It's all make-believe in the end. All value that we currently attribute to all money, be it fiat, crypto or anything else, it's all just make believe. Lore. Belief. We're all just imagining it together, surely you can see that?

Yup, certified not crazy. That said, I think Cashu is a good way of casino-chip-ifying pretty much anything, if that’s the functionality you’re after. Casino chips are useful—if you're in a casino. (Imagine placing crumpled up dollar bills on every number you want to cover on the roulette wheel.) As long as you're honest that these casino chips are indeed casino chips. Key caveat.

Yeah it’s one of those frustrating cases where the obvious distinction is the right one, despite elaborate mental gymnastics to the contrary. This “it’s all IOUs in the end” argument falls apart because it leads down a slippery slope the bottom of which is the recognition that all money derives its value from human imagination, and you can’t just stop halfway down that slippery slope and set up camp.

The value of all money is a figment of human imagination. Money is a shared delusion. That holds for fiat just as much as it holds for bitcoin. The moment enough people stop believing in it's value the value disappears. Contrast this to a coconut. You can stop "believing" in a coconut all you want, it's value, insofar as it's milk and flesh nourishes the human body, remains absolute. So no, there is no such gulf between bitcoin and fiat, there are simply different hooks on which to hang our collective imagination. So the distinction between bitcoin and cashu, as between dollars and casino tokens, is still valid. And if it's not then it's not based on the fact that ALL money is imagination-based, including both bitcoin and fiat.

By this logic custodial dollars in your traditional bank account are not "dollars". However they clearly are dollars. And inverse, calling casino chips dollars because they are valued in dollars is also not right. Clearly they are casino chips. It's important to separate what things are from how they are handled. Yes custodial bitcoin can stolen, but the thing stolen was bitcoin. Casino chips and dollars have very different properties, so each should be called what it is to make sure we are referring to what thing with what properties. And again the *handling* of that thing, whether honest or dishonest, is a separate matter to what the thing *is*.

With you that the name "nostr" turns a lot of people off on hearing it for the first time. For people in the tech space it's sounds try-hardy and lame. For people outside the tech space it sounds very much "I'm not for you" ish.

that's exactly the problem. The CommonMark spec is ridiculously detailed and includes a LOT of rules and exceptions to resolve pretty much every ambiguity. this makes it very hard to implement because you have to adhere to this behemoth of a ruleset. And it turns into the worst of both words, it's stuck in time, and it's heavy. And yet fragmentation still abounds, with all these dialects. Moxie Marlinspike is right in that article, the frozen-in-time effect of interop standardisation is often bad new for users who just want things to work.

Are you kidding, the user base here is far too small to monetise for anything other than snack money. The part of the user base that is regularly active and that can even use zapstore could literally fit into a small town church. And most of them download like an app a month. You have to take the tech and monetise it elsewhere, to existing business that have their own existing user bases. nostr is infinitesimally, ridiculously, unfatohomably tiny.

If anything that's a good indication it'll work well when you plug it into a non-nostr user base that can drive actually decent revenue to it.

It probably has been and is sitting in a database somewhere. Maybe someone pops in every now and then to see if you have any interesting DMs. You'd never know. There is no way on nostr to find out if a sleeper is signing in with your key other than to wait for them to post something by accident, or by setting up some sort of elaborate relay sting.

>Everybody I know that worked in the field of so called AI 8 years ago expected exactly that Find me any paper or blog from 10 years ago (or anytime before "All you need is attention" dropped) that predicted we'd be where we are with AI now and (critically) the specific means of how we'd get here. All there are are general "Neural nets will get better and better" wishy washy predictions of the type anyone can blurt out. Everything that happened with transformer architectures and their scale properties and their application to large language models, that was as out of the blue as it gets, even for those on the inside of the general neural net field.

https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ This is why it's hard.

Nah, that is not true. Look at the history of classic transistors. Every year a prediction, every next year that prediction blown out of the water. There are many quantum approaches. Topological is an interesting one, but there are others. And generally speaking the number of working logical qubits needed for a quantum computer to break the pre-image resistance of SHA-256 is in the range of thousands. Plus no shortage of motivation, just think of what cracking 256 gets you. If later this year some researchers announce they've created a machine with 100 logical q-bits, that's be a monumental engineering feat but definitely outside the realm of possibility. (It'd be a ChatGPT3 moment.) And if that happens later this year then bitcoin is effectively dead, since there is little chance the protection can evolve faster than the threat. Bitcoin hasn't agreed upon a single, standardised post-quantum cryptographic algorithm yet, to say nothing of implemenation. Too busy arguing about op-return and jpegs. That's how it ends.

That's what the people want, despite it not being what nostr wants the people to want.

And for last year. TRON is mostly USDT. Also for what it's worth, more USDT is now spent on stuff in one day than Bitcoin is spent on stuff in one year. (Not talking about store of value, just pure spending on stuff.) By this time next year, it'll be one day of USDT equals two years of Bitcoin. And it'll continue like that year after year, at some point one day of USDT will be several years of Bitcoin. And that's not even taking into account all the other stablecoins.

Its a blood loss issue. If you lose enough blood you go into shock. Same for bitcoin. The old keys will always be vulnerable but on their own maybe to not enough blood loss. But all the not old keys that are known and cant change in time (keep in mind no agreed algo to even change to yet) add them and that’s total shock