trident1000

Layer 2 is mostly likely just going to be centralized services like Paypal and cash app. There will be several options now and in the future really.

Theres a few issues here. One is that Bitcoin is largely a settling layer where batched transactions occur. Its not 1 transaction per tx even right now. Layer 2 networks of all kinds are handling the vast majority of traffic of bitcoin. More bitcoin moves on the ethereum blockchain than the bitcoin blockchain. And then we get cash app, paypal, the crypto exchanges, etc. Even hardware wallets like Ledger could batch transactions potentially in the future. So bitcoin frequent transactions largely run through top layer systems until its time to settle on the main chain which is infrequent/a small fraction of the total top volume. Also 95% of people who use bitcoin dont even have a hardware wallet, they just use the exchanges...for better or worse. Then you get into things like the lighting network.

As for the Princeton study...Ill have to look at it but I'm skeptical they consider things like more batched transaction volume per tx in the future which could be harnessed to also have a more concentrated fee structure providing stability to the chain. Also changes can be made through consensus if needed...like segwit.

Many people in the US and elsewhere dont even know what that is. Know whats way easier? Holding a global non-inflatable reserve currency and forgetting the rest of the BS.

Cash is a bad savings vehicle not because its based on trust, but because they keep printing more of it and it already reached price maturity in terms of market cap (its saturated in how many people keep wealth in it, especially as an inflationary asset).

Bitcoin has been a very good savings vehicle over the past 12 years in terms of long term moving average. Like social networks such as facebook, gold, etc, it has network value and these tend to be hard to break when at scale (there are many forks and all are worth nothing). Bitcoin is now (aside from ETF's and 401k's) the single most held liquid tradable asset on earth. More people own it than stock in Apple (not in ETF or 401k form).

You think the gold MC is based on utility? There is not a 9 trillion electronic plating and jewelry market. Jewelry is also by extension speculation on the metal. 95% of golds market cap is through the same value social network that gives bitcoin value. Except I've owned physical gold and its a pain in the ass for so many reasons. Bitcoin is a better store of wealth. Its something that is useful and limited to many including myself and has reached the beginnings of mass adoption. It has value.

So you can continue to call it a beanie baby but that old phrase has been said since 2011. How long can you shake the cane at the sky? Even JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have come around in addition to Paypal and the others. The entire legacy financial system is adopting at this point.

Also means people can save without needing to be financial wizards to not lose much of what they have over their lifetimes. Keeping what you earn in real terms over a lifetime should not be as complicated as it is today.

People with college degrees get more arrogant and indoctrinated than educated (I graduated from a top university). Almost everything useful I know was attained outside school.

Sometimes a narrow lane is found in social media in general, but I would argue the competition is still minimal or non existent for crossing lanes. For instance Twitter and snapchat and Tiktok are very different. I view the social media landscape as an oligopoly rather than monopolistic and they rarely cross into each others territory. Also the rate of new meaningful competitors just is not occurring fast enough when a democracy like the US has elections every 4 years. Theres a mismatch in competitor lane crossing and the rate at which democracy operates. Theres been what...2 or 3 major new social networks with limited scope that dont really compete with each other in 20 years on the western side? Its just not enough to make an impact and give people choice especially as we see them act in tandum.

I think those are the optics because it never took off so it looked half-assed but they made an effort (Google+ was also launched a long time ago so it looks antiquated by todays standards). Maybe a better argument is that its been decades and nobody is meaningfully competing with facebook or Twitter in their respective categories even though there is tremendous economic incentive to do so. Network effects are very difficult to break. When the president is on Twitter nobody wants to be on Bob's basement network. Its locked in a feedback loop.

Follow up comment here because Ive apparently reached my limit for a while: I believe you. I still think a Google half-ass is going to be a stronger effort than another start ups full out stab at it. Facebook is the biggest "country" on earth almost by a factor of 2x with 2.7 billion people. Its just other worldy large and difficult to compete with especially today. But I get what you're saying.

I would definitely recommend using 2 email addresses. Pick one for your important stuff and another for spam (give this out to merchants and what not). Protonmail works but there are others. Also realize that you are not going to self destruct if you miss an email from migrating as long as you cover the most important contacts. It can actually be a good spring cleaning exercise.

Its been a long run with gmail but I'm going to make the full leap to protonmail pretty soon. It takes a little work to migrate things but I just cant stand gmail for so many reasons now.

And after Google pay thought it was a good idea to send my phone number out to every online merchant (I now get nonstop spam texts and calls) I've had it with the company.

They have every right to do it legally and you're right that the rules will probably change. People say "just go and make another platform" but Google literally tried and failed to make their own (Google+). If they cant do it who really can? Its not happening or it will take centuries/enormous resources to gain traction and compete. So we are left with an oligopoly that is censoring in lockstep and that's an issue for all sides because eventually its not them, its you, with time (amongst other issues). I think the platforms are a huge threat to democracy personally and I hope the new rules are meaningful and not just a knee jerk makeshift reaction.

Theres a lot of predatory pricing now with these algos (not in the legal/official sense of the phrase which is to undercut competitors). For instance I noticed that I was being charged 6x compared to others for something that I frequently bought on an app.

What semantics? They were granted immunity with regulation and that regulation/immunity can be taken away.

Really this is patchwork on what needs to be a major regulatory overhaul.

Things that need to be addressed: no advertising to kids, mob control, fake accounts/social manipulation, free speech, transparent and auditable algorithms (screw their IP). Its not an easy task to achieve all of these and other goals but it needs to get done before society literally goes into a civil war.

Well removing section 230 would actually be deregulation and clarifying the interpretation is just enforcing whats already in place. 230 is legislation that protects tech companies currently. But they are acting as publishers and not platforms which has sparked action.

People dont really understand how dangerous of a situation were in right now. When big tech platforms can amplify or decrease thoughts, sources, and even political candidates voices, they literally decide politics. Democracy is being challenged. We need to decide if we want kings or democratically elected representatives to be in charge of the country.

Its also because the fed has flooded the market with cash and at the same time reduced bond yields to near 0%. There's nowhere for cash to go. And if you sit in cash it slowly becomes worthless over time.

Companies only want regulation when it boxes out competitors.

I know you were just joking but I wanted to take it as an opportunity to expand my point. And for record I only have 3k.

If you want free speech you need to learn to live with free speech. That means not believing everything you see, critically thinking, and actually vetting the sources yourself. Its a societal process that plays out over time. The answer is not to have content oligarchs that decide what is truth and can be seen. Statements like this eventually are just seen as noise and ignored as people look for verifiable truth via trusted sources within platforms. In short, it works itself out.

Absurd. Who are the arbiters of truth and what can and cannot be said? There is no such thing as almost free speech in a free society except perhaps for clear cut physical threats.

Also big tech is going to end democracy as we know it unless we get serious. They can decide who gets elected into office and we are on a path to replacing elected representatives with kings.

This story is exactly why he hasnt released his taxes

We have no information on this except what the NYT's reports in half truth. For instance if there was a time gap between reporting that could cause a mismatch as finances change over time. You can also have retroactive amendments as almost every major company has which are reported in different years. I havent dug deep into this as its not an important topic for me but I just wouldnt take the around the edges reporting at face value from a source as biased as the times.

The story headline that was coordinated and gaslight was "trump didnt pay any tax". Everything else was anecdotal, I didnt look into this specific matter because I was rolling my eyes from the start. If they cant be honest about the main story I'm not following them for the rest of the allegations.

None of them are serious. NY Times made a big deal out of trumps taxes when everyone knows depreciation offsets revenue in real estate, its 101 stuff. You get taxed when you sell the asset which happens infrequently but in large magnitude. Most people in the industry were laughing at the gaslighting they did on that story but they fooled their little pawn readers. Just one example out of many. Every news source is full of shit even the ones that are supposed to be reputable.

I mentioned several noteworthy people and institutions making an investment to demonstrate a trend. "its mostly a popularity/buzz game" yeah thats how value networks work. From gold to cash to facebook.

Sounds a little dramatic (especially since 50 million isnt moving the price single handedly). Also stock buybacks are essentially the same thing (if you were to call it a conflict of interest) and almost every company in existence does that.

Theres people who use it for certain things, like PornHub just started accepting BTC payments.

But there has never been more institutional and high net worth interest in BTC than now as a value store and adoption for a global reserve currency (we can see this from the institutional gateway inflows). Some recent examples: Microstrategy invested $425 million in BTC over treasuries. Twitter bought $50 million the other week (and Jack Dorsey owns BTC personally). Paul Tudor Jones bought in with about 2% of his total assets. Its gaining traction in this area as a value store.

Yes, literally burned down..with fire (and looting, and making it unsafe for business). There are parts of this country that are not coming back economically for a decade after what happened. Did you have your eyed closed through the whole ordeal? I lived in an area affected, its a real thing that actually happened I shouldn't have to explain this. And if a right wing group had done 1/10th of what these groups did we would never hear the end of it. But we get radio silence instead because of institutional politics.

Well antifa and extremist sections of BLM just burned down half the cities in America and shot a guy in the back of the head recently...so examples are out there. Why is it so hard to reconcile that extremists are on both sides and we have an issue on the right and left? Is that not reasonable?