Judge Hardcase

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.

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

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 😉

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

Just add a little butter:

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 @Jumble display my notes as I have actually purposely written them. Meanwhile, other clients, like @primal 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.

For sure, if no URSF ever materializes, miners could very well just collectively choose to start enforcing BIP110. Even better would be if Core just endosed BIP110 outright; or, possibly even came up with their own acceptable alternative. None of the above are my basecase, however. I'm not exactly sure what % (or possibly other metric) would be considered a credible threat in the minds of the anti-BIP110 crowd; but, I would fully expect a URSF if/when that line is eventually crossed - which I suppose might not even happen until well after a potential chain-split. The path to the least disruption may very well be to play chicken with the BIP110 8%

PS. Short of overwheming consensus support from the community as a whole, I don't see Coinbase (or any other regulated entities) being particularly keen on tolerating ANY potential for a soft fork to cause signifact disruption.

It seems to me that Coinbase alone could decide to make a URSF defacto "popular" whenever they wanted to - and the majoriry of miners would almost be certain to follow. It would be at that point that BIP110 users and miners - presumably still in the minority - would have to choose whether or not to continue on with the new coin they have created. I would be shocked if more than a handful of BIP110 supporters (especially any would-be miners) would be willing to die on that hill.

... o yeah, there was some of that earlier, too - but in the opposited direction. Mike had scolded Larry a bit for interrupting just a few minutes earlier - which I think likely had Larry on a short fuse when he felt Mike was then interrupting him.

I think Larry's statement was along the lines of "show me the evidence" - to which Mike simply interjected "ETFs". It's not unusual for the regulars to make such brief interjections. Larry didn't hear him clearly, though - likely because of the delay on Mike's side - and asked "what's that?", and it fell apart from there... at least that's my take on what happened. I certainly don't agree with Mike's "infinite supply" BS... and, I'm not sure I buy that he actually believes it himself. However, either way, I do think he provides a useful proxy on that show for what "smart money" is thinking about bitcoin (i.e. they still have no idea yet what bitcoin really is).

👀 📝 a1235c5c…