Thread

"just do a different model, where we actually sustain the earth"

Ok Jack but how do I know you don't have an agenda? My friend @Russo thinks otherwise

Sound money is like equity in civilization; increased productivity benefits holders of the money with lower prices, or increased value of the money. It's similar to how increased value of a company accrues to holders of the stock. Bitcoin is still small enough that it's obvious how improvements to the network accrue to all hodlers.

Hope for the world restored

I struggle to understand how supporting Bitcoin development in any form has the potential to subvert it. That’s not how open source code is governed. In what world is there a downside to supporting future development? Worst case, there is simply more scrutiny on what is added, best case it results in more product.

Bitcoin is a global public good and needs to be treated as such. The sustainability, development, and governance of a global public good is fundamentally different than a typical product. Time for folks to wrap their mind around that. The experience around global public goods is out there to learn from. I’m also happy to help. :)

Do all humans not function with incentives? Carrots or sticks? Everyone, you, Saylor, ODELL, devs have incentives

The same goes for #Nostr.

👍 View quoted note →

thoughts on Nostr music streaming vs Tidal??

It's noble we all know that but we also know that many will try to corrupt the devs...the Wall Street's wet dream : get control over bitcoin development.

All the gold, silver, oil and minerals in the world belong to the rich. Governments are also in the hands of the rich Who gets bitcoins to rob the poor again? The rich again.

you're totally right on this one Dan

i've always viewed bitcoin and nostr as a community effort. we all rise together.

Welcome to my utopian world where people give money with no agendas and no strings attached.

I agree 100%. Companies and people that help FOSS developers make bitcoin better. A person that receives the funding ultimately has the choice to do right or wrong with it. (Free will.) It seems wrong to say “bitcoin is for everyone,” then turn around and say “bitcoin isn’t for companies.” Then we say “we want bitcoin to stay free and open source, but only if it is funded by the people that aren’t in big companies.” My 2 questions are: How does it stay free and open source with no funding? @jack can’t fund every project that is helping to change the world.