Yeah but youre going to run into "password too long" and characters you can't use and that stuff. I guess its worth dealing with for good security where you can get it, I'll probably change my default password settings too.

The only thing I'd change is, coins aren't random enough unless you get a real random coin, and since the coin is being used for the same operation over and over it compounds. Use another casino die and say odd = heads and even = tails. And, instead of saying "this die is the coin", make the last of six (right to left and top to bottom" count as the coin, this randomizes any loss of entropy a little bit more should one of the dice have a significant bias.

> and even then Why? Are casino dice not secure? What's your reasoning in making this statement? When using common dice, the more dice you roll at once the more any potential biasez in each specific dice get randomly positioned. As long as they aren't rolled in a specific order and they all dont have the same bias this mostly recoups any loss of entropy. And if youre generating a 256 bit key...

So I did some testing with KeepassDX to see the entropy on my manually entered passwords vs their random generated ones, it seems that the random generated ones have between 60-70 bits of entropy on their own. I'd say, if your db passphrase is around as the ones it gives you for your logins and such youre not really losing security. Now I know logins and such have attempt limits and its not quite a passphrase or encryption key, but if your security protocol is reliant on the database, you need access to it using only your mind.

Bro why are you sharing a http link to a client to show a nostr note, on nostr? Just quote the damn note. I'm looking at this in a nostr client right now, I don't want to open your fucking note in a web browser.

They do transfer and youre being a dolt. Your rhetorical own isn't one at all and you look like a retard rn to everyone but yourself.

Porque no los dos?

Lol bud, just FYI, lots of people filter names with "Reply Guy" in them because reasons. A ton of people will never see what you say.

Fair. I used to like ledger a long time ago. The more I learned though the more I came to the conclusion that you can't trust proprietary software with high stakes security stuff like this. Then, when they released their feature that allows users to back their seeds up online I was completely done. No more "its nbd". I can't recommend something like that.

> I know better but I'm still fucking up.

Liquity LUSD is what youre looking for. DAI is significantly backed by USDC as collateral. LUSD is like what DAI was supposed to be.

Reccomending ledger? Come on bro have you learned nothing?

Lol you think they dont run your country too?

Yeah, one has the property "I dont care who you are, if you demonstrate that youre not a spammer because it costs you to be one I'll see what you say" the other is a complex interplay that reduces who you can see based on how close they are to who you already see. This stagnates network growth and causes network fragmentation.

Yeah but what does "use YouTube" mean? Ive never had a YouTube account. Is dailymotion social media? Is a blog comments section social media?

Man, how do you do things like that? Do you just get someone to help you? Or just forego it entirely? I can't think of a blind friendly workflow to set up Amy hardware wallet.

Designed a device with telepathic access to your coins 😂 brain wallet 2.0 If you dont laugh you'll cry.

15Mbps is plenty.

Worthwhile. You should watch it. I'll have you know I'm a tough crowd and if I liked it, well...

Everyone knows that modern "popular culture" which is just intellectual properties owned by multinationals sold to you as culture, idol worship, attempts to engineer peoples ethics, disappointment after disappointment by fandoms engineered to complain as they continue feeding at the trough, sucks balls. But there are always diamonds in the dirt. Less so now than before, but there nonetheless. I'm 5 minutes into a movie called "good luck, have fun, dont die." I feel confident that it is worth recommending. Its possible I will regret this note in 2 hours. I doubt it. Torrent it. A9D2FCAE1EFD957669D6BFA6BFCB35664268A140

So youre deferring to a state? The state must exist? OK, but then youre basically saying the same thing we are saying. Once you have a state structure in place, there is an ongoing cost to guaranteeing you exclusive use of your land. Who will pay this cost? You must. You'd have to if the state didnt exist, so you must continue to do so when the state exists. Ultimately the state provides you the might for the might makes right system that underpins everything and you can't have it for free.

And you can only do that, so far it is my empirical observation, if your state structure has the might to defend its claim and is properly structured such that its duty to you persists a long time. The law of the jungle underpins all our social organization as a cornerstone, everything else we do is an abstraction on top of it.

I'm not proposing a society, I'm observing reality. Personal belongings you can make, you can hide, you can defend. Every square inch of land on earth was taken and is out in the open. The only people that own land are those who can defend it, it has always been that way. There is no way to make that not true.

I was talking about this with some people in the early days of nostr. Things like local only follow lists, encrypted publishing. It went a different direction, and its fine, its still censorship resistant and that is fantastic. But it is a major data mine for sure.

Its not about ceding land to the state. Its about acknowledging that the big man with the guns owns the land he says he owns, and it has been this way since the beginning of time. *you are incapable of truly owning land.* Nobody will just recognize your claim to land and honor it because "rights." All land in existence has come to be owned in this way, some big guy said "you can't come here", before that everyone could just go anywhere they could get to with their effort. I do think though that the proposal isn't that good. It assumes that a government that funds itself this way will direct funds towards things for its people. It even throws out UBI as a use for it. But you have to wonder, apply the logic of who owns land to human populations. If it is in the interest for the state that only earns from property taxes that some people are enslaved, whos to force it to enforce individual liberty for all people? It is just a market actor that cares about maximization of utility of land, where does its sense of justice beyond land disputes come from? Incentives are outcomes. The proposal is still naive idealism, though with a clearer understanding of something fundamental. That clearer understanding is the value in this essay.