Let me know I point I made that was in conflict with bitcoin being money - let alone how my incentives aren’t aligned with that
Thought the opposite tbh. nostr:nprofile1qqsvak4cr0jzaarahhn98a9602e94sa2xt8u9dnjac8cns86lzp0z0spzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuendwsh8w6t69e3xj7sprfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujummjv9hxwetsd9kxctnyv4mqhehqxh seemed influenced by own incentives, stuck in technical mindset, offered no opinion on Bitcoin as money and how to protect that.
Sounded like he cared sweet fuk all about the little guy who wants to run a node and contribute to the network, or doesn’t have enough Bitcoin to play futures bets with him. And nostr:nprofile1qqsd0uazmzmhwseeym3rjhf3txyjapreapc6sq8yq8cy07cg45tlx2cpp4mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7tcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhst99y68 soft-cocked his way around opportunities to challenge or focus on the real issue at hand: Bitcoin as money.
Discussion
As the CEO of a Bitcoin insurance company, isn’t it in your customers’s and underwriter’s interests to challenge something that may lead to conflict or disruption to the network? Would BIP444 impact your operations / security model?
Our policy doesn’t cover both coins in a fork, nor does it cover disruption because blocks or slow, so no real problem.
Haven’t been presented with anything that hurts the core business