pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules 12h \ on: Millions of Australian children just lost access to social media tech
Good
I think there is an argument for bitcoin treasury companies peppered ostensibly randomly throughout the economy and in different jurisdictions during a credit crunch. Unfortunately it only works if that bitcoin is held by companies that are more or less free of debt and other big liabilities like dividends.
Real estate may get hairy again and there might be a push to allow some big banks to go under as the collateral base of the debt they own sinks. I think there might be an argument in favour of bitcoin given the hindsight that our current model is broken, as in it has created a housing crisis and only worked for a brief window after the 2008 due to zero percent interest rates.
As pristine collateral banks might see bitcoin as an opportunity at the bottom of the credit cycle to issue some loans that then become over-collateralised in the recovery. In this context, viable businesses that need to borrow might need to borrow collateral from a treasury company in the same industry, which might get paid in shares of the borrowing company or with a percentage of the interest rate. Banks don't have expertise in industry, so they might partner with these treasury companies who provide both the collateral and the industrial expertise. Strategy would be one of those players who has in-house expertise in software, and there might be a lot of software companies desperate for loans but without collateral equivalent to bitcoin.
The other point is that institutions would have bought MSTR because they couldn't directly own bitcoin for PR reasons, even if they could technically buy the ETF, such as Vanguard and the Swiss National Bank. This would be justified if MSTR is going to at the same rate as Bitcoin, but obviously it hasn't, so demand is drying up.
That's the best case I can make. I think that Strategy's core software business has to start growing for this play to make any sense, otherwise it's just an elaborate ponzi scheme.
No, I'm approaching the faith in the Messiah through the witness of Scripture and revelation, and you're ignoring the shared set of abstract rules and logical system that this reveals. Why do you think it's called "Revelation"? This is what is revealed.
Just open your mind and consider what I'm saying, rather than dismissing it. I know it's a painful experience, but Christianity isn't easy.
Exactly, you're willing to discuss if I follow the rules. I'm describing the rules. We agree. You just don't seem to like hearing about them so explicitly and in this channel, you'd prefer if Gabriel himself came down and shared them with you directly.
I'm open to continued dialogue when we're talking about the biblical text itself rather than each other = I want you to play the proof of work game that Christians have established as the means to determine the authority of a person's voice on all things pertaining to Christianity, because:
- adhering to scripture is hard, demonstrates effort, sacrifice, work
- the Bible is a text that is verifiable, it is a shared text, the highest hill that replaced the Mount in Jerusalem after the fall of the second Temple, as the Torah did for the Jews who didn't adhere to Christianity, much like the Blockchain is for bitcoin
- anyone can read and quote the Bible, you don't have to be a part of the clergy
- a person with their own access to scripture is sovereign, takes responsibility for their own relationship with God (very Lutheran, I know)
I'm describing the rules underneath the game you want me to play to validate that my opinion matters, the same rules that determine which miner gets to decide which transactions are included in the next block (whose opinion matters). Why bother, when the important thing is not the game but the rules that underpin ALL stable games? That's what Christ died for. Let's cut through the bullshit, the hypocrisy, shall we?
You haven't parted ways at all, you just gracelessly dismissed something that made you feel uncomfortable. The 4 tenets, rules, commands, principles, pillars, IS The Way - to me, to you, to Neolithic man, to a peacock, etc...
"So when Christ really returned it has to be under a pseudonym, giving us the gift again in a mode that is unrecognisable from His first life."
First of all, if Satoshi was/is Christ then Satoshi didn't replace Christ, no more than I am "replaced" by my pseudonym here on SN. So on a basic logical level you are suggesting that I adhere to a position that I don't, let alone tried to convince you of.
Secondly, given that we are governed by hypocrites who for more than a thousand years governed in opposition to Christ, yet in His name, why would you assume that Christ would return in His own name, rather than with a pseudonym? Nothing in Revelations suggests that.
On a more sophisticated, less literalist level, even if Satoshi were just a guy, completely unaware that his ideas are tethered fundamentally to the core principles of Christianity and the Crucifixion, that doesn't change anything in what I said. He doesn't replace Christ.
There is no rational way of reading what I said that infers that I was replacing Christ with Satoshi.
You might just need a bit more grace, to consider what people are telling you, as novel ways of thinking and informing your own faith, rather than invoking an immune response. Nothing I'm saying contradicts what you are saying, I'm just being more concise and succinct, and making the Way more clear, for you and whoever has ears to hear.
Keep working on it, eventually you'll see the 4 rules everywhere, especially if you're a Bitcoiner. It's not my opinion that Christianity is about the propagation of the four rules, everyone lives as though they are true, including you. You are a Christian to the extent that you believe in the four pillars. Otherwise you're a hypocrite, or worse.
Why do you think He had to die, and knew it, in that way?
Question: I'm not big on the resurrection, not because I disbelieve it but because I don't necessarily understand it. But presumably you do, so why is it hard to believe that He is still acting on the world materially, if He was resurrected from the dead? What do you think Revelations is about?
What part of my comment suggested that Satoshi replaced Christ?
They literally had exactly the same idea, which to us is transmitted via the story of the crucifixion and the monomyth. The pillars of that story are the objective rules that govern society, which you can label for shorthand as:
- challenge
- truth
- care
- responsibility
The only way for Christ to propagate and transmit these rules in a pre-literature pre-modern society was too embody them, to face the greatest challenge, in public, with the criminals as an everyman, alone.
That is the bedrock of what makes Christianity, the core idea without which everything else is a mere open of some bloke in antiquity. We know that now because we have seen we an equally obscure individual can do with the same rules, the instantiation of proof of work to create the ideal monetary system.
Unfortunately Patrick Boyle gets 80-90% there, but fails the ego test. He really just wants to be popular at the end of the day, like anyone creating YouTube videos, chasing likes and views
I can get behind this.
Christ made the greatest sacrifice (work), on the highest hill (proof), as the lowest man (inclusivity), alone (sovereignty). Christ taught us to play the game such that we don't corrupt it, and contribute to its decay, entropy, even at the expense of our own interests. Satoshi taught us to design the game such that it is not as susceptible to entropy, regardless of the strategies of the players.
The Roman Empire had to respond to Christianity as it was adopted by slaves and the working class, and then parts of the literate upper class elite who wrote the gospels. Their solution to a civilization which became dominated by non-violent revolution was hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the governing principle of the West, a Christian skin suit that serves to uphold everything that Christianity is not. Thus Christianity was sanctioned by the empire, and it became easy, even mandatory, so everyone called themselves Christians, even baptising their children before they could speak the name of Christ. Christianity became just another form of identitarianism, exactly what it Christ lived and died to oppose.
As Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov, the parable of Christ returning during the Spanish Inquisition, and how they imprisoned Him knowing full well that He was Christ, on the justification that they needed to protect the people from Him and the burden that he placed upon them.
So when Christ really returned it has to be under a pseudonym, giving us the gift again in a mode that is unrecognisable from His first life.
What shocks me is that they don't ever bring up Albania early-90s, they always talk about tulips.
I suspect that tulips sounds more pejorative, ridiculous, and Albanian Ponzi mania is sufficiently recent and well studied that they'd have to explain what they mean by the parallels, which would open up the discussion to the definition of a security. That would not be convenient for their argument, so they don't bring up the comparison.
It's a shame because Albania early-90s is very much relevant to the crypto scams and ICO bubble, NFTs and shit, but they don't want to support any distinction between bitcoin and crypto.
I didn't have any experience, so I didn't know that there was a problem with Bitpay, I heard that is what Bitrefill uses.
In fact I just spoke to him over the phone and he's a Bitcoiner! He's going to add bitcoin as a payment method in January, and use Zaprite.
Champagne socialist complaining on behalf of wage earners. If inflation benefits the wealthy how come it erodes the purchasing power of workers whose salaries are denominated in the currency?
Government is an instrument of special interest groups, normal people don't have the same level of incentive to engage in it at the level of detail that would be required to compete with such coordinated minorities. The only solution for a regular person is to defect. They have been doing this with real estate, which has led to a housing crisis. Bitcoin just moves the store of value from a collectible that has a utility value that is unbounded to a neutral asset with no utility value at all, that is easier to secure.
Redeveloping a web app for a native environment should become trivial with LLMs writing most of the code. I feel like maintaining multiple client apps doing effectively the same thing will be relatively more straight forward and the economics will make more sense.
So you're basically describing a circular economy. That's not radical, it's just very difficult and still a collective action problem.
What you could do is create a Chrome extension that converts all prices into bitcoin.
But that will only impact the tiny percentage of Bitcoiners who hear about it, care to install it, and then overcome the inconvenience to continue using it. And then what? It's not the sellers.
Convincing non-Bitcoiners to price their goods and services in a currency they don't accept? This seems like a waste of time. What am I missing?