Judge Hardcase

Public Key

npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv

Profile Code

nprofile1qqst0xdwylsrwzeg26vnum2g79w3v5uaf2j3l0e7hk7jh3q0vzjdyhspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dszd0ky4

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-11 16:15:19 UTC

- reply

Admittedly, this is a bit of hind-sight on my part; but, for someone who actually chose to be invested in bip110, the potential to end up in this situation had to be foreseeable.
Frankly, if I were a bip110er - and I had been sold on the idea that this fork was an imminently existential emergency - I'd be more than a little miffed that the hard fork fall-back plan wasn't built right into the bip to begin with.

2026-08-06 12:27:00 UTC

A GUIDE FOR MANUALLY GENERATING A SEED PHRASE OFFLINE, OFF-DEVICE FROM COIN FLIPS (no conversion from binary to decimal required):
*assistance from some form of hardware will be necessary for checksum calculation (see opening note of the Instructions):
Instructions:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19-iLPg8GRDAF3FgMl4jteAy7QTmJjX0X/view
Small print (more compact) version:
Worksheet:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oTrz6Dd0DtLznozeH0JVljUsGOTcYkFx/view
Lookup Table:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13EdkgqkEEJcHekfhj1QmtQwQqrwsL9E0/view
Larger print version (for those of us with less than supernatural vision):
Worksheet:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rrczg6roAEO88UzLXwtrVrcSy68Sagln/view
Lookup Table
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TXThMSc2HMVVTRXLUGySOXSgP5KzBbQf/view

2026-08-04 18:44:16 UTC

- reply

Same here.
If y'all are using an npub.cash address as I am, it would seem this may be the explanation:
#nevent1q…45nt

2026-08-04 12:37:57 UTC

- reply

ah... I think I understand: even if there were a perfect machine (which we wouldn't even be able to verify if there were), it still wouldn't be able to instruct a user how to not do any of the unknowable number of things that could produce a dice roll with an entropy that contains an unknowable degree of imperfection. Is that about it?
Fair enough. I'm still going to take my chances with dice (more likely, coins, actually). I know I can't trust them (or myself) for absolutely perfect entropy; but at least, I can know I can at least verify my seed is determined from the albeit faulty entropy that I end up providing. Conversely, I can neither trust nor verify that a signing device is even using an RNG the way it claims to be.

2026-08-04 12:12:16 UTC

- reply

My apologies, but I'm failing to grasp how this applies to a machine instructing the user to provide the result of a single dice roll.
The human doesn't have to be able to spot any randomness... repeated 256 times, the user still doesn't have to be able to spot any randomness.
Maybe it would be helpful to me if you could describe a specific example for how this could get screwed up.

2026-08-04 11:47:48 UTC

- reply

I agree risk can never be completely eliminate.
I'd like to explore the rolling dice is a known failure assertion a little further. It is absolutely known to be prone to failure - particularly due to humans tending to lose focus while doing something tedious.
My position is with a little care on the part of the signing device, this risk *could* be greatly mitigated with a helpful UI process that methodically forces the user to be guided step-by-step: roll-by-roll, word-by-word.
At worst, the user is only cheating himself rather than unwittingly taking the risk of being cheated by the signing device.

2026-08-04 11:22:08 UTC

- reply

This is the 'answer' I'm proposing:
If it's not absolutely necessary for a cold storage signing device to be using any form of an inherently not able to independently verify RNG at all, then it's not worth the risk.
If you disagree with any part of it, I would love to have a discussion so that *I* may be enlightened as to why I'm wrong.

2026-08-04 11:07:04 UTC

- reply

The jokey format of your response aside, I honestly can't tell if the underlying message is sincere or if it's just intended to mock.
I was genuinely interested in having a productive discussion.

2026-08-04 10:49:39 UTC

- reply

I understand what you're saying. But in light of the Cold Card fiasco, if tomorrow's state-of-the-art cold storage signing device offered the following options for seed generation, which makes more sense (I'm going to use coin flips instead of dice for my example because it's easier to describe (and I like coins better) - but the same principles could be applied to dice)?
Option 1) Coin Flips - You will enter each of the results from 11 coin flips; 1 at a time. Do the coin flips for real, and do your best to ensure the coin(s) you use is fair. If you cheat and just pick heads or tails in your mind, your seed will not be secure! After the 11th flip, I will present you with the associated seed word. We will repeat for each word in your seed phrase. You can follow along with a widely available list of words to ensure that each word I give you indeed matches the 11 coin flips you entered. The flips you provide for the final word will be modified to incorporate a necessary checksum - which you can also verify against the results from entering your new seed phrase into any number of other signing devices by any number of other vendors - if you are so inclined (but the the entropy provided by your seed phrase less the final word is generally accepted as very, very good, anyway - indeed, the entropy from 23 words of a 24-word seed phrase is certainly more than overkill);
or, Option 2) Random Number Generator - I will provide you with a seed phrase generated by my RNG. You won't be able to verify this process at all for yourself. But, I've vetted it. And, it may have even been vetted by someone else as well. Trust me, Bro!
I would love to know if there's something I'm missing here, but if it's not absolutely necessary for a cold storage signing device to be using any form of an inherently not able to independently verify RNG at all, why take the risk?

2026-08-01 12:15:17 UTC

A message to all BIP39-based wallet providers (to include signing devices):
Please make it easy for users to bring their own seed words. I'm referring to assisting a user who has generated their own seed words manually to land on a final checksum valid word.
Ideally, a user should be able to generate their own seed phrase offline with indifference to a checksum. Then, when a wallet they try to enter it into for the first time detects an invalid checksum, the wallet could offer to provide the associated checksum-valid final word; so that the user may update their own physical backup and reenter their entire seed phrase for checksum verification.
I realize some wallets already offer some version of this "generate final word" assistance. It really seems like this should be expected as a standard now for all wallets.
Also, might be best to start encouraging users to be generating their own seed words rather than relying on a wallet to tell them what their seed words will be.
PS. Thank you! Your work is greatly appreciated, and probably doesn't get the full recognition that it deserves.

2026-08-01 00:24:34 UTC

- reply

this attack was allowed by a coding error that mistakenly generated much weaker than intended entropy for seed generation.
bottom line: any wallet developer is capable of making a similar mistake.
This can be mitigated by not relying on any wallet to generate your seed words for you. Instead, you can generate your own near-perfect entropy offline simply by letting 11 coin flips choose each of your seed words from the list of 2048 BIP-39 words. Then tell your mobile wallet what your seed words are rather than the other way around.

2026-07-30 09:59:50 UTC

- reply

Just a heads-up: simply changing your credit card number alone may not be good enough.
Long story, short: your credit card provider may automatically allow subscriptions to certain 'reputable' services to persist through a card number change as a 'convenience' to *you*... best to also tell your card provider which specific subscriptions you want to stop paying.

2026-07-02 16:39:41 UTC

- reply

The truth is that I don't really know how I'm supposed to Nostr... I suspect there's a very good chance that my reach is limited by my lack of understanding in how I should be making use of relays.
* If so, I'm sure it's entirely my own fault... I've just been too lazy (so far) to put in the effort to learn.

2026-07-02 15:28:10 UTC

- reply

My bad... I sometimes forget that not everybody had been involved in as many pointless arguments on the interwebs as I have over the years. 😜

2026-07-02 14:59:18 UTC

- reply

just pointing out (poorly) that purity tests are just a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

2026-07-02 14:33:08 UTC

- reply

You, sir, are No True Scotsman.

2026-06-28 13:58:13 UTC

- reply

O, it's in motion alright. Unfortunately, motion doesn't imply in which direction. 🤣

2026-06-26 14:34:22 UTC

- reply

Nostr's inherent incentive is that it's freedom tech. Most normies just don't yet care about freedom tech.
IMO, it's a waste of time trying to convince someone by dangling an incentive they just don't care about. Instead, I would try to educate them (assuming they are at all receptive to being educated) on why they should recognize freedom tech in general as being important to them - then, convincing won't be necessary.

2026-06-24 18:03:24 UTC

- reply

The world of shipping is still entrenched in the fiat world - particularly international shipping. There is no permissionless shipping protocol in any practical sense. Coinkite does what it can to keep its own house clean; but can’t reasonably be expected to take responsibility for what the shipping industry does to protect customer data. Regardless of what Coinkite does to protect user data, there is no perfect protection. Ultimately, the onus is on Coinkite’s customers to consider these factors when taking responsibility for their own security.
IMO, the above statement would have been a reasonable response to this situation. Unfortunately, the response chosen so far has been nothing like it.
FWIW, Coinkite’s privacy policy - which indicates that the shipping company with which it must share customer data has its own privacy policy - is effectively saying this same thing when you read between the lines.

2026-06-19 13:54:49 UTC

LFG!!! 🚀
#nevent1q…52ng

2026-06-15 16:13:19 UTC

- reply

💯
#nevent1q…7r0s

2026-06-15 16:04:19 UTC

- reply

newer car usually translates to higher monthly insurance premium. mystery solved. 😉

2026-06-15 14:47:41 UTC

So, last week Strategy sold MSTR at an average price of ~$121/share and bought BTC at an average price of ~$63K. With BTC that low, IMO, this will almost certainly end up being a good move.
Unfortunately, just last month, at their Q1 earnings call, they revealed the slide below to explain when selling shares to buy BTC would be accretive (and vice versa). Based on the average prices above, prior to these moves, their BTC Reserves sat at ~$53B, and their ADSO Market Cap sat at only ~$46B - well below the "BPS Accretive Breakeven" point as indicated by their own slide.
As per usual, Saylor's biggest PR problem (and likely rating agency problem, btw) isn't that he's selling equities to buy bitcoin... it's that he keeps saying one thing while doing another.
https://npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv.blossom.band/e4a47fab9b038d1065e6ca584c37f1dbcd31219dec4a06ffe0f2616068b7f0eb.png

2026-06-13 17:27:30 UTC

- reply

Is that inflation adjusted? 😜

2026-06-05 17:29:18 UTC

- reply

Of course, you could probably save a little by sending yourself USDC from your @npub1cas…dg5l cash balance first instead (at least while that fee is still 0%); then, using something like @npub1psm…8970 or @npub1cm3…96wt to swap from USDC to pay an ln BTC invoice.
All this just makes it seem like Cash App doesn't have its incentives balanced out quite right yet. (and the end result is a slight disadvantage for using Cash App for BTC by comparison)

2026-06-05 17:00:32 UTC

Well, this is new: @npub1cas…dg5l raised its fee for paying from cash balance to ln BTC from 0% to 0.9%. Obviously, 0% forever was never going to be sustainable. 0.9% is still very reasonable for $ to BTC conversion, though.
(I'm assuming the recent introduction of USDC transactions had something to do with forcing this change at this time)
https://image.nostr.build/1b4d2225c6f8425e00a5e063239f40e34477c0ce5cae3a5150bbd3e0b718729f.png

2026-06-04 15:21:20 UTC

- reply

I'm just going to take this as confirmation that Big Macs aren't made from actual ground beef. 😉

2026-05-31 14:33:20 UTC

- reply

I'm pretty sure the cycle is inversely correlated with bitcoin's price volatility.

2026-05-28 14:01:52 UTC

- reply

As far as I'm concerned, the only *safe* way to borrow against your bitcoin is if your would-be liquidation price is at or below the price you would just give up on bitcoin anyway.
Also, if there is any price where you would just give up on bitcoin, what are you even doing here, you poser?!! 😉

2026-05-28 10:21:12 UTC

- reply

Looks like that might be Charles Bronson's star 👀... mad respect to your mum for not giving an F who she's stepping on. 😂

2026-05-27 15:24:11 UTC

- reply

hmmmm... that address has only been used to receive; and 79,956.00000000 of that 79,957.26860209 BTC was from it's first receive transaction.
I don't what that implies, but the vast majority of the other 682 transactions it has received have basically just been dust.
https://mempool.space/tx/e67a0550848b7932d7796aeea16ab0e48a5cfe81c4e8cca2c5b03e0416850114

2026-05-17 11:53:47 UTC

"Noobs should be able to send/receive Bitcoin secured only by ther nsec"
"Noobs shouldn't have to worry about securing their nsec to use Nostr"
This doesn't end well for noobs... and therefore, nor does it for the adoption of Nostr.

2026-05-14 19:43:22 UTC

- reply

I will 2nd the CashApp suggestion. Yes, you would have the same KYC exposure as Venmo or Zelle; but, from CashApp's perspective, you aren't necessarily ever possessing any BTC yourself. CashApp just debits your fiat account and pays some anon lightning invoice on your behalf (with no fees nor spread).

2026-05-12 15:28:40 UTC

- reply

Not exactly. The recovery contact does not act as a backup for the device. The recovery contact acts *only* as a secodary decryption key for the cloud backup of your app key - in case you lost your primary decryption key (i.e. you *also* lost your bitkey device).
In brief:
The process for recovering from *only* a lost phone is to use the device to decrypt the cloud backup.
The process for recovering from *only* a lost device is to get a new one, and then use your phone app to direct Bitkey to rotate your funds to a new 2-of-3 multisig corresponding to your new device.
The process for recovering from *both* a lost phone *and* a lost device is first: restore your phone app via your recovery contact; then, second: follow the process above for recovering from a lost device.
https://image.nostr.build/79e8bc6d37d69d011de9230cc4f38f341c20cd5034eefb1c439dc46f7c08522b.jpg
There is NO mechanism for recovering the key from your device - even by Block itself. This is intentional by design. They advertise this as a selling point.

2026-05-12 11:23:26 UTC

- reply

My main gripe with Bitkey is that even if all of the Bitkey system works exactly as it's supposed to, it's impossible to back up the hardware device's key. Because of this - unlike virtually any other hardware wallet - If it gets lost, stolen, or broken, you are no longer in control. Instead, you have become absolutely dependent on Bitkey's servers for recovery. *in case it's not clear, the 'cloud backup' is only for recovery of the key managed by the phone app. There is NO mechanism for recovering the key in the hardware device.
For me, full control of 2-of-3 keys would sufficiently qualify as 'full control'. It's just that you aren't in full control of a key if you can't make a copy of it.

2026-05-10 16:49:33 UTC

#STRC back at $100 par
+ #STRC monthly dividend lock-in coming this week
= expect #STRC issuance to resume in full force
#MSTR well above 1.22 mNav break-even cited by Strategy for #BTC purchases.
Strategy USD reserves well below 2-year dividend coverage target.
So, will Strategy use #STRC to buy #BTC or to repletion USD reserves?
Will they raise even more capital by issuing more #MSTR for either purpose as well?
All signs point to all of the above - despite recent signalling (the obvious) that they will "probably sell some of their Bitcoin eventually".

2026-05-03 17:10:26 UTC

- reply

STRC not really an option as a source of capital while still trying to get back to $100 par.
Though, I would expect issuance of more common shares pretty soon regardless - even if just for the sake of replenishing the dollar reserve in order to support more dividend obligations into the future.

2026-05-01 16:54:26 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/d5180c37590630ed1773003eb00f2a9184f58c140f477daab688a8b956d9c2b2.gif

2026-05-01 16:48:13 UTC

- reply

O please, God. NO!!!
https://image.nostr.build/e78d6f2957cf1915a89844aacd0eb1d7c9b2bf7ffe2525355d18259c440e5127.jpg

2026-05-01 16:28:22 UTC

- reply

BTW, also Fox News Headline: 🤣
https://image.nostr.build/af8b021b2c037429036f5bf8d69ca0083982fbccce1494d4b4359c8a1c7bd942.jpg

2026-05-01 16:13:11 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…vvs0

2026-05-01 16:10:25 UTC

Ummm... Wut? The national debt is not at $31.27T; it's well above $38T.
I'd accuse someone of trying to gaslight the public into thinking things aren't as bad as they *actually* are; but upon closer inspection, this just looks like 'news' outlets lazily regurgitating the same erroneous slop. (If the Bureau of Economic Analysis is indeed the source of this, they appear to have since taken it down).
#nevent1q…459h

2026-04-29 13:38:20 UTC

- reply

If you're still at the blackjack table, that's just the effects of the pure oxygen that the casino has been pumping in to keep you feeling euphoric. You may not have noticed that it's now tomorrow. Go to bed already! 😉

2026-04-27 18:09:18 UTC

- reply

Yeah, 15 bits is still a long way from 256. That being said, a 15 bit key - if truly arbitarily chosen - is starting to get my attention.
... also gotta say, though, that a company whose business it is to sell security from quantum offering prizes for supposed proof of vulnerabilities to quantum does smell a bit sus on the surface. I would expect to see pretty soon an impartial analysis of what was actually accomplished here.
https://blog.projecteleven.com/posts/project-eleven-awards-1-btc-q-day-prize-for-largest-quantum-attack-on-elliptic-curve-cryptography-to-date

2026-04-23 16:38:39 UTC

- reply

True. All it would take is for demand for STRC to outpace new supply - compelling Strategy to lower the rate in order to suppress demand enough to maintain the $100 target price.
Of course, Strategy slowing down new supply enough for demand to surpass it doesn't appear to be anywhere in the near future. 😉

2026-04-23 10:03:46 UTC

- reply

I agree. But in regard to this specific story, we're apparently still only talking about an 'investigation'. Stipulating to the facts as given, I think it warrants a deeper look to see if there was any actual unlawful complicity; i.e. conspiracy (though, I doubt it).
With that context "[a human would be facing murder charges]" just sounds like grandstanding to me.

2026-04-16 16:26:44 UTC

"Let's agree it would be good for both of us to stop beating the shit out of each other.... but only after we beat the shit out of each other for another 6 hours first."
#nevent1q…9k2f

2026-04-15 11:01:17 UTC

- reply

because as @npub1qny…95gx indicated, increasing the div gets STRC back to par... it only took about 9 months for that rate to be increased from 9% to 11.5%.

2026-04-11 01:11:37 UTC

- reply

I foresee a fork. The unfortunate reality is that the majority fork will likely be those acting out of self-interest (i.e. rationalize the freezing of others' coins) rather than for the good of the protocol (respect for some concept of property rights).
Of course, even without quantum, this sort of battle was always inevitable. Eventually, the U.S. government will force U.S. businesses to move to a fork that enables the government to effectively freeze UTXOs at will. That will account for an awful lot of custodied BTC and hash power.
In either case, what will be interesting to see is how many of the rest of us will be strong enough to stick to our principals and how many will turn out to just have been pretenders all along.

2026-04-11 00:31:07 UTC

- reply

As long as the BTC they buy is appreciating faster in the long run than dividend expenses, they could always just sell some of that BTC to pay dividends if they had to - regardless of an MSTR premium or not. The premium just provides an option to sell more MSTR instead of selling BTC outright.. That is to say, the MSTR premium is somewhat incidental vis a vis the business model.
The real trick is not going too long with BTC not appreciating faster than dividend expenses.

2026-04-09 00:15:19 UTC

How is speculation that Adam Back is Satoshi even newsworthy? I mean, hasn't Adam been near the top of any such list since like forever? At least HBO's Peter Todd speculation was a little bit out of left field.
Also, apparently, the only reason the recent NYT 'journalist' ever even became suspicious of Adam was because of how tense and uncomfortable he seemed during those HBO interviews. Has anyone ever seen an interview of Adam where he didn't seem tense and uncomfortable?
#nevent1q…sqtk

2026-04-08 23:53:32 UTC

- reply

"can't be traced"? An indefinite number of $1M transactions? Good luck with that.
"...or confiscated"? No prob... at least not until the CRQC fantasy somehow becomes reality.

2026-04-08 20:24:34 UTC

- reply

That's funny. The primary reason I left Windows for Linux was how much time was chronically being wasted waiting for surprise forced updates/reboots.

2026-04-05 11:49:42 UTC

- reply

It seems to me the best shot for a new user to spark engagement is not to just cold post a note to the world - but rather, to start participating in already engaging conversations. So, maybe the default feed for new users ought to be recent trending notes (like within the last hour at most)... and hopefully, they can come up with something of value to add.
Of course, this still doesn't guarantee anyone will follow you - but that kinda seems more like a reality of life than a challenge for nostr. 🤷

2026-03-30 16:08:00 UTC

- reply

'pilot' doesn't seem to fit quite right... how about 'conductor'?

2026-03-23 15:32:43 UTC

- reply

🤣 No... not a judge (in any official capacity 😉)... for some reason, I just decided to borrow the name from a character on a short-lived 80s TV show. It wasn't even a particularly good show, but I always liked the name. 🤷

2026-03-23 15:24:38 UTC

- reply

Do we even know who is speaking on behalf of Iran? I mean, I don't believe a word Trump says, but presumably he has been given reliable enough intelligence to actually know who (if anyone) is in charge.
Conversely, what sources are news orgs using when they report "Iran denies..."? I don't buy for a second that they've even come close to properly vetting this 'information'. Who knows? Are they just regurgitating whatever anonymous slop they're reading on Twitter?... wouldn't surprise me a bit.

2026-03-22 18:16:30 UTC

- reply

If stainless steel wasn't non stick, it wouldn't be used for the huge commercial griddles that diners typically have. Of course, the real key getting them non stick (in addition to getting them hot) is to make sure you're using enough fat - which is why you'll often see diner cooks using huge amounts of lard/butter when they cook (and why diner food can often have a reputation for being greasy).
Cast iron can get way more non stick with way less fat... if that's your thing.

2026-03-21 12:46:43 UTC

- reply

😂 That's a beutiful example of the difference in ethos between Xitter and Nostr
They don't hate @npub1qny…95gx. They just unconditionally love Xitter so much that it doesn't even occur to them that @ODELLXYZ might not be who they think it is.

2026-03-20 22:26:18 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/970b9e9834eee7b6ad146f106ffb7fd9040459a2c44430c0f971c242f78a0bfc.jpg
#nevent1q…wz5v

2026-03-20 14:12:42 UTC

- reply

I think the power law is the best model for this since it effectively describes typical growth rate of a network.
Of course, so far, Bitcoin has pretty much just been a network of humans transacting in bitcoin. Just wait until the AI agent network of bitcoin transactions has its own growth rate to significantly compound on top of the growth rate of the human bitcoin transactions network. 🚀

2026-03-19 19:26:46 UTC

- reply

"Provide a mechanism for...resetting any...seed phrase...that is necessary to access the contents of a hardware wallet."
LOL! morons. A seed phrase isn't necessary to access the contents of a hardware wallet. A seed phrase IS ths contents of a hardware wallet.

2026-03-19 09:49:02 UTC

- reply

I think you're on the right track - but unnecessarily over-complicating it:
The biggest financial beneficiaries of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would be those who produce the most oil that isn't adversely affected... spoiler: that would be United States' oil producers.

2026-03-18 16:57:18 UTC

Presidente Trump is proud of his newly acquired baseball teeam - and is especially appreciative of the trophy they have won for him. 🤣
#nevent1q…2wlg

2026-03-17 20:30:38 UTC

- reply

It seems like a protocol change to enforce a minimum transaction value would make sense. There is a 'dust' limit, but I believe that's just relay policy; and by default, it's only like 546 sats or something like that. If UTXO's were instead forced by consensus rules to represent a more reasonably useful value (in sats), it seems like that would a) add more disincentive for spammers to create a bunch of otherwise useless UTXOs; and b) the otherwise useless UTXOs that do get created would make useful sats that much more scarce... all without having to judge what is spam and what isn't.
I assume I'm missing something, though, because this seems like such an obvious mitigation to me; but that I never see discussed.

2026-03-16 15:24:08 UTC

This is great! But, bitcoin as a payment method being better for the merchant than fiat payment rails is only half of bitcoin's thesis as a better payment method... and until the other half is realized (i.e. the merchant splits those benefits with the customer), then the novelty is destined to wear off and die.
#nevent1q…4dx6

2026-03-15 12:42:19 UTC

🔥
#nevent1q…ejzc

2026-03-15 12:39:06 UTC

- reply

Hmmm... looks like it still might only be working for purchases of potato chips? 😁

2026-03-15 11:50:44 UTC

I'm loving how concise this newsfeed npub is.
#nevent1q…suyk

2026-03-13 10:10:05 UTC

- reply

In all seriousness, I don't think fractional reserve banking is inherently bad. Though, I seriously question if the current lack of informed consent on the part of depositors renders the practice de facto unethical - the wide availability of disingenuous booklets of fine print notwithstanding.

2026-03-13 10:06:44 UTC

DEEP THOUGHTS:
Was the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" a psy-op designed to condition the general public not to question fractional reserve banking as anything other than just necessary and normal bank behavior?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPkJH6BT7dM
#asknostr

2026-03-04 15:04:10 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/d0b10f34329162176ad1e8d26a87fe9c7826385a70132549ab2e54be7278f580.jpg

2026-03-04 13:51:10 UTC

#nevent1q…yd06
In other news:
https://www.newsweek.com/federal-reserve-faces-transaction-delays-issues-services-affected-11613563

2026-03-04 13:25:14 UTC

- reply

anything that came after AskJeeves is an abomination. 🤣

2026-03-04 12:58:08 UTC

- reply

FWIW, from what I can tell, California's Digital Age Assurance Act doesn't actually require age *verification* per se. Merely accepting a user's self-reported age is sufficient. So yes, it's an even dumber law than it sounds.
*this is not legal advice 😉

2026-03-04 00:58:26 UTC

- reply

Yeah, liquid feels like a stop-gap solution until it's inevitably obsoleted by a better alternative; but, it's working for me so far vs the trade-offs that other currently available solutions offer.

2026-03-03 16:50:05 UTC

- reply

So, the best Turing test is to just ask a ridiculously stupid question.

2026-03-03 16:19:10 UTC

- reply

True. But, you're not one of those weirdos who likes to drink cream by itself, are ya? 😉

2026-03-03 15:51:26 UTC

- reply

Just add a little butter:
https://image.nostr.build/48abf296576b405ee0377ca27ece9774bf35aacff288b0780b886837e695e67a.jpg

2026-03-03 14:19:46 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/2f83ee711ee0f713534023c950168ab2c86fc1ab87eab5c74937d1b28fc02e26.gif

2026-03-03 14:03:55 UTC

- reply

Yeah, this might be a bit outdated... viewed from the outside, it seems that hell has its chefs and police reversed these days.

2026-03-02 17:00:59 UTC

#nevent1q…c99l
https://image.nostr.build/b5d91ccc60f852db27575a588cab03851d4ec2ebe8268801d1311723b614d6d6.gif

2026-02-27 17:56:36 UTC

- reply

Who knew "infinite money" was referring to a perptual yield fincanced by; not for the purchasers of MSTR? 😜

2026-02-27 12:05:14 UTC

- reply

On a side note, I still add 2 spaces at the end of each sentence. I know most conventional messaging software has been trucating this to a single space for a very long time. I appreciate it that clients like @npub17n4…fyh9 display my notes as I have actually purposely written them. Meanwhile, other clients, like @npub12vk…pugg display the truncated version - which seems like it should be some sort of Nostr violation for presenting a note from my npub in a form that my nsec didn't actually sign.

2026-02-27 10:45:10 UTC

- reply

> Also, when did we stop capitalising words at the start of paragraphs?
Probably around the same time we stopped using 'sats'. 😉

2026-02-26 12:26:13 UTC

HOT TAKE:
What is the primary function of a YouTube channel's SUBSCRIBE button?
It signals to YouTube that you'd be more likely to sit through many more ads while consuming that content.

2026-02-25 17:07:18 UTC

- reply

DISCLAIMER: My comments shouldn't be perceived as me having any particular qualifications to comment other than simply having a right to comment. 😅

2026-02-25 16:34:40 UTC

- reply

It might; it might not.
The potential for a hostile chain-split is a powerful tool necessary to have in order to ensure users stay in control of their network... but exercising that power requires those users to be willing to risk ending up with a minority network. To me this suggests : only break glass in case of emergency.
It doesn't feel to me like anywhere near most users consider these proposed changes to be an emergency - even by those of us who are otherwise sympathetic to the belief that these changes would make Bitcoin better money.
If Core really wanted to capitulate at this point, it would probably be better if they released their own version with a less aggressive timetable to activate only after a clear user consensus has formed... but it sure doesn't seem like Core are even considering capitulating anyway.

2026-02-25 15:56:39 UTC

- reply

I will say it *feels* unlikely to me, too; but, ultimately 🤷
Core pulling a 180 at this point in itself seems really unlikely. Consequently, stipulating to that premise I find makes it very difficult to have confidence in attributing any particular likelihood to what any downstream outcomes of that might be.
My intention was only to point out the potential for a downside.

2026-02-25 11:02:34 UTC

- reply

The most consequential potential downside of BIP110, IMO, is a chain-split due to a lack of consensus adoption. Core adoption wouldn't necessarily compel consensus adoption... it might very likely just result in a more divided chain-split.

2026-02-25 10:50:42 UTC

- reply

Maybe me.... Haven't checked yet... Did he say "bigley"? 🤞

2026-02-25 10:46:11 UTC

- reply

This is genius! Why continually pay for HBO when - with a little such discipline - a 1-month subscription once every other year or so could easily suffice?

2026-02-23 16:45:01 UTC

- reply

PS. I no longer make predictions. 🤣

2026-02-23 16:41:18 UTC

- reply

I predicted Uber would be obsoleted by decentralized P2P rideshare economy by now.

2026-02-23 00:34:12 UTC

- reply

No, I don't wash eggshells so that they won't smell... I gotta take my garbage out to keep other things from smelling way before unwashed eggshells would.

2026-02-23 00:24:09 UTC

- reply

No worries here. I haven't gotten around to actually cooking with it myself; but all the online chef-fluencers I pay attention to seem to think it's nothing to worry about.

2026-02-22 21:05:24 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/b742809ee12ce751495819b49e03149c7b936e097b7b28c40733ffa65ab201cd.jpg

2026-02-22 14:01:04 UTC

To be clear: IF miners switch AFTER activation, reversing every transaction on the main chain would include wiping out their own mining revenue during that period.
Assuming the reason miners didn't switch AT or before activation was because of lack of user support for bip110, that's a heck of a lot of incentive to instead trigger an eventual bip110 rejection soft fork (effectively, a hard chain-split from bip110) if/when bip110 ever gets even close to threatening to gain majority user and/or miner support. (personally, I would be shocked if it ever gets to this point).
In a scenario where legal fear tactics scares miners into leaving a would-be user majority rejection chain for the user minority bip110 chain, that's on those miners, and I couldn't care less. What ultimately matters in a hard chain-split is where the user activity is; not where hash power is split between 2 chains that no longer compete with each other for hash power (this is why the users - not the miners - ultimately decides what bitcoin is).
PS. if bip110 happens to gain the majority user and miner support prior to the drop-dead activation date(block), then so be it. I don't think what bip110 actually proposes to change is per se terrible. I really only object to the mechanism for activation at that time even if it sorely lacks consensus support.
#nevent1q…ek9y

2026-02-19 11:33:04 UTC

- reply

Cool! Also, this:
https://image.nostr.build/10464d58a50b9fa449679466d4e574b76c7b85f6ac0d167d0df437ea71174f03.jpg

2026-02-19 11:07:28 UTC

- reply

Houses are another store of capital. I'm not sure why a sense of wealth from any capital gains should be considered superficial - even while those gains are not yet realized.
As an aside, the obvious problem here is that it shouldn't be the government's job to put its thumb on the scale in order to make owning a house any more (or any less) advantageous than an otherwise free(er) market would have determined on its own.