Avatar
VampireMJ
182052d256f486269994e4ff65c5d2601109f874fdfb373d113e72fbe48c3d7a
J'aime bitcoin, les jeux vidéo, les films et les jeux de rôle comme Vampire La mascarade. I love bitcoin, video games, movies and roleplaying game like Vampire the masquerade.

I spend Sats whenever it's possible but until it's widely accepted, I live in FIAT and save in Bitcoin.

Nostr loves you too. 🫶

Replying to Avatar corndalorian

Did someone create a Teeth memecoin already?

Sorry it's my fault. I asked it to postpone the green candle until August.

AI is a powerful tool for a #ttrpg game master. 🥰

If you're not embarrassed, it means it's not decentralized enough.

Now try to send 1% of it across the world.

Replying to Avatar corndalorian

You need lower time preference. 🫶

Replying to Avatar QW

I need it to last until August.

✅ 4-Year Bitcoin Compounding Update

On a 4 years period, my Satoshis have generated an annual compounded return equivalent to 24%. I bet I did better than many people. No skills or knowledge are necessary. We simply need patience.

📊 This year marks my first full 4-year cycle since buying Bitcoin. I calculated the equivalent average annual compounded yield for each purchase, then weighted them by amount size.

Why 4 years?

Bitcoin’s block reward halves every 4 years.

Many countries have 4-year electoral cycles.

Without being too long, it’s long enough to filter out short-term noise while capturing Bitcoin’s structural growth.

#Bitcoin #Saving #BitcoinOnly

C'est une vidéo très intéressante sur la menace des ordinateurs quantiqus sur bitcoin.

Je serais plutôt en faveur d'un softfork avec BIP360 et je ne pense pas qu'on devrait faire quoi que ce soit avec les adresses dormants. Ceux qui veulent protéger leur BTC peuvent le faire.

https://youtu.be/efVYkdepGtQ?si=KM6b6w6Hk3Fz68Cb

Replying to Avatar Telluride

FULL TEXT FOR THOSE THAT DONT DO TWITTER/X

The turbulence that has arisen out of the OP_RETURN PR has taken a lot of energy from the whole Bitcoin community over the past several days. To a certain degree that is unfortunate but on the other hand I believe it is good because it brings to the forefront some fundamental issues with the community. As you all know we don't have a CEO or Board of Directors - we therefore can only be successful and follow a common path via community alignment. Bitcoin's biggest threat is not government bans or quantum computing but losing cohesiveness and direction. In others words, the only enemy is us. We use this latest issue as an inflection point upon which we learn how to all better engage, or we drive a schism - it is up to us.

I got up early today because I wanted to capture some thoughts about where we stand and what issues we really face. I sent this note out to the Bitcoin Dev mailing list earlier today but since that is a small group, I wanted to share the guts of that note with the broader audience and this is what follows:

1 .Those outside of the dev community are perplexed by the process and feeling discounted, unheard, and/or rejected.  Most of the issues/PRs/BIPs that the dev community deals with are beyond the ability of the general population to understand, but occasionally there are ones that they grasp (at least somewhat) and for which they have opinion.  I’ve certainly learned that when someone has an opinion it is really important to let them express it, otherwise, the pressure inside them builds and they erupt like a volcano.  The Bitcoin ecosystem and its members are radically different today than 5-10 years ago – it is bigger, wider, and has broader interests now - it appears that process and communication mechanisms currently used by Core are not capable of reaching the community properly anymore. Note that communication means two-way as well.

When someone buys Bitcoin or starts working within the ecosystem, there is no membership guide, owner’s manual, or employee on-boarding process.  It comes off very badly when someone trying to engage is told that they don’t count or aren’t using proper channels, especially when they don’t even know where to go learn the rules of engagement.  That isn’t necessarily anyone’s fault, but I’ve been involved in Bitcoin since 2017 and even now am still learning new things about the engagement process, and there definitely have been several surprises and frustrations for me over the past handful of days.

2. The ecosystem is much more complex than ever before with people and companies developing products and services with assumptions of how Bitcoin will operate.  Many of these are being done in stealth-mode as well.  Some people are pouring their heart and soul (and money) into their projects and the expectation of a standard is often crucial.  I am one of these folks, beyond what I do in mining (CEO of Barefoot Mining) and as a board member at Ocean, I have been working for two years on a project related to enhancing block space access.  This proposed change in standardness may impact my project in a negative manner, and, it is certainly possible others might be in a similar position.  Regardless, changes to standardness are HUGE.  I spent most of my career within the Personal Computer space and learned the hard way that changes to a standards are a dangerous game.   I expand a bit on this in this X  post: https://x.com/boomer_btc/status/1917687830148526095

3. The proposed change also appears to be reduction in flexibility and configurability.  In general, this is never a good thing.  IMO, we should be going in the direction of giving people more choices and flexibility (although it is fine to make suggestions, set defaults, or provide general guidelines.)  How someone configures their node and creates their mempool is akin to free speech within Bitcoin. The same goes for those like me that are miners and create our own block templates – this is also part of our free speech (and our business).  In the end though, whether you are a user or a miner, the more choices you have, the more freedom of speech you have.

Side note: Ultimately, as a miner I am in the business of creating block space – at least that is my view, and contrary to popular belief, miners are not always motivated to simply pick transactions that generate the highest block reward in the immediate block, and as time goes by this will become even more common and apparent.  I’ve spoken a lot on this recently in public forums, so I won’t dwell on it here.

4. Finally, there is the issue of an OP_RETURN change, if it encourages more spam, and if we are just caving into an inevitability.  I am against the proposed change and, even if that is true that the spam will ultimately find a way, I feel we are acquiescing way too early.  Enough has been said on this topic in other forums so I won’t go further.

We don't legalize cocaine even though it ultimately find a way. They should stop trying to improve the layer 1 and focus on security/compatibility updates.

That way, the frustrations will stop. A huge reason why Bitcoin has value is because it doesn't change.

Replying to Avatar negr0

Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Knots: The Great Bitcoin Spam Fight

The Bitcoin community is engaged in an interesting debate: Bitcoin Core vs. Bitcoin Knots. What are they? Why are they fighting?

Here, I explain clearly and simply, without missing any details, with neutrality and a touch of the "spam" controversy.

What is Bitcoin Core?

It's the main software used by approximately 90% of nodes (computers that keep Bitcoin running).

It's stable and developed by many programmers, but some say it doesn't react quickly to problems like network spam.

What is Bitcoin Knots?

An alternative version of Core, created in 2011 by Luke Dashjr.

It has everything Core has, but adds filters to block "annoying" transactions like NFTs or images on the blockchain.

It is used by approximately 633 nodes and relies on a single developer.

Why the conflict?

Everything exploded in 2023, when transactions like NFTs and "ordinals" (data like images on the blockchain) saturated the network, driving up costs.

Knots filters them to ease the network's burden; Core allows them if they pay fees, dividing the community.

What is "spam" in Bitcoin?

Think of the blockchain as a highway: transactions are like cars. Some (NFTs, JPGs) take up a lot of space, causing "traffic."

- Knots: Blocks them to clear the way.

- Core: Lets them through if they pay a "toll."

But who decides what is "spam"?

As the community says: "Spam is in the eyes of the recipient."

- Some see NFTs as spam, like a fake lottery email. Even if they pay, they don't want them on their nodes.

- Others say: "If they pay and the protocol allows it, it's not spam."

Think about it: someone sending mass emails about fake lotteries pays for the server and plays by the rules of the internet.

But you don't want those emails in your inbox. Likewise, some people don't want JPGs on their Bitcoin nodes, even if they're "valid" transactions.

Is it fair to filter them?

The debate began in 2023, when a bug ("Inscriptions", CVE-2023-50428) allowed data like NFTs to be inserted into the blockchain, overwhelming it.

Knots quickly fixed this in its 25.1 release, while Core was slower, leading some to view Knots as the solution to "spam."

Here are the sides in this debate:

- Team Core: They believe that any transaction that pays is valid. Filtering is like "censorship" and goes against the freedom of Bitcoin. They prefer stability and regulated fees.

- Team Knots: They want to protect the network from saturation, claiming that filters don't break the rules.

- Luke Dashjr (Knots): He says NFTs and ordinals are "spam" that clogs the network and increases costs. His filters help small nodes, but some criticize him for only maintaining Knots.

- Peter Todd: He sees "spam" as a problem, but says paid transactions are valid. He looks for open technical solutions.

Other technical voices

- achow101 (Core): In 2017, he said to use Core unless you need Knots' features, viewing Knots as an "extra."

- Developers like Gloria Zhao have shut down filter ideas in Core, frustrating those who want quick changes.

After asking a few people in the community, we came to different conclusions on both sides:

- Pro-Core: They value stability and fear that Knots, with only one developer, is risky. They say filtering is making decisions for others.

- Pro-Knots: They want anti-spam tools and criticize Core for being slow. They see Knots as an innovation.

The Filter Dilemma

Even if you filter JPGs on your node with Knots, if a miner includes them in a block, your node must accept it. It's like blocking a lottery email, but having to save it if it's already reached the server.

This makes the debate complex: do you filter or accept everything?

Technical explanation (easy)

The mempool is a waiting room for transactions.

Knots lets you choose what comes in (with filters like datacarrier=0), while Core accepts almost anything.

If many nodes used Knots, spam would be more expensive, but it wouldn't disappear.

Core is committed to stability and freedom; Knots is committed to control and efficiency. Spam divides because everyone has a different view of what's "annoying."

The community will decide whether Bitcoin should be "cleaner" or more "open."

Which side are you on?

Based on your note, I'm on the Core side.

That said, I heard Core wants to change the code to enable more spams. 🤔 If it's true, this is not stability. Dev should stick with security/compatibility updates.

The first step to separate the money from State is for them to massively use bitcoin as strategic reserve.

Am I wrong to work in the weekend that follows my resignation at job? I feel a little bit fool especially when the overtime aren't paid.

Fuck you professionalisme!