null

joined 1 month ago
[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Mm, I gave one example of a thread that is definitely not massively downvoted, and then came back later when I saw the comment I linked to. Good that it's been heavily downvoted.

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

twitter-like microblogging platform he couldn’t be banned from.

Wow, what a good faith breakdown!

No, he wanted the ability to build microblogging platforms (among other stuff) on top of a decentralized relay network.

But of course, you only skim-read, so can't blame you too much.

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol -1 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Ah yes, Twitter, the famous protocol for sending signed JSON blobs over a relay network.

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol -3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Better luck next time!

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol -3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Either you believe that the Bitcoin infestation is all just a total coincidence, or you don’t.

Of course it's not a coincidence.

Now would you like to back up your original claim, or admit that it wasn't what you meant? I didn't want to play these stupid games, but clearly you have an agenda here.

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol -1 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I provided proof. With links.

Sigh, I guess you do want to play games.

Okay -- no you didn't. Neither of those links demonstrate that the purpose behind creating Nostr was to exchange cryptocurrency. Would you like to try again? Or accept that you didn't mean it like that?

Will you back up your claims that the Bitcoin crap that infests the app and its community is just a coincidence?

Did you reply to the wrong person or something...? I never made any claims like that...

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (12 children)

I asked you for counterevidence to the claims, not apologism.

Then you don't know how burden of proof works. Instead of demanding that you back up your claim, I accepted that you wanted to water it down and refine it into something you could better defend. Which is a very milque-toast, who-cares claim.

Do you want me to have forced you to back up your original claim and devolve into semantics?

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol -2 points 2 weeks ago (17 children)

The claim was:

The protocol was built to exchange cryptocurrency over it.

Not:

The protocol attracted attention primarily from Bitcoiners who built tools around it to support payments

The new, watered-down framing of your claim sorta just makes me think: "Okay? And?"

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 2 weeks ago

MILLIONS OF CENTS

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)
view more: ‹ prev next ›