Nostr Web Client

It’s implied by pow.

Beware of the „if it’s not in the whitepaper it doesn’t exist“ mindset. Many fall for this kind of thinking, becoming bcashers and alike as a result. Satoshi used words sparsely. Much was only implied if anything.

The map is not the territory.

S!ayer 5mo ago

But the white paper is explicit. What "Bitcoin" is now is not what the whitepaper outlined.

I still don't understand the energy pov regarding proof of work. I understand the energy outlay to generate the work, but I don't understand how that transferrable in the future or energy potential or whatever

Bitcoin as it stood was a trustless system, because the protocol never changed. But it has changed, and continues to have developers changing that.

So idk in like six months we'll have Bitcoin Knots becoming unhinged and we'll get Bitcoin nuCore or something similar

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

imnuso 5mo ago

Okay, let's go through your points.

1) HAHAHAHAHAHA, wrong! I won't discuss shitcoin narratives, which have already been disputed countless times.

2) Energy is work not expended, which makes both highly interchangeable. That’s why both are expressed in joules, by the way.

3) Oh boy! For someone so concerned with the literal wording of the white paper, this might come as a shock, but Satoshi never mentions the term "trustless" because Bitcoin was never trustless. Trustless systems do not exist. They can't. Therefore, it wasn't Satoshi's goal. His goal was to minimize the need for trust and eliminate the need for a trusted third party. That's actually expressed in the white paper and it’s very different from what you said.

S!ayer 5mo ago

You won't discuss the other forks because why? You clearly avoid this mere fact that anyone can fork and duplicate Bitcoin, hell they could even fork it, remove the segwit and taproot changes and the 1mb cap and return it to the original protocol as stated in the whitepaper and Bitcoin forums.

There's at least 10 forks so far that I've heard of, all 'bitcoin'.

So what makes BTC Bitcoin when core wants to change the protocol? What version are you on? On this, unchangeable, immutable protocol?

No wonder Satoshi left 😂

𝕞𝕪𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕥𝕠𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕖 5mo ago

Dude, gold has failed. Time to leave the fiat tradfi world and adopt bitcoin

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

the only reason why your precious monaro has survived is because paranoid cokeheads buying on bohemia think it's gr8

without the dark web, monero ded

bitcoin has had many battles, but i guess you didn't do your homework

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

also, core doesn't own bitcoin. did you not hear about how many people switched over to knots, the fork made by luke dash jr? oh yeah, again, you didn't do your homework

Saberhagen The Nameless 5mo ago

So you're saying it's the payment method of choice in one of the most adversarial of environments? Sounds dope

StackSats.IO 5mo ago

Because those forks didnt gain consensus, so they’re not worth discussing.

It’s like saying we should discuss Calvinism vs Catholicism and which was the more successful religion - well it’s pretty fucking obvious to anyone with eyeballs which did better in the long run, isn’t it?

S!ayer 5mo ago

And what happens when Saylor and Fink team up, or rather the entire Cantor Fitzgerald crew and say to everyone 'we hold the majority and so we are the consensus"

Idk if many people can think long term, but I most certainly can and I see Bitcoin/SATs flowing up to these treasuries from private holders, and in like 10 years time you'll have the new central bankers but instead of gold or other reserves that have this digital sha token

StackSats.IO 5mo ago

They end up on the SaylorFinkCoin and we burn their coins on BTC, reducing the overall supply making us way richer.

S!ayer 5mo ago

Reducing supply doesn't necessarily mean price goes up. The threat of new market entrants, especially in cryptos, is extremely high.

I suppose it boils down to blind faith

StackSats.IO 5mo ago

Today I have theoretical share of X/21M

If tomorrow we burn Saylor, Fink et al, I have X/19.5M (or whatever the number is we burn from SaylorFinkCoin).

Yes, burning cunts off the network does basically guarantee we all get richer as our share of the network increases regardless of dollar valuation.

It’s not going to happen to some random individual holding 1.2 BTC, but if the spook Saylor wants to play games, or Zionist Larry, yeah you watch and see.

The main philosophical debate right now in Bitcoin is whether to burn Satoshi’s coins in a quantum upgrade, or not.

That has arguments on both sides.

Suitcoiners try to co-opt #Bitcoin? You watch them get burned within a fucking week.

We are not playing games.

imnuso 5mo ago

Study the fuck up.