We could call that device something simple, like Square. Or to get paid in BTC, we could have them use something called like, BTCPay. Or they could use Zaprite. This place just didn't bother. Not for nothing, the cost of overhead, either in terms of subscription, processing, or just set up, are a friction point. If they're not paid enough, trusting you was likely less costly, even if you were dishonest, than the cost of set up. Just like people don't worry about cold storage or multisig for 100 sats and even use Cashu, most businesses are going to decide what to use based on their use case. Maybe we could make it even easier but at some point there is some overhead to converting fiat prices on the fly. I'm actually happier that there's a good chance using WoS that they're just not participating in the government robbery scheme...

The issue there is that you still have demand for fiat. It is at least just hopefully fiat to cover your cost of carry, but it is additional demand nonetheless. I won't tell people how to use debt for their own financial interests. But I do question how much you're rejecting fiat to replace it with fiat when engaging in such arrangements. All depends on your motivations I suppose. And how well you avoid margin calls...

Buying Bitcoin is at least as much about selling fiat. If you buy bitcoin and borrow against it, you undo your impact, putting a bid under the fiat even greater than you did by holding it in the first place. You help the world by shorting Fiat. Bitcoin gives you a vehicle to do that with which gives you the right incentives for doing so.

Sounds like they had no right to bear arms.

I tens to verify anyway. Just in case someone snuck in decaf.

S/payjoin/joinmarket/

Least I can do. Hope you get some down time with your lady.

I think people are still just attached to engagement. I don't post for y'all, I post because otherwise I'm sitting here talking out loud to myself and my family starts getting annoyed, and the dogs start looking worried. Seems like others feel differently about why they post, and so the centralized platforms have some sort of allure or other based on their dopamine hits.

Congrats on escaping Vegas. Sorry you had to be subjected to that again. Also, seeing how people jumped on your comments about STRC's interest rate over the past few days, you make me really glad to not be famous.

A few thoughts about your idea of a quantum ready fork: The mining factor seems to be the biggest reason this is unlikely to work even if we wanted it to. The difficulty adjustment would, at the time of the split, be set based on our >1 ZH/s, and it's unlikely that we'd have anything close to that much available. I suppose it might be feasible to look at merge mining, but merge mining here would have all of the same centralization concerns it has elsewhere that it is used. Even if we handle this, manually setting the difficulty lower (assuming this can be done, I'm decidedly not a coder), there's the matter of what block you fork from. Because of course anyone who transacts after the split can then go use their coins on the other fork, and while we wait for a quantum attack, the chains have time to diverge heavily. You could consider splitting AFTER a quantum attack, with a roll back, a la Ethereum Classic (gross...), but even this assumes you recognize an attack as a quantum attack and not just someone losing their keys. There is no reason to assume that they would be foolish enough to make it this obvious, as it'd be much more sensible to appear to just be someone losing their keys. The latest episode of actually had some very good thoughts on how to address quantum. I don't think it's quite as close (or likely to ever happen) as Danny's guest, but I do think his proposed actions as if it were are a sane approach. Rolling out these proposed fixes on Testnet, Signet, etc, and then encouraging people who aren't devs to actually USE these systems to really give it some testing makes a lot of sense. Hard to incentivize this given that testnet tokens are decidedly worthless, but perhaps wallets that put it a little more front and center as a way to help new people to Bitcoin learn their way around without putting real money at risk wouldn't be the worst thing anyway. I get your rationale for considering a fork, but yea, logistically I don't think it could quite work out as well as you'd like. It might shut up the retards because they'd be too retarded to see why it shouldn't, but in terms of actually fixing anything I think it'd miss the mark. And meanwhile, building things for retards is a really good way to waste a lot of time and energy.

Risking salmonella with raw chicken, totally worth it.

Probably not a bad time to make some markets on Payjoin and/or throw some liquidity into Wasabi to keep those coinjoins flowing.

I didn't say don't buy MSTR. I asked if he addressed the reasons for not doing so. As with most portfolio matters, it boils down to sizing. But the risks to common stock in a levered company involve layers upon layers of counterparty risk, including the very real risk of government seizure. And the Sharpe ratio disparity is night and day. They're two wildly different roles in a portfolio. One is bedrock. The other is a high risk speculative position. You'd think someone who sells more MSTR than anyone would be able to articulate this. Especially on an interview about why buying Bitcoin makes so much sense.

I'll have to listen to see if he actually addressed the most important one: why you buy Bitcoin instead of MSTR.

🚨🚨🚨South Africa is facing an EO6102 style attack on self custody for Bitcoin and shitcoins! Spread this far and wide!🚨🚨🚨 #Bitcoin #self-custody #freedom https://www.mexc.com/news/1052810 Also hear 's interview covering the event with Ricki Allardice. https://fountain.fm/episode/xXP86CCHsnFNp6vW2aKz

Wow late night posting. Openclaw, not claudebot...