Es gibt den alten, unsicheren NIP-04 Standard zur Verschlüsselung von DMs, der zwar Nachrichteninhalte verschlüsselt, aber keine Metadaten verschlüsselt (also man sieht wer mit wem kommuniziert). Selbst mit NIP-04 wäre das Auslesen der Nachrichten meines Wissens aber nicht möglich. NIP-17 ist einer neuer Standard der diese Probleme behebt. Die Frage ist welcher Client zum Versenden genutzt wurde, welcher Standard vom Client unterstützt wird und wie es mit der Kompatibilität zwischen verschiedenen Clients aussieht.

For on-chain transactions it is not a problem. You can still receive blocks, even if they were mined hours or days ago. So sending a transaction to the network and receiving confirmations could just take a long time. For the mining itself the consensus rules could be changed to increase the time between blocks when expanding the network to other planets or other solar systems.

I don't understand the point about physical cash in the quote. Both bank account credit and physical cash are fiat, and also treated as equivalent, therefore something that can be inflated and devalued. As long as people accept fiat as payment, the state can do deficit spending and therefore have more buying power (or just power) than it should have through taxation alone. Only if people lose all trust in fiat and do not accept it anymore, the state will have to acquire whatever else people actually accept as money (i.e. bitcoin).

I have take on this, but it doesn't follow the anarcho capitalist ideal of no state at all, and it also doesn't follow the conservative ideal that everyone is capable of working or needs a functioning family to survive.

So for this thought experiment let's assume we live on a Bitcoin standard, a state exists and it is capable of collecting taxes in Bitcoin.

Now let's assume the state collects 5% income tax (could be any other number, did not calculate this). Every month all the collected money is divided by the number of citizens and redistributed equally as UBI. It means some people contribute more than they get back through UBI, but everybody receives it. This would have the benefit, that nobody starts from zero at the beginning of the month. If UBI is too low to survive, it encourages people to work more, especially those that are capable of working. Furthermore they always earn on top of their UBI, such that there is always the incentive to add income on top to have more money than the UBI. And 5% of this additional income goes back into the UBI. This would be a UBI with a strong incentive to earn on top, especially if the UBI declines due to declining productivity. Basically, there would not be a guarantee to receive a certain amount. It would either find an equilibrium, where UBI is as high as required to survive at a minimum, or it would produce even more UBI than most people actually need. At the same time it would lift those from zero that are not capable to survive on their own. It would also be more privacy friendly than the current social systems, where people who receive benefits have to show all their financial activity and assets to be eligible.

It is basically a question of how society wants to organize itself on top of Bitcoin. And again, it is just a thought experiment, ready to be roasted.

Yes, #Bitcoin currently is opt-in, but this might change in the future if it becomes the new standard for global trade. And when you choose Bitcoin as your money, you have to submit yourself to the existing rules of the network.

German: E-Mail, E-Cash
English: email, ecash

Make sure to upgrade your #Bitaxe to firmware version 2.1.10. It solved some of the network issues for me. But then I had still some connectivity issues with Public-Pool, so I finally switched pools and everything runs a lot smoother now.

I also switched pools recently due to public pool connection issues. #Bitaxe mines more stable now.

I have that one sitting on my shelf (also the german version with the cyan cover). I have to get started, but it is intimidating.