My new pass time...

I have been receiving scam attempts from "Strike Support". They say that my account is compromised that I need to white list my hardware wallet addresses.

They email me a link to my "private portal" where I am prompted to enter my seed phrase. They assure me that nobody can see it except me.

My 12 words:
go fuck yourself you dickless scamming piece of absolute shit fuck you

They get flustered, but can't bring themselves to admit that they can obviously see what I wrote.

I get warm fuzzies every time.

Inelastic money allows for the natural volatility of the market. Human controlled elastic money always results in abuse and eventually larger crises.

🙂
#Bitcoin

Fairness – A Thought Experiment

Say you need a piece of paper delivered, and you are willing to exchange X amount of value for that service.
I answer your call, agree to terms, deliver the paper, and you provide me with the agreed-upon compensation.

I imagine we all agree that this constitutes the end of a fair transaction among rational economic actors.

Two consensual obligations were created and each subsequently met.
No other obligations remain, correct?


---

Now imagine that piece of paper is instead a cashier’s check for some arbitrarily large sum of money.
You need it delivered to a casino manager in Vegas so that they may place a bet on your behalf.

Same as before... I answer your call, agree to terms, deliver the paper, and you provide me with the agreed-upon compensation.

The bet hits, and you win big — 10x your money.

Do you owe me any additional compensation for "helping" you win the bet?
If so, how much? Why? What changed?

To be clear — we are not talking about generosity or what you believe should happen.
We are talking about the birth of an obligation — what is owed in order to cross the threshold of fairness.


---

Now flip it.
You lose the bet. The money is gone.

Do I owe you anything since I "helped" you lose the bet?
Has your answer changed?
If so, why?


---

We keep going.
I deliver more checks for you under similar agreements, more wins... 100x, 1000x, 10000x.

At what point — if ever — is a new obligation born?
At what point do you owe me compensation beyond what we agreed?
And if one of those final bets wipes you out, do I owe you anything?

Are your answers changing?
If so, why? How much? Based on what?


---

Let’s adjust the scenario slightly.
You need help with a different kind of bet.

Say you bought a bunch of parts, and now you need someone to help you assemble and package some trinkets.
I answer your call, agree to terms, assemble the trinkets, and you provide me with the agreed-upon compensation.

The trinkets are a huge hit, and your revenue is 10x your costs.
Do you owe me any additional compensation for "helping" you win the bet?

What if the trinkets flop and no one buys them?
Do I owe you anything since I "helped" you lose the bet?
Do I have to buy your leftovers?

Are your answers different?
If so, why? What changed?


---

Say I continue to assemble trinkets for you under similar agreements while you build a trinket business... franchise... empire.

At what point — if ever — is a new obligation born?
At what point do you owe me compensation beyond what we agreed?
If your industry dies and you lose it all — how much do I owe you?


---

Is the definition of fairness outcome dependent?
If so, does it cut both ways? Why or why not?

Or is fairness determined ex ante (before the outcome) and achieved solely through the creation and resolution of consensual obligations?

Contentious forks are good for Bitcoin.

Okay, so… I just dug into this whole Core vs Knots thing.
Late to the party, I know.... Whatever.

But you mean to tell me that people are losing their minds over a default setting that can be changed? In either implementation?

And this setting enforces a data “limit” that doesn’t really exist, because… you can just break your data into multiple chunks and send it anyway? And it's all still capped by consensus limits?

I'm sorry, but it kinda seems like people are arguing over quite literally nothing.
What am I missing? Someone please help me out here.

The only alternative to absolute scarcity is arbitrary inflation.

The health of a society is directly related to the breadth of ideas it allows to openly coexist peacefully.

Everyone is already on nostr. They just haven't logged in yet.

Bitcoin doesn’t care what you think its proper use case is. You’re basically yelling at the weather. Save your energy: stack sats, build tools, gently guide your loved ones toward the truth, and enjoy the show. The economic forces at play here are impossible to steer.

Capitalism requires a free market for money. We haven’t lived under capitalism since World War I (probably even before that). What we call capitalism today is a façade—an economy built on centralized monetary control, legal tender laws, and credit manipulation. The core of every market has been distorted. Today’s economic woes aren’t the failure of capitalism. They’re the inevitable consequence of central planning masquerading as free enterprise.

Bitcoin fixes this.

I’ve always found this punctuation rule a little strange: in American English, the period goes inside the quotation marks. Like:

> She shouted, “Hey.”

I don’t think this convention is logically sound. Maybe that doesn't matter. I don’t know. But allow me to make my case.

A sentence ends when all of its information has been delivered, and a period is supposed to mark that end. But the end of a sentence can’t arrive when there’s still another piece of information coming—like the closing quotation mark. That mark carries meaning. Without it, the reader wouldn’t know the quote was over. So if the period comes before that, it’s stepping in early. The sentence is saying “Sentence over!” and then giving you one more piece of itself. That’s logically inconsistent.

Sometimes what you’re quoting is a full sentence, and sometimes it’s not. I think you should punctuate accordingly.

> She shouted, “Hey".

“Hey” isn’t a sentence. It doesn’t need a period. You should mark the end of your sentence after all pieces of information.

In cases where the quoted material is a full sentence, and that quote is the final part of the larger sentence, the period really belongs in both places—inside the quote to complete the quoted sentence, and outside the quote to properly mark the end of the full sentence.

She said, "I don't want you to go.".

That feels logically consistent to me, even if it breaks every style guide.

Am I alone in this?