'll do a writeup of Shellenberger's debate with Pomp, and perhaps after that my impressions of the recent debate between Michael Saylor and that Rebel Capitalist-guy.
So stay tuned!