yes, old pre-fiat world durability is inherently pleasing

I look forward to a day very soon when lightning payments are activated by default on the square terminal of my local bakery I shall by bread with bitcoin & the masses shall rejoice

What us this "crypto" you speak of?

highlights an obvious flaw in modern democracies Parties & their supporters on either side of the spectrum usher in new powers without thought of the risks of who might wield them in the future Rather than reversing the extra powers the last side granted themselves, they grant their own side even more powers to counter the power grab of their opponents It's both idiotic & depressingly predictable But the real issue is not the short-termism of politicians who come & go, it is the long-term incentives of the growing bureaucratic class who prevail, accumulating more & more power along the way It is the bureaucrats who have the strongest incentive to ever expand their power, simply printing money to support useless & damaging overreach Voting harder doesn't fix this

Never underestimate the desire of the masses to be controlled by a higher authority ... they need a strong charismatic leader to resist them ... 😂

I am not sure this is right. By default, bitcoin is converted instantly to btc, they need to enable not converting to usd and retaining btc If this is right, the pay in bitcoin option for the customer can still be on by default

This makes sense

Coming soon to a democracy near you ..

I couldn't agree with this more Rarely mentioned by anyone but intuitively felt by all who experience 'bitcoin clickage'

Look at go, the warrior-philosopher My hope is the trail he is blazing lays a path which will be followed by future generations ...

While I get the point you are making, worth the words left, right, collectivism, individualism, libertarianism or authoritarianism are used to characterise the spectrum actually being discussed Discussing an unspecified, undefined amorphous politicsl compus/spectrum per your preference is not a useful approach to exploring these ideas IMHO Sometimes concepts need to be simplifiedt fir ease of communication and for it to be left to the reader to apply some critical thought arounf more nuanced concepts of limitless spectrums I get your point, but I think it is your thinking & reading of it which is overly simplisitic & reductive

No it isn't. If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry

Most bitcoin users are non-technical & selfishly motivated by their own incentives Satoshi's genius was to align all of these incentives in an adversarial context Show me the incentive & I'll show you the outcome calmly explains in 3 minutes how the economic incentives of spamming interact with bitcoin & why transaction fees are the ultimate filter

yes please

You're not going to be on the right side of history on this call I'll show myself out ...

Thank you for this thoughtful, completely reasonable & valid response I can only speak for myself & what I have said, of course, & not to the issues you list I do not claim there have not been unreasonable responses, but you know, social media & all that ... As for myself, I must acknowledge that as a simple consumer of the content I have no factual or technical contribution to make of any value, nor do I have a dog in the fight I just had a drive-by, non-substantive criticism of the pundit-style gotcha journalism at the end of the piece, which I felt undermined the credibility of the otherwise important & substantive matters covered Specificity the screen shot of your candid conversation with Luke (below) - yes, you were technically entitled to publish it - yes, you can argue it was necessary for fairness - but imho, no, you should not have done so as it undermined the credibility of the article & regrettably threw the entire tone into a gotcha-journalism style - yes. Luke did not say 'off the record' - yes, it might be factually accurate - but in the end Luke was right, he did not make a statement, but rather asked a loaded question you did not like I think the article would have carried more weight by simply saying you asked Luke for comment & he denied it. Critically you did not provide Luke with the detail of his private conversation you were reporting on and therefore did not give him an opportunity to respond to the substantive meat of your article but rather offered him your conclusions, which he denied Do you think you should have shared the evidence you were basing your conclusions on so he could actually comment, rather than provide him with your conclusion which predictably inflamed him & goaded him into a sharp response? (a serious question, not a rhetorical one ) Just felt a bit off for me and I said so ... I stand by it Above seems to me to be making a calm rebuttal to your article (right or wrong), but you have responded with "Note that Mechanic has made no comment as to whether he'd support Luke's proposal. Someone tag this little shit i dont know what his handle is." In my view (right or wrong) your response came off as an unreasonable emotional response to a calmly stated contrary option, which frankly, was unnecessarily abusive & a bit shitty I am just a random punter, so feel free to ignore, but I would rather see your important & high-quality journalism stand on its substantive base & not be eroded by the occasional palpable loss of control & objectivity ... I really do love your work, , & see it as a very important contribution to the world, certainly more important than anything I am doing, which is why I took the time & effort to comment Hopefully you appreciate where I am coming from Love your work