oh man that is so funny. all the 'F**** government' ones 😆

also and ?

yea this app definitely deserves this name. any other signets can kick rocks. it also has a few puns: -"sig (over the) net" - if you keep the g silent and say it aloud it sounds like "sign it!"

i still have no idea who andrew tate is and i plan to keep it that way

https://github.com/Letdown2491/signet/pull/5

Fucking incredible!

Another issue is that the authPort authHost and baseUrl aren't added to .signet-config/signet.json in the setup script. If you don't get to those first I can submit a PR for that, too. the good news is: i just logged into jumble and am sending this reply with signet ;)

Thanks ! I'm not sure if you were instrumental in helping move this along, but is approved, which means it can fully operate on a Bitcoin Standard, including ACH payments to backwards dinosaur institutions who still want Dollars. All of my previous complaints and frustrations with the KYB process have been nullified. Slightly annoying that the previous responses were "rejected; not reversible; can't say more".. but all's well that ends well I guess!

You've got your first PR 🫡 Inspect it closely, I've never worked on before

Shitcoinery

Claude seems to think you have local config files from the fork that aren't committed to the repo... looking into it..

Thanks for the quick response. Any idea why it has low adoption?

i updated the issue again 👍

i want to rewrite it by hand now that i have the lay of the land. i personally find it rather shameful that its vibed, but i was in a rush. and if i clean it up and keep it on shakespeare there is actually a lot of potential in the basic catallax flow being a forkable template on their app!

you're supposed to just try to bone them all

I've never encountered Rootstock Bitcoin - rBTC - before (that's what "L2" is in this screenshot). Anyone know anything about it?

this is exactly why i say this category of digital good cannot exist without proper trust network protocols. just like value-carrying-bits couldn't exist before there was a protocol bounded by energy

not yet.

The only digital good that exhibits the important aspects of private property - and therefore can be reliably monetized - is access to privileged or private spaces and exclusive ownership of similar. UTXOs fall into the latter camp, while getting mutually peered with by a valuable individual or collective falls into the former. These are things that are **inherently excludable**. All other forms of digital "content" are trivially copy-able and re-publishable and therefore make poor candidates for a digital goods. If you understand that bitcoins are valuable because they can't be copied, and you have eyes to see the uncensorable nature of our communication systems, you'll understand this right away. If you sell text or audio or video or any other arrangement of ones and zeroes that people's computer can present to eyes and ears, it can be copied for free and either distributed gratis or for a slightly lower price than you originally sold it to the pirate for, in a race to the natural bottom of the price of bits: zero. the marginal cost of production of those bits. The only thing they can't pirate is _you_ and the choices you make regarding who to peer with (where "peer" is a purposefully vague term. I just mean your active choice to connect with someone in systems where they require your active consent in order to reach you. Think "invite to the private group chat"). As proper WoT systems - like GrapeRank - evolve, the power of exclusive trust networks will become apparent. When a set of people engage in mutual voluntary association and they unilaterally control who they choose to trust, an unwanted, untrusted outsider cannot "get in", no matter what they do. As competence, resources and productivity accumulate within these wells of human capital, the value of being inside the circle will become impossible to ignore. Then, and only then, will there be another "digital good" - aside from bitcoins - that will be uncopyable, ownable, and monetizable. In both cases, what creates value is not the information itself, but the boundary - the fact that some can be excluded, and others can be permitted. Digital property is defined by consensual exclusion. Bitcoin is excludable by private key, and webs of trust are excludable by consent. "Digital content" is neither.

i guess i'm at war now 🤷‍♂️ cool!

gotta give this a listen, that seems like an important nuance

our time and place is a rare gift from the universe not to be squandered. this is generally true for all people all the time everywhere, but doubly so for the early bitcoiners. we will not let the universe down 🫡

i have faith that this time jack isn't going to get my hopes up and then 👻 on me again :)

use a tor hidden service?

[email protected] its for a bitcoin only general interest bookseller

that's a question for square. apparently they are enabling this for vendors this year

you've convinced me

what if they're not used as leverage for buying more bitcoin but as a way to pay fiat bills without selling? (assuming the fiat bills owed stays under the bitcoin price appreciation) assume a person has zero dollars but a bunch of bitcoin. how else could they pay fiat bills other than selling?

supply and demand of what?!