Too late. You're losing out already.
BTW I wouldn't mind a Dude fNFT. I'll pay 500 BTC for it. Anyone?

My guess? As part of his fNFT lesson, theymos decided to fuck up with emission.

Not exactly. I don't remember the details (and I can't be arsed to check honestly), but the TeXbook says something to the effect that default auto sizes for delimiters tend to be a bit too large, and spaced a bit too widely. I doubt LaTeX improves on that, as the low-level formatting is mostly left as it is in Plain TeX.


How about posting a larger version? I might be able to make out something beyond the bracket size.

EDIT
Wow, AlcoHoDL managed to not only read it, but also make an informed guess at it. I'm in awe.

Without a legal link into physical objects, NFT are mostly useless IMO. Which doesn't mean they can't be traded, as anyone who's been following shitcoins understands.

I think theymos designed just the right new site layout in this particular day. A lesson, a sign of the thymes.

An issue of the \large vs. \Large thingy?

Says the whale sitting on a jbreher-VII and a Last_of_the_V8s-III. Envious!!!

The idea is keeping them from their aperitifs, I think.

I hope that means they're long  

I am watching it. My opinion? Nice music, with that simple glissando string motif that's chilling enough in itself. A slow burner with much less tension than descriptions/posters suggest. The slow burner, low tension thing is good - but it's a bit too complicated for my taste. Keeping track of things acrually requires drawing trees, a bit like 100 años de soledad, but luckily here there are more than two-three given names (thanks for that!). The good thing is it should definitely end with Season 3: no aimless wandering or shark jumping in sight.

Physical enforcement as in "This physical work, authentic or not, present in this gallery/museum, can't be uncovered for all to see/moved from here etc., whithout a signature from the owner of this specific NFT". Who wants to "use" the object (watch, say) must get strong crypto auth before being legally able to.

Yes metadata is part of the work and is necessary to enforce ownership. It is not part of the creation itself, in the sense that the work can be used/enjoyed even if all metadata are removed. This is the rift I was referring to - between art as an esthetic experience that has value and art as a token whose ownership/accessory data are not necessary to enjoy a specific piece of art. Unless there is physical (legal?) enforcement, that is.

I am not being dismissive.

If I were a collector, I wouldn't be satisfied in feeling that the uniqueness of my piece is limited to a few bits of metadata in the signature - which, again, isn't part of the work itself, since other "unique" prints have the same exact data as their artistic content. Only physical enforcement of the link would give me that kind of satisfaction - along with possible returns.

My issue with your point of view, Biodom, is that we are losing track of the raison d'etre for art - the enjoyment.

I understand a Van Gogh original is worth millions, and enjoying a copy or a hi res photo of it isn't the "same" thing in some sense.

But - if the work of art is digital to begin with, what's the relationship between artistic enjoyment and "originality" or "ownership" of the work? When it gets that philosophic, I start to smell smoke.

Exactly my issue with NFTs. There could be a use for them, such as tracking actual physical assets: imagine owning an NFT for (part of) the Mona Lisa or something like that, and earning profit each time someone buys a ticket for the Louvre, or every time the work is loaned for an exhibition.

Same with the songs: I own the NFT, are the song rights now mine? Who gets the royalties on its uses - me or the person who sold me the NFT? If it isn't me, what exactly have I bought? The right to listen to the song? I've got my mp3 for that.

Your "penny wise, pound foolish" feeling is shared by a few informed people. I feel differently, and I think the issue wasn't how much the EU paid for vaccine, but the low negotiation skills shown basically by Ursula von der Leyen personally. She should have left that to some seasoned shark tamer, like Mario Draghi.

I do agree the net result is a mess for Europe. And the difference vaccination progress might well explain the present exchange rates - but then, why is UKP penalized too? UK is doing just fine with the vax.

Another good point from you though. Thanks.

But cloud mining was mostly a scam. I had a short flirt and barely managed to make a few sats before they changed the conditions. This feels different. Scamming 275k$ whales that can sue your ass looks like poor financial planning.

I see your point (I think I merited one of your posts about that in the past), but now I was referring to the actual level of USD/EUR and USD/UKP - apart from btc exchange rate considerations.

Blockstream Issues Security Token Tied to Bitcoin Hashrate, Payable in BTC
https://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-security-token-bitcoin-hashrate-payable-bitcoin

What do you think of these hashrate tokens? The first batch will be sold in minimum lots of ~275k$, so it's only for whales, but they will be traded OTC in 0.1x lots. What looks nice to clueless me is they sell at a discount to actual mining hardware. And, more importantly, the buyer is not subject to issues with delivery, operation, maintenance etc. of actual ASICs.

Are they a thing? Can they become a thing in due time?

I guess EUR/USD price differences are too easy to arb for them to last long.

Rather, I don't understand the present high value of USD with respect to EUR and UKP. USA are well ahead of other nations in their brrrr work. It must be the market's bet on quicker recovery of the economy in the US than elsewhere.

Neither do I, but...


The problem is they will be able to do so without buying a single satoshi. That's why I advocate strict 'in kind' redemption (physical) and fastidious auditing. Which can only be done on the etf issuer reserves: it is impossible to do on the etf stock once it is out on the market. For a reminder, think of other stocks with short interest ABOVE the float.

It has happened, it happens everyday. GME is the latest famous example. And the asses of the shorters were saved by some opaque chain of factors - Robinhood, the clearinghouse, the antiquate short reporting system (they are going to update it to "within a working day" or so - why don't they use a friggin' blockchain or something?) - we will likely never know.

As a final note, I got my skin off GME while still decently in the green as soon as I understood that wielding my diamond hands would have given me no super tendies.

The way I see it, cash settled can "wag the dog" almost as powerfully - at least if the ETF issuer has any clearinghouse function: if number go up, any redeeming of ETF stock must follow the price, basically forcing whoever clears the stocks to hedge against price moves by holding physical btc or other reliable derivatives.

Now let's forget about this for a moment and consider a hypothetical situation: what happens to "the number" when someone short sells, or naked short sells, a btc ETF with the might of a full brrr press?