It is funny yet not so funny that that protocols have shipped and grew to millions of users then pivoted and gave up, while other protocols are still work in progress privately, as if timing is utterly irrelevant. On the other hand, what a privilege not to care about outcomes.

Aaaand Farcaster pivoted from social media to flat out a crypto wallet!

Bluesky is trending towards less than 1 Million daily active users and that includes people silently liking ... That is the total addressable market of large world social media... And remember, almost everything else is better off with a slightly enhanced version of Email.

You are stretching the definition so hard they are no longer useful or intelligible. Almost everywhere in distributed systems the word "honest" and "dishonest" merely means that you aren't trying to fake something, may it be the state, the history or Sybil etc.. These are not moral judgements, no one is calling the cheaters bad Christians or sinners or pedos or whatever nonsense knotzis are saying, in fact they are usually called adversaries. Moreover no one following the spec is ever called dishonest, people usually just focus on the spec being weak. Even if none of the 3 things you listed are not necessary to have Bitcoin, which would be an absurd statement, that doesn't make them moral judgements... That at most make them objective specification of the goal, by specification I mean narrowing. Now if Knotzis drop the morality bullshit and discuss narrowing the definition of Bitcoin from what is to what they want it to be, fine they are welcome, but they know they can't actually make any technical specification that is implementable so they argue nonsense instead. I actually want them to fork to see if they ever manage to define a consensus narrower than Bitcoin current consensus that doesn't leak left and right while remaining usable. I am also not sure why are you invested in calling things that are so technical that you can write them as code morality... Who benefits from that muddling? There is a centuries of mortality discourse that basically prove that morality is the domain of the hand wavy subjectiv stuff ... How can that be consensus software??

No this is just wrong. Bitcoin would be nothing if it doesn't enforce two of the three features you mentioned... Regardless whether or not money was involved. If it didn't enforced total ordering (no double spending) it wouldn't be a useful data base at all, and if it didn't use proof of work it wouldn't have been any different than a database using permissioned BFT. The 21 limit is the only value judgement, but arguably it was necessary for bootstrapping meme-wise. But the other two aren't value judgements they are the bare minimum features to justify the existence of this system at all

Not even remotely close

Scaling Bitcoin is the only long term solution for sovereign digital identity beyond the features that Pkarr already delivered on... If you want sovereign digital identity for organisations, or families, or individuals that don't want to opt in extreme security setup from day one, or if you are concerned about quantum for some reason... You need a total ordering of events, and that can't be done without a Blockchain and sharding through L2s... If you can secure bitcoins with covenants, you can secure identities too. Programmable money is programmable data so it can be programmable phone book.

It is not 64 bits its 256 bits or 32 bytes (52 characters in text). And the answer is no you can't use a truncation of the key to lookup the node, unless you; 1) use an indexer that offers this translation from the truncated key to the full key. 2) the truncation has to be large enough to avoid someone creating another key with the same short prefix and now no one knows which is the key that the user wanted. So let's say your truncated key is made of the first 10 characters... It wouldn't take long for me to find a key with the same first 10 characters and now I can pretend to be you. It is best to just use the full keys and let the software locally handle the pet names, like your phone contacts where you are never writing people's phone numbers, you just start writing their name and your phone is giving you the suggestions you are looking for.

I have said this and I will say it again; people are not just lazy or ignorant, the service is simply not valuable enough, if anything, people welcome not being able to use social media, they use it for the same reason they eat cheap fast food; they can't afford what they really want; IRL quality experiences and relationships. No one will pay to scroll, nor they should.

People say Blockchains don't scale then build protocols based on WoT... That is basically like saying; Hammers eventually break so I will just use my fist.