Actually, I think this is what is more likely is happening...
(1) People walk by, ignore it. Some scan it, look at it and say to themselves, "Oh, it's bitcoin nerds doing bitcoin." Then they close it.
(2) The owner of whatever this is pasted onto now comes along and has to peel it off, scrape off the glue-scum vandalism from the adhesive, and curse to themselves about bitcoin nerds. Then they word-of-mouth besmirch bitcoiners to their friends, and that resonates.
This is not the way. Stickers are fine and great, but encouraging people to vandalize others' property is not a good look for bitcoin. It's hurting not helping.
You can do better.

Actually, defacing things you don't own is wrong. Let's find another way.

Think it through, someone has to come by afterward and clean up the sticky mess from your adhesive. They scrape away and curse under their breath about the "bitcoin people" who did this. It hurts rather than helps.

Imagine if someone stuck their favorite sticker on your windshield. Would that be okay? Sharing and showing stickers is fine, promoting pasting them on others' property or public property is not. Find a better way.

Actually, stat counter hits are not agreement with pasting stickers in places as not vandalism. Don't confuse popularity or hits with right and wrong. Porn sites get lots of hits too. It's still wrong and corrosive. Defacing things you don't own is still wrong.

Think it through, someone has to come by afterward and clean up the sticky mess from your adhesive. They scrape away and curse under their breath about the "bitcoin people" who did this. It hurts rather than helps.

Imagine if someone stuck their favorite sticker on your windshield. Would that be okay? Giving away stickers is fine, promoting pasting them on others' property or public property is not. Find a better way.

Actually, this needs to be said...though the intent means well and the message is on point, slapping stickers on things in public places is not a good look. It might be viewed as bitcoin "guerilla advertising" by some, but another definition is simply old fashioned "vandalism". Overall, not good, not helping.

I see you never got out of 7th grade. Hang in there, I'm holding out hope for you yet.

Actually, you were both wrong. That's unfortunate that you were wrongly accused of plagiarism. I'm sure this would be very hard for a 7th grader to run with, but that wrong accusation was a real compliment to you. And yet, you were also wrong for what you did in class, in the office, and for bragging about it now.

That is a terrifuc book though.

Actually, from an evolutioary viewpoint, homosexuality is perhaps the most irrational concept there is, hands down. There is either an I-was-born-this-way homosexual gene or there is not. If there is, then that gene would be eradicated very, very quickly from the gene pool - perhaps in two or three generations tops. People sexually attracted to their own sex cannot reproduce and pass on their I-want-to-mate-with-my-own-sex genes.

If the born-this-way gene is not real, and that's just a convenient talking point, then the person was taught to be homosexual and/or decided to go that route despite innate biological urges to the contrary. Or, most likely, they were just confused by society's warped messages saying such a lifestyle is just yet another choice, like chocolate or vanilla.

Actually a great idea and great project! But, please, enough with the homosexual signaling, like with the flag and other signals. Let your ideas and projects stand on their own merit; tossing in your social ideals alienates and cheapens the effort and is an immediate turn off. We want this project to thrive, not to alienate.

Actually, I was informing you about how your term "censor resistant" is misused. I wasn't arguing that nostr is "more censorship-resistant than the web it relies on." So, what you were trying to say would be, "Nostr is no more censorship-resistant than the webit already relies on." That is your argument. Sliding scale.

I'll use another analogy. People often say, "I can't sing." But, of course, they can in fact sing. What they're actually saying is, "I can't sing well, or I can't sing as well as that person. Yet u can still sing better than that person with the frog voice." Sliding scale.