pull down to refresh
ᕦ(ò_óˇ) Day 5 of exercising everyday before the saloon opens
Oh, oh, I got late with posting this. Got too distracted with notifications and the Pay It Forward Initiative and then some more notifications.
I went for a run today. It took me 31:37 to run roughly 5km.
In German, we actually call it "joggen" not "rennen". I looked up if there is a better translation than "run" (since you don't really run if you try to "run" a long distance or for a long period of time). There is also "to jog" in English. But it feels like this is not used much? Is this more like a trap where you can notice if people use "to jog" that English is not their mother tongue?
Anyway. When I run, I don't try to run for a specific period of time. I try to run a specific route (with a specific distance) with checkpoints in mind.
I do this because I think it makes it easier to "not cheat" by just running very slowly. Anyone can "run" 30min+ if you just walk. Running a specific distance is therefore imo a good benchmark. This way, you can also make a competition out of this by measuring your time.
This always brings me to this question: What is the fastest way to travel a specific distance, therefore optimizing for least time? And what is the most efficient way to travel a specific distance; optimizing for least energy expended?
For example, if we keep the distance fixed, we can expend energy to travel the same distance in less time.
But when we start to target long enough distances (for example, 10km), it becomes obvious that we can't expend maximum energy all the time since we will get too exhausted. And then we will probably be a lot slower since we still have to travel a long distance even after all our energy is already depleted.
So what is the optimal speed for least energy expenditure? And at which point do you start to run as fast as you can to achieve your fastest time?
I don’t see anything different in the incentive structure here to prevent what happened to Twitter 20 years ago.
We'll see how it shakes out, but if you don't see anything different in the incentive structure then I'm not sure where exactly you're looking. The incentive structure couldn't be more different and is one of the most remarkable things about SN.
100%
If you insist on posting a twatter link at least adjust it to a nitter relay so that the rest of us don't have to suffer the spywall
Or just have the decency to actually share some actual content rather than posting a link and hoping to profit from someone else's content with zero commentary added.
I sharpen knives. Not sure if it's hidden, because I talk about it, and ask friends and family for their dull knives to sharpen all the time. But it's something I really enjoy doing as a pastime.
Thank you for sharing your story and your reflections here. As you said, while one could still argue if freedom of speech is really at risk with such unexplained Twitter bans (and I'm not saying it is not), it is still a fact that time and effort are lost by the user banned.
For anyone creating content directly on centralised platforms, this is an important wake-up call.
Publishing content primarily on a self-hosted blog / website / newsletter is a good practice. After all, we can always create content on our site and post the link to it later in whatever social media platform we desire. It is also possible to build (and retain!) an audience directly from our blog/newsletter if readers subscribe to it.
As you well pointed out, social media platforms such as Twitter and Stacker News are extremely valuable for content discovery, conversations and moderation (by leveraging the likes, dislikes, etc). But we can mitigate the risk of losing everything by adopting self-hosting of our content at least :)
I think I found a small "bug". All Daily Discussion threads always say "yesterday". No matter if they are from today or a month ago.
The legacy technical leadership in bitcoin is becoming increasingly less effective.
Right off the bat James gets something wrong: the leadership of Core right now is mostly not "legacy". They're newcomers like Chow and Zhao who got involved relatively recently.
Instead they are distracted with valuable but secondary issues like mempool policy
Good mempool policy is essential to making L2's work; L2's are the only viable solution we have to scaling self-custody to more people. While I disagree with Core on some of the detailed specifics of the mempool policy that has been adopted, the reasons why so much work has been done on mempool policy are correct.
When the regulatory hammer comes down, tens of millions will look to withdrawal their coins into self-custody. But they may not be able to.
Bitcoin can open about 1.1 billion channels/year with the existing Lightning protocol, with fairly simple changes to existing wallets. Tens of millions is not a big deal.
The irony here is that James has been wasting a bunch of time on an unimportant proposal that does nothing to scale self-custody: OP_Vault. In fact, OP_Vault makes the problem worse, by encouraging a particularly inefficient way of doing self-custody, approximately doubling the amount of chain space needed.
Meanwhile we have good reasons to not want to rush into multiple user per UTXO systems.
If you think that most people should be able to DCA and withdrawal to self-custody once a month, maybe spend once every few years for big purchases, I've got news for you
No-one has flushed-out proposals that let the world population DCA to genuine on-chain self-custody with minimal fees. Sorry. But we just haven't figured out how to do that. Ark is one of the things that comes closest. But holding a true self-custodial balance on Ark will require fees to pay for liquidity.
The most straightforward way to do DCA with minimal costs is to DCA to a trusted token, eg ecash, and periodically use the accumulated balance to resize a lightning channel. We have about enough on-chain capacity to resize about 470 million LN channels per year.
The world population with a cellphone is estimated to be roughly 4 billion people. So that gets us reasonably close.
The Bitcoin community should be getting prepared politically, by setting up legal defense funds (including for the present case) as well as setting up lobbying organizations.
The tendency of bitcoiners to just say "fuck politics" and disengage is deadly. You can't avoid politics with code. You can gain some power. But not enough to resist all politics.