Subnostr

this is wrong on every level. sats is the standard. every single institution starts their bitcoin pitch with 21 million forever. how do we not get this? why are we trying to change the very fabric that made bitcoin, the bitcoin which is defined by its absolute, unchangeable scarcity?

Comte de Sats Germain 6mo ago

Bitcoin is freedom money, but don't underestimate how easily it could become the/a mark of the beast. If it loses absolute scarcity, then we get global tyranny even worse than now. If it loses decentralization due to spam making nodes too costly, we get the same result. If we as a community drop our vigilance for one second, then all of our efforts get co-opted by the enemy. Full on global tyranny, Mark of the Beast, and eventually extinction. There are no stakes higher than this. This is why I am adamant that Christians get bitcoin, the sooner the better.

A fresh attack, a player that was on our side has been captured by the enemy :

nostr:nevent1qqs2745da5cmkv28nhggkldp7my2r0ju2lrj2nurspjlvpczfltwatcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgs9tc6ruevfqu7nzt72kvq8te95dqfkndj5t8hlx6n79lj03q9v6xcrqsqqqqqp5y2sw6

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

nicodemus 6mo ago

Agree on all counts.

Tho the issue of nomenclature here is a tougher one, as it (should) only impact the individual. They should be able to call it sats, bit bucks, tulips, whatever the fuck they want. It doesn’t really impact the protocol or consensus.

It’s so easy to forget that bitcoin is not a democracy. We each run our own, sovereign version of the rules. And we *hope* we are with the consensus. That it works so well is the miracle. Something like a label doesn’t impact me or my node at all.

Now, if they decide to change the total number of sats in existence…

Comte de Sats Germain 6mo ago

There's a hard fork coming. Two, I think. First the one where Core tries to exclude non Core implementations by excluding nodes - might not happen, but don't be surprised. Second, after a certain adoption critical mass, states and bankers will try to change the number of units. Of course, its cheaper for them if they can do it now : hence, they captured a piece and are trying to sneak in a change under its name. If they can't do it now, they will do it later, 100℅. Be under no illusions. They will kill us if we aren't prepared.

nicodemus 6mo ago

Oh yes. Both of these are constant threats. I’m not sure they’re new, per se, but the enemies of bitcoin have at least recognized the futility of other attacks and have moved on to these.

Another attack is to simply divide bitcoiners. The subject matter could be irrelevant. It’s a page right out of the Art of War. I see this as a much bigger threat than trying to change or co-opt bitcoin - those are just larger hills to climb.

Most groups of people just need a little push to devolve into chaos. Bitcoiners are not immune to this.

Just talking it out, it makes me think the better way to counter this is to call it out and remember who stands to gain the most from these kinds of attack - the state. Always the state.

Comte de Sats Germain 6mo ago

Looks like I missed your comment 14 days ago. Yep, to all.