twofish

not of this 🤡🌎 insanity.

I bet we could build an algorithm that measures the frequency of statements that are consciously or unconsciously engineered to operate strictly off confirmation bias. What do you think?

Public Key

npub1ncxn5tzmmackrdhjfrj94ayq5026my3esntsefpp0x6jtcnu42uqye29r0

NIP-57 Address

twofish@minibits.cash

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsfurf693da7utpkmey3ez67jq284ddjgucf4cv5sshndf9uf724wqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5qjcamnwvaz7tmwdaehgun4v3jkctnrd3hh2epwwe5kumn90yh8s7t69akx7cmpdskhyetvv9usf2wdgh

Publishing to

nostr.mom

nostrudel.cloud.vinney.xyz/local-relay

relay.damus.io

Author Public Key

npub1ncxn5tzmmackrdhjfrj94ayq5026my3esntsefpp0x6jtcnu42uqye29r0

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-06-03 03:37:53

It looks like my nsec got leaked.
I'll see you in another life when we are both cats.

2025-05-31 23:41:59

- reply

Sorry about the tangent but, do you know where the block temple is constructed?

2025-05-31 17:08:27

- reply

I would toss in at least one monkey. I like it.

2025-05-30 15:49:39

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/7152763c8f0e959f2a7319c14fb22169a247bb22dc48dacb2ee9f37699f5f587.jpg

2025-05-30 00:53:11

- reply

Yup. Hawk vs Dove game. This is a rerun right?

2025-05-30 00:47:13

- reply

Yes if you over water a plant, that tends to happen.

2025-05-29 21:06:08

- reply

Yeah it's the equivalent of a rage quit, and quite unfortunate on either side.

2025-05-29 21:03:51

- reply

Yeah it's a tough intermittent fast.

2025-05-29 19:58:23

- reply

The help:
I want to point out that having an agenda in 'the story' that one's made up in one's head is what I'm getting at here. I'm not judging. I'm offering clarity on my point of view so that one can see my perspective. I see you as someone who exists in infinite potential. What that means is that I have NO story, and by extension, NO characters. I see everyone that way. The story never ends which is to say there is no story. I'm going to drop the topic right now. You have my perspective. I also have to go now.

2025-05-29 16:50:12

- reply

100%. It's a dividing line between the coward and the sloth, and we are outnumbered IMHO.
It goes a bit deeper, but you get the idea. Let me provide an example, and I'd love a stealman argument against this perspective.
#nevent1q…cafu

2025-05-29 00:28:05

- reply

Thanks for providing his perspective. I love it.
Can you do me a favor and see if this is a different vision for bitcoin?
#nevent1q…cafu

2025-05-29 00:18:50

- reply

Isn't that just gold with extra steps?

2025-05-28 23:34:43

- reply

Yes and I'm stating that I believe the reason why the people who are not holding bitcoin in self custody IS because they don't see it as pure money.
That is my perspective, and my original line of questioning was an attempt to draw that out as an example.

2025-05-28 23:27:29

- reply

So that you can see the perspective of the wall this guy is talking to.
#nevent1q…v3ma

2025-05-28 23:22:21

- reply

Play this loop out recursively. If you do, you should find people as an underlying layer correct? If that is apparent then within the mind is the trusted third party. If that is the case, then if the answer isn't "Bitcoin is pure money", the you found a security hole.
#nevent1q…8gz3

2025-05-28 22:19:12

- reply

Are you stating that in your mind bitcoin isn't pure money?

2025-05-28 22:12:41

- reply

This is a symptom of the matrix. Tech support will arrive shortly.

2025-05-28 22:05:03

- reply

OK, but I trust nobody will fork bitcoin with consensus to turn bitcoin into into a blockchain... Or bank, or whatever you can imagine besides pure money...
Are they third parties?

2025-05-28 21:08:49

- reply

An the underlying system that supports this ownership? Can we defend that?

2025-05-28 20:12:47

- reply

How can one define ownership as a physical construct?

2025-05-28 15:58:32

- reply

I received an off by one error 😂.
No really, "You want to ban lending?". In question form, I can't tell what side he is on with your statement.
My prior knowledge about Mr Saylor is that he does want to recreate the capture of gold, as bitcoin, in a ft Knox strategy using a strategy of selling the idea of yield on bitcoin which is a standard monkey tree trap. Yeild on bitcoin is an oxymoron, but the growth of custodial bitcoin is growing faster than non custodial bitcoin which is a signal that we are losing this battle. That needs to be accepted.

2025-05-27 06:31:22

- reply

Does any custodial service in existence provide a proof of reserves?
#asknostr

2025-05-27 00:03:56

- reply

You'll never go back 👌

2025-05-25 15:01:56

- reply

I will provide the market outcome (IMHO).
I have no idea how the sale of DNA works, but let's assume it's spit (mucas).
Banning spit for sale will only make it more prevalent. The value for spit will go up, and exacerbate the problem because the cost to produce is nearly 0. Data brokers would love a ban, and would be incentivised to honor such a thing.
I think of physical power (watts) and abstract power (logic) reinforce each other in either a vicious or virtuous cycle. Both need to be considered.

2025-05-25 05:30:25

- reply

My go to is confirmation bias with respect to sheep and the website.

2025-05-25 03:36:10

- reply

I will also point out that you are using physical property and information property interchangeably. Physical property is objective reality, and information is subjective reality.
All the while questioning my response to a physical threat.

2025-05-24 16:21:50

- reply

I think these you are asking about are here:
softwar chapter 1, 2, and 3
As far as systems thinking, here is a primer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8
A convenient book on systems thinking:
https://www.audible.com/pd/Thinking-in-Systems-Audiobook/B07FWBN4Q5
To create an analogy between your line of thinking and mine would be to compare the difference between bitcoin and ethereum.

2025-05-24 15:20:04

- reply

Context is king. In what domain are you operating in? Best is also a subjective term that can change over time. What is the emergent behavior, and how should one make choices in that domain.
As far as aggression, this is tied to the act of ownership. You cannot signal ownership of anything in the physical domain without exerting watts to prove it. NAP is a futile strategy in the physical domain unless it's backed by some aggression principal.
So to combine strategies, draw a line and then execute tit for tat. The tit for tat could be a movement of the line itself.
If, what I am drawing a line in, is human nature, then I have only become a victim of it.
https://image.nostr.build/ef2c9f45af3753e8a3a758f51c9537989811371dd8531bd0a5417938884ed4db.jpg

2025-05-24 14:31:24

- reply

If you take the stance that the relationship is a market then what would sovereignty be?

2025-05-24 05:40:04

- reply

I see what you mean. The instance of my DNA, I own, that I inherited from my parents. Too raise the bar, or proceed from here, let's introduce 23AndMe.
Now they have a near perfect copy of my DNA in physical form from my twin. Now 23AndMe have rights to my gnome, from a usefullness standpoint. Now this may be considered a class at this point because now they can clone me. A victim mindset would call that theft. The alternative mindset is to take responsibility in the form of acceptance. Control the things that I can, and accept the things I cannot. Sure.
As far as control, these 'property rights' are not governed by nature. There is no proof of power behind them. I could, arguably, gain consensus around this abstract thought among enough minds to have all this data destroyed legally, or some subset of that. For example, any data collected can only be used in such and such manner, legally.
Of course that isn't going to stop bio-warfare at the genome level because warfare ignores abstract power, leading to our further domestication, which I think is just going to blow up in their face, but whatever.
So me personally, I would petition to have all DNA collection destroyed as this is only abstract power we are dealing with which can be a line in the sand. It's not perfect, but that is how to manage a complex system.

2025-05-24 03:37:41

- reply

And it seems like we are both contradicting ourselves.
- You can't give away what you don't have.
- No one owns the human genome or their family's genetic tendencies.
If you don't own it then what you have given away was theft. (as far as abstract property rights)
From a nature perspective, absolutely. You have it, and you can give it away. But if we were operating from a strictly nature perspective then I could not acknowledge the abstract property rights and destroy any copy I see fit.
So it's a matter of perspective.

2025-05-24 00:06:35

- reply

You can't give away what you don't have. DNA ownership is a fuzzy topic.

2025-05-23 17:57:32

- reply

>You have a tendency to either assume too much in the minds of other people, or to not consider it adequately so as to have a successful communication.
I do unfortunately, and I will do it again unfortunately.
This concept you invoke maps to the following, and as a game theory fren, I invoke, a smooth game called 'A Location Game':
https://timroughgarden.org/f13/l/l14.pdf
And to provide the lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYd7VxtITrE
And then map it to bitcoin's proof of work mempool assumptions when mining with the network's mempools' containing high entropy or low entropy relative to each others with centralized and decentralized mining.
And to ease up on this distance I will provide the mechanics of 'mining with the network's mempool containing high or low entropy when a race condition exists' here:
https://video.nostr.build/d63026f71b9ab3455d846690d93879413f5db9a85db6d1abd71eb732c8e191cc.mp4
The full video provided (section starts at 0:34:37)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ-nD9hSaeg

2025-05-23 15:39:23

- reply

If you study bats, per Robert Sapolsky's research, he identified a consequence of what society might call selfishness, but with the right sunglasses on, you would see 'tit for tat that allows for mistakes'.
Tit for tat that allows for mistakes does exist in nature. We call it a solution to the tragedy of the commons.

2025-05-23 15:30:03

- reply

A strictly human construct is something not found in nature outside of human abstract thought.

2025-05-23 15:16:21

- reply

Selfishness, as in being selfish, is a strictly human construct that doesn't exist in nature, so no. Pulling away signifies a betrayal of one's self/42/meaning of life/mission/conquest/whatever YOU are.

2025-05-23 15:06:26

- reply

Pulling away from self signifies a betrayal.

2025-05-23 15:01:04

- reply

I think of it in terms of orbits, and if one pulls away, and you choose to follow, then you chose companionship over your conquest.

2025-05-22 22:51:22

- reply

Eye for an eye doesn't exist in nature.
BUT, an eye for an eye that allows for mistakes does exist in nature. The bat, specifically, per Robert Sapolsky's research.
However, I call 'eye for an eye' a false equivalence to my question about the scenario given in Trial by Jury.

2025-05-22 22:29:26

- reply

Show me in nature where this problem exists. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

2025-05-22 18:48:39

- reply

Abstract power corrupts absolutely.

2025-05-22 18:40:12

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/a854d9f751827563da3ab926b3d8d794bd336791909c6bdc409a6f23c6ba3022.jpg

2025-05-22 18:12:05

- reply

Sure.
An anarchist would change their prospective. There is no spoon, and the spoon will bend to their will.
When you repress desire, it explodes in your face.

2025-05-22 17:42:53

- reply

Ad hominem factory more like.

2025-05-22 04:52:25

- reply

It may seem tedious to slow down communication like this. And it is, indeed, slow going to use this technique. However, using “I create” sentences, a pair intent on heart-felt communication can wend its way carefully through the subject at hand. When we really need to hear each other, it is a very helpful technique. In beginning each sentence with “I,” the two communicators are kept from accusing each other, as in “You did this” or “You said that.” If we need to share a concern with another, we can say, “I feel badly about something I thought you said. This is what I thought I heard.” Then we can share our tender feelings and find out if we heard the other person correctly without accusing the other person or separating him from us in our hearts.

2025-05-21 22:44:37

- reply

I create another strategy that is more cringe that starts every response with 'I create'.
I create communicates that whatever perspective I have is a reminder that whatever I perceive is actually a reflection of myself.
I create directs a perturbation about another back at me.

2025-05-21 21:49:01

- reply

I'm sorry, but I don't think you are.

2025-05-21 21:46:29

- reply

I'm sorry but I disagree with this statement.

2025-05-21 18:10:52

- reply

The attack vector in bitcoin has been at the social level nearly since inception, and if you take #mkulta seriously then everything in the #softwar book needs to include that perspective.

2025-05-20 21:00:29

- reply

Probably because you are the only adult in the room.

2025-05-20 19:56:16

- reply

Welcome sir

2025-05-20 04:57:11

- reply

Some light reading 😂
"physical power is still the primary means through which they settle territory disputes and resolve conflicting abstract beliefs about property rights. They write rules of law to define property rights, but then they use physical power to solve disputes about what the “legitimate” rule of law is, or what the “right” property rights should be. While there are many examples in everyday life where law successfully settles human intraspecies property disputes, what people often overlook is the long history of physical disputes that were used to instantiate those laws (in other words, our property rights exist because of the wars fought to establish those property rights)."
- Softwar
"Every organism can be attacked; therefore, every organism has a BCRA. An organism’s BCRA is a simple fraction determined by two variables: the benefit of attacking it (BA) and the cost of attacking it (CA). BA is a function of how resource abundant an organism is. Organisms with lots of precious resources have high BA. Organisms with less precious resources have lower BA. On the flip side of the equation, CA is a function of how capable and willing an organism is at imposing severe physical costs on attackers. Organisms capable of and willing to impose severe physical costs on neighboring organisms have high CA. Organisms that are not capable of or willing to impose severe physical costs on neighboring organisms have low CA. Higher BCRA organisms are more vulnerable to attack than lower BCRA organisms because they offer a higher return on investment for hungry neighbors to devour. Organisms therefore have an existential imperative to lower their BCRA as much as they can afford to do so by increasing their capacity and inclination to impose severe physical costs on neighboring organisms. An organism can’t just devote all their time and energy towards increasing their resource abundance and expect to prosper for long, because doing so would cause their BCRA to climb"...
-Softwar
And it goes on and on about organisms adapting to this law of nature, among other things.
I think depending on property rights as the fundamental mechamsims is ignoring the watts aspect of what it takes to control a resource.
As far as other people's property, the BCRA is fundamental, and libertarian property rights is abstract power. I just like having this perspective rather than assuming that if I respect other people's property that the reverse will be true. There is so much to think about here, but if I am a plant, and I grow above another plant (using the watts that I collected already), taking light away from the below plant, did I infring on the lower plant's property rights? In a court case, that may be the case. Water rights for example has rules to account for this. As humans we have to deal with both physical power and abstract power. Nature doesn't care about abstract power.

2025-05-19 20:40:02

- reply

Right, which is why I reference softwar. The book defines energy capture at the cellular level, but begins at the origin of life, and expands all the way to nation states. For example, the evolution of a mouth. It not only defeats your opponent, but you claim it's resources as an atomic action.
So without providing all the context, it states bitcoin or proof of work (I forget which) is like a mouth. And explains why this is the case. I think it defines information as a form of energy first, which never existed as energy until bitcoin. I can't rewrite the chapters well enough from my passing glance of it. Sorry.

2025-05-19 18:08:14

- reply

They say in quantum physics:
"The wave function collapses to a single photon when it is observed or measured"
So if what I call myself in this moment as being a single photon, it (me aka the photon) is only because it was being observed or measured.
Had it not been measured, then nothing is influencing the, what I would define as the unconscious, objective self.

2025-05-19 01:48:02

- reply

I can't zap you for some reason. Take this:
cashuBpGFteCJodHRwczovL21pbnQubWluaWJpdHMuY2FzaC9CaXRjb2luYXVjc2F0YXSBomFpSABQBVDwSUFGYXCGpGFhCGFzeMJbIlAyUEsiLHsibm9uY2UiOiJjZjU5YWU1NjRjY2ViNGYyYjVmODI2NTNhYTkwNTQyYTgxYzY2NWY1OTU1YmI4MTMyOGU5ZDAyMmI3OGM3MzdmIiwiZGF0YSI6IjAyN2VkN2Q1YzNhYmYwNmZhMWMwMGY3MWY4Nzk4NTY3NjlmNDZhYzkyMzU0YzEyOWIzZWQ1NTYyNTA2OTI3ZTIwMCIsInRhZ3MiOltbImxvY2t0aW1lIiwxNzQ3NjE5ODM2XV19XWFjWCEDw5Jf5Yaxutk2Kvxvmp_cPZas_ZjiKTynFVf5yr3WadxhZKNhZVgg61zh7VQ3GIXk6EGJ-c7YnBvfi0f77F32WQ0pzh1dTWthc1gg-vYWKLy2OZrq408tnzQYX2tg9oTSEBLyYksZTZ3nZVFhclggijsIHvOM86yAVo8aRJwm04JZeIsQeiADsBt8aTO_fbekYWEYIGFzeMJbIlAyUEsiLHsibm9uY2UiOiJiNjJjZjI2OTJhOGFmZTU1Mjk3NmI5MWU5ZDFiY2NjOWVhYjZhMmE3MjEzZWY3NjExNzg3OWRmMTZjZmFkNjlhIiwiZGF0YSI6IjAyN2VkN2Q1YzNhYmYwNmZhMWMwMGY3MWY4Nzk4NTY3NjlmNDZhYzkyMzU0YzEyOWIzZWQ1NTYyNTA2OTI3ZTIwMCIsInRhZ3MiOltbImxvY2t0aW1lIiwxNzQ3NjE5ODM2XV19XWFjWCEDvtgqMZYU8x6MJx-g7gzxs8eTIWYwgc55U2Z5mkGCqBthZKNhZVggWXrt0Gde2TXRWbDQ1hPa7TWVcjoCQNQYt99U3ZeJgM9hc1gguZbRSXW7u7Oy3f4TsssQa-qyMStwSA6UvYSppkhRT2xhclgg5d1SXIs6VZaAosWpbmpAnqR6kDHGBpmzkF4Zu-ywYcCkYWEYQGFzeMJbIlAyUEsiLHsibm9uY2UiOiJmZGU5NDEzYmMxYjRhMjNjOGQwMzA4NmIyYjQyYzc1YWU2ODNhZjBjMmRkNTU4MWM2ZTczZDk3MDhiYzhiMGY5IiwiZGF0YSI6IjAyN2VkN2Q1YzNhYmYwNmZhMWMwMGY3MWY4Nzk4NTY3NjlmNDZhYzkyMzU0YzEyOWIzZWQ1NTYyNTA2OTI3ZTIwMCIsInRhZ3MiOltbImxvY2t0aW1lIiwxNzQ3NjE5ODM2XV19XWFjWCECgICWz3ItXJNRLLNTBtHEfipWGzD5fhvrjZ0mo3YxPEZhZKNhZVggdNZGUDr-PzMp0lWmmf9XCRuPH5PTW9tvUllHWOCWt4hhc1ggXeEmWR6ZfPHcUk0c8nAupbNfhJ35OYKbrWBHt-xn_IphclggvVHO6j7Ywk_zUf6lgn_gayl4IdwTbS4vREWoObwZGaykYWEYgGFzeMJbIlAyUEsiLHsibm9uY2UiOiIwYTljNTRhNWI3OWI3ODBlZjQ3N2VlMzYwNTQwZjdiMGQ1ZTJkZjU0MWYxNjgzNTRmMzZhZjAxMzcwYzQxNmE0IiwiZGF0YSI6IjAyN2VkN2Q1YzNhYmYwNmZhMWMwMGY3MWY4Nzk4NTY3NjlmNDZhYzkyMzU0YzEyOWIzZWQ1NTYyNTA2OTI3ZTIwMCIsInRhZ3MiOltbImxvY2t0aW1lIiwxNzQ3NjE5ODM2XV19XWFjWCEDVP0gKZCuSyCj0RlFRLQv-msSDQ0Op5V3NKuDk-Mb1wlhZKNhZVggVfaqmeZuuIwI8O3E0ZSvjBhBFjNDEbO63l7Uf8g1LvNhc1gggO8kHGpd23OxEeyoYBkVLg-UMbuu5u42-NFSkxy8FNBhclggbyhJvrQnQ585jFzbJkHxeoO3tDGT6Fpz-Pat2n4h6EqkYWEZAQBhc3jCWyJQMlBLIix7Im5vbmNlIjoiNzczYjgyYmU1Njk2NzFlZDkyZjQ4OGE1NWNiM2YzNDc4ZjY2YjM5YjBmMWVmYjUwMDllNWM5Mjk2NzQ5NTY1NSIsImRhdGEiOiIwMjdlZDdkNWMzYWJmMDZmYTFjMDBmNzFmODc5ODU2NzY5ZjQ2YWM5MjM1NGMxMjliM2VkNTU2MjUwNjkyN2UyMDAiLCJ0YWdzIjpbWyJsb2NrdGltZSIsMTc0NzYxOTgzNl1dfV1hY1ghApK_dlfUukRIeiR6nxbl69fJWMqJOnF_sfHMr3ZEc-zbYWSjYWVYIAOXsTKImgeG0GMoXuogt0iu37z3tuYqdyc2fayBi4YfYXNYIOOXbX1-GV3QRX5HswWiKnUEdruMbxQkVvtmTbuKrUAtYXJYIMR-lvTDIb9PE7-5D6tLvpeuKas9_ss93rOGrZW-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

2025-05-19 00:28:29

- reply

I don't know if this is relevant to what he said about area, but you can't make a plane out of a single point.

2025-05-19 00:22:30

- reply

For what it's worth... Even though I doubt that this is not what he had in mind:
Python
def f(x):
return x * 2
def g(x):
return x + 3
def h(x):
return f(x) * g(x)

2025-05-18 20:00:34

- reply

OK but lightning allows for sub satoshi.

2025-05-18 00:41:59

- reply

Terrance Howard needs to learn about floating point arithmetic on a computer that only knows binary, and common calculators need to be upgraded to the latest libraries that exist in say, Python, that knows what to do with real numbers.

2025-05-17 20:50:51

- reply

What Carl Jung has to say about illusions in relationships (more details on the YouTube channel)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ0IC1cmMcY
On a more personal note about the general force behind your awakening (IMHO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HNkx7X5jdE

2025-05-16 04:41:41

Koch snowflake
https://image.nostr.build/5138eddfa23c00b982fd9ef4b6ce7f24c16c948fcd089c221fce8abe76df1318.gif

2025-05-15 23:57:54

- reply

It's the same thing as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE

2025-05-15 23:51:53

- reply

It's definitely white and nerdy.

2025-05-15 23:46:45

- reply

I prefer the Pareto distribution over the uniform distribution personally 🤓.

2025-05-15 00:07:17

- reply

Of course you can take on as many perspectives as you like, but imagine all these characters taking a point of view and in each case it's just reflecting back at you your own bias. The book softwar was written by a military agent so what do you know, surprise surprise, it can be used as an alternative to war. Couldn't have predicted that 😂.
https://image.nostr.build/8e74b085c73899f7316c62bb5af091ae9710e7bcf03a1d2a7d0923b290be4490.jpg

2025-05-14 23:58:55

- reply

I mean, no matter how hard you try to classify it, all you get back is a reflection of yourself.

2025-05-14 23:47:23

- reply

So far it strengthens my belief that bitcoin is a mirror.

2025-05-13 02:21:37

@nprofile…45up
When I saw your YouTube video, the first thing I thought about was this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU

2025-05-12 17:25:45

- reply

Never forget

2025-05-09 20:19:19

You can't give away what you don't have.
https://video.nostr.build/de8b31dfdf3e7bafdabbcd8f25b6e98a932c6a3274398633556b13e656bcf452.webm

2025-05-09 19:24:53

- reply

I looked into this more and have an example:
**Claim (A)**: "Eating chocolate every day is healthy."
**Argument Supporting A**: "Chocolate contains antioxidants, which are good for your health. Therefore, eating chocolate every day must be healthy."
### Flaw in the Argument:
Someone might point out a flaw in the argument by saying: "The argument is flawed because it ignores the fact that eating too much chocolate can lead to weight gain and other health issues."
### Conclusion:
Based on identifying this flaw, the person concludes: "Therefore, eating chocolate every day is not healthy."
### Error:
This conclusion is an example of the fallacy of the fallacy. Just because the argument supporting the claim has a flaw does not necessarily mean that the claim itself (A) is false. It is possible that eating chocolate in moderation could still be healthy, or that there are other valid arguments supporting the health benefits of chocolate that were not considered.
In this case, the flaw in the argument does not invalidate the claim itself; it simply indicates that the reasoning provided was insufficient or incomplete.

2025-05-09 17:09:01

- reply

Which to me, given your statement, the proposal to remove the OP_RETURN limit is bike shedding at best.

2025-05-07 23:18:55

- reply

To minimize the error is all we can do with the data we have. The PCA algorithm is an example of this, and ironically mentions Hooke's Law.
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/2691/making-sense-of-principal-component-analysis-eigenvectors-eigenvalues#140579

2025-05-07 22:46:54

- reply

And we've gone full circle into Hooke's law 😂👏.

2025-05-07 20:54:45

- reply

Identifying out of band tx is a way to identify spam. It means they couldn't find a way to get the tx through otherwise.

2025-05-07 20:34:55

Much like the old Zuckerburg app 'Hot or Not', I would like to see an app called 'CIA or Not' in the bitcoin community.

2025-05-07 16:36:29

- reply

Yeah I posted about a bit of nuance on this topic.
#nevent1q…3ls2
In computation a good approach is to determine whether a problem can be reduced or transformed into a simpler or known form. I took some notes about different P vs NP Hard problems and mapping them out. For example, if you have a specific problem, but you can translate the problem to a graph coloring problem, then do that translation, solve it in that domain, and then translate it back. The graph coloring problem is defined here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_coloring
https://image.nostr.build/2ce96f6ce8fd14ab2cfcb4c6c61c2831609937e2ea17e27305c56c5d34b70e95.jpg

2025-05-07 08:32:18

As stated by Itzhak Bentov:
"While in the last few years we have been witnessing a great increase in the area of psychic phenomena, still the majority of people suffer from what one may call the "giraffe syndrome," which goes as follows: One nice day an elderly resident of the Bronx decides to visit the zoo. As he walks along, admiring all the unusual animals, he suddenly finds himself staring at a set of very tall legs. As he lifts his eyes, he finds the belly of the animal connecting those legs; he keeps looking up, and all he sees is neck, neck, and more neck, and then, somewhere up in the clouds, a head. "No," he says, "this is impossible. There is no such animal." And with that he turns away from the giraffe and walks calmly on, not casting even a single glance back at it. Most people have the giraffe syndrome when it comes to those controversial areas. Especially so affected are scientists, with the exception of a very few pioneering spirits. The problem is that they view reality through a tiny window, and they like to stay within the frame of that window. They decide that if the giraffe is too big for their window, then it's too bad for the giraffe; as far as they are concerned, it is nonexistent. Fortunately, the levels of consciousness into which I divide the different phenomena are easily available, so that anyone who is willing to spend the time and effort does not need to rely on my description of things. He can go to the zoo and see things for himself."
I find it difficult to see things in this way (through a tiny window), but I think it's important to see things from their point of view. You literally have to cut a small slit through an opaque frame to see the one thing, tilt your head to see the other thing, and then imagine that somehow these two things do not have a unified connection.
The difference between the giraffe syndrome and this meme is with what Bentov is describing is one person's perspective of all these things being different independent concepts with no unifying connection, while the meme below is bitcoin acting as a mirror to each individual reflecting back their own personal opinions and speculations. More specifically, Bentov is describing one person, and the meme is describing many people.
If I were to draw an equivalent giraffe syndrome meme as explained by Bentov, each character below would be drawn as the same individual.
While the giraffe syndrome may be apparent in this meme, the difference is Bentov is providing a one to many relationship, while the meme is providing a many to many relationship.
I think the difference is important because we as individuals cannot take an equivalent perspective as a collective, unless we become like, a borg or something.
https://image.nostr.build/8e74b085c73899f7316c62bb5af091ae9710e7bcf03a1d2a7d0923b290be4490.jpg

2025-05-07 05:03:41

- reply

Listening to you explain your research topic wasn't just flow state from my perspective. It was very schizo.
https://image.nostr.build/18f0354b1cdd18ede7c084a00aa012976d275d1a235983e9df5688aebfb67378.jpg

2025-05-05 20:00:57

- reply

Got it. I should have paid more attention to your original statement when you said 'should'.
We are stuck in a Normative vs Positive argument.
While things should be a certain way (your original statement), I am stating things as I understand them to be right now.
I don't disagree with your 'should be' arguments.
https://image.nostr.build/72341278d0e1de73b2d4caef26ac01c5758b3036c56095c7fef4aaa981ad0acc.jpg

2025-05-05 19:27:16

- reply

Could you explain more? Like in what situation would that be the case? Everyone makes their own independent decision to choose which fork to install, and each developer independently chooses which PR to accept in their own repo, except core, and those with more than one maintainer who has the burden of coordination. Common wisdom in software development is to keep teams no larger than 6 devs for that reason (coordination). So if that wisdom holds, then the most he could be is an army of 6.

2025-05-05 19:08:43

- reply

I would agree if his repo exists in a vacuum.

2025-05-03 18:09:04

- reply

Yes, the intention of this tool (now website, but I imagine this will get integrated into nostr apps) is discoverability. People complaining about how only bitcoin bros exist on nostr.

2025-05-03 17:59:35

- reply

Persistence is a deadly weapon.

2025-05-03 17:57:24

- reply

Sure. Here is an example. I use this example because it's kind of weird. Maybe some people don't want to be added.
#nevent1q…u6qd

2025-05-03 17:38:46

- reply

Trained since a small child to coddle that ego.

2025-05-03 16:14:10

- reply

It may be attachment that causes suffering. Then fear of losing said attachment. You don't let go of your fears, you let go of your attachments, and the fear goes away in its own.

2025-05-03 00:21:15

@nprofile…45up
I think we should do this eventually.
#nevent1q…wqm9

2025-05-02 00:56:11

- reply

Glad I could help.

2025-05-02 00:48:30

- reply

I'm a big fan of Bull Bitcoin, but they also have liquid. I'm indifferent to it being there because I get why. Of course, I don't have a use case for liquid, and it took 2 seconds to send you the address.

2025-05-01 23:24:38

- reply

I mean, there is probably a transcription in the video, but my understanding is that spam filters do work sufficiently (without a hardfork) if core would accept the pull request of the spam filter. It doesn't catch everything, but it creates an environment where only the most sophisticated spammers can get through. The fact that this option is being ignored, and then stating because we can't stop it we must do x, is an attack on bitcoin. It's a form of gas lighting by disregarding solutions that address the spam directly. He addresses what I think is core's central point: The proposed spam filter won't stop x so we won't merge it (back in 2023). Mechanic relates it to essentially x being at the tail end of a normal distribution, meaning it doesn't work 100% of the time. Now fast forward to now and the proposed change by core is: Because we can't stop the spam then why should we have one. Which can be rephrased to: Because we can't stop 100% of the spam then why should we have one.
It's the fallacy of composition and division: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/fallacy-of-composition-and-division.html
Here is the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15biQH1H140

2025-05-01 22:21:33

- reply

Yeah, as stayed after core sat on their hands in 2023 when all this started. The proposal that was 'contentious' was to address the spam with a spam filter.
Their like lala I'm not listening. And then:
Since we can't filter 100% of spam, our only action is to just lower the drawbridge and let it all in. It's fine because now they aren't trying to climb the castle walls anymore.
And I expected the response to that be more: lala we can't stop all spam.
Can you even refute Bitcoin Mechanics central point?
Like, rewind back to 2023 when the problem started.

2025-05-01 19:12:26

I couldn't make an incoming astroid go viral, but here you go.
#nevent1q…du4s

2025-05-01 17:35:10

- reply

This is survivorship bias that valid arguments must only exist in their domain where they have the power to censor.

2025-04-29 17:31:50

- reply

I think your next homework assignment should be to easily and effortlessly identify ai tone so that this question becomes unnecessary.
Sorry, not sorry.

2025-04-29 00:38:39

- reply

If the community's consensus is to keep Bitcoin strictly as a form of money, then there may be little to no demand for a larger OP_RETURN size. Here are some reasons why a larger OP_RETURN might not be necessary or desired in that context:
1. **Focus on Transactions:** If Bitcoin is primarily viewed as a medium of exchange, the emphasis would be on facilitating transactions rather than storing additional data. The existing 80 bytes are sufficient for basic metadata, such as transaction identifiers or short messages.
2. **Avoiding Complexity:** A larger OP_RETURN could introduce complexity that the community may not want. Keeping the protocol simple helps maintain security and reduces the risk of bugs or vulnerabilities.
3. **Preserving Blockchain Integrity:** A larger data size could lead to increased blockchain bloat, which might make it harder for individuals to run full nodes. This could undermine the decentralization and security of the network.
4. **Sufficient for Current Use Cases:** For most use cases related to Bitcoin as money, such as payment confirmations or simple transaction notes, 80 bytes is generally adequate. There may not be a compelling need for more space.
5. **Community Consensus:** If the community is aligned on the vision of Bitcoin as a currency, then there may be a collective agreement that the current OP_RETURN limit is sufficient and that expanding it could divert focus from that primary goal.
In summary, if the community is unified in wanting Bitcoin to remain a straightforward and efficient form of money, there may be little motivation to increase the OP_RETURN size, as the existing limit serves the intended purpose well.

2025-04-26 04:20:30

- reply

Which is the best client for grandma on iOS?

2025-04-24 19:20:55

- reply

The only SOLID acronym I know, was coined by @nprofile…7l6w:
The SOLID principles are a set of five design principles in object-oriented programming that help developers create more understandable, flexible, and maintainable software. They include the Single Responsibility Principle, Open-Closed Principle, Liskov Substitution Principle, Interface Segregation Principle, and Dependency Inversion Principle.

2025-04-23 15:02:24

- reply

Jeff Booth would not recommend such a thing. He would suggest you stop measuring in fiat.

2025-04-13 11:17:58

- reply

Having to lock and unlock threads is always a bad experience for the developer.