Avatar
Dr. Bitcoin, MD
4f4f82846698ff66ae5fa9fad4c0c4eb7823afb07fa9f54ea9d15f1217ae96cc
Bitcoin OG since 2010, former laptop solo miner, blockstream satellite node runner, #2A rights user, radiologist

I’d have been there but I have to testify as an expert witness Monday :(

Exactly. And if there are no users running nodes to object, rule changes happen without a fork.

The real question is “why is it not possible?”

The answer is NOT “because it’s hard coded every 210,000 blocks.”

No. Not even close. The real answer is “Because I say so…and I can say so because I run my own node…and my wallet connects to my node and I will not accept payment that doesn’t follow all the rules.”

Back then, neither miners nor businesses thought users had any role. Devs knew better. Most devs at least.

First slashdotting. July 2010. Mined for a week with my laptop cpu…back when that worked. Managed to not sell all but definitely sold way too much. Donated some and helped with a foundation that subsequently folded.

I’ve always bought small amounts every month since coinbase became a thing. Those $20 buys in 2013 really mean something today. Started buying for real in March/April 2019 after plan b released his model.

While I no longer thing plan b model is best, it’s still useful. Very useful. But for long term planning I believe power law model more likely to be true on average. Much less optimistic but also not exponential…exponential models always must fail eventually. Power law models don’t _have_ to fail ever. But even this model will fail someday. My guess is 10-15 years.

My advice: learn self custody well. Practice it. Get a coldcard from @nvk and practice seed creation, backup, delete, restore and wallet creation…and stack hard enough to have no regrets…this means don’t become a forced seller. And don’t leave too much on the table.

Super excited to get my coldcard q soon (probably)!

Hoping I can show it off at the halving party next week…if it ships soon enough.

@nvk y’all knocked it out of the park with this one. People need to know the Q and understand the security model.

They keep selling bitcoin because they like seeing the price at $69,420.

Yeah: instead of reducing the block reward, they just keep it the same. Maybe we’d be on 12.5 bitcoins per block still had the battle gone their other way.

I’m an OG but lightning is not my forté. Payment failed and I did it again immediately and it seemed to work…weird.

The blocksize war wasn't so much about the blocksize (or, even, scaling Bitcoin). It was really about who controls the consensus rules and how we upgrade the protocol.

For context, a bunch of startups raised tons of money between 2013 and 2016 based on ridiculous user sign-up projections and then we had a long and painful bear market and they were looking for scapegoats (the developpers that were "throttling the network") to justify the lack of growth. I am thinking here specifically of Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info.

The vibe I got is that they thought of Bitcoin itself as a corporation, that they were the equivalent of Bitcoin's board of directors because they represented the interest of VC investors, and thus they were entitled to decision making power over the network.

I don't doubt that a few people were genuine about scaling p2p e-cash (e.g. Roger Ver) but I suspect what really motivated them is that they believed control of the Bitcoin network would be an asset to their business interests, and lack of control was being used as an excuse to why their interests weren't being satisfied.

There was also a bunch of developers that I believe may have been afraid of losing their relevance (Gavin and Garzik specifically). Regardless of their intentions or psychology, it seemed clear to me that the consortium of vc-backed startups (particularly Bitpay, Coinbase, blockchain(.)info and Roger) had picked a team of developers they thought they could control and wanted to appoint them as a technical management team whicn would execute their strategy, and these guys were willing to step up for that role.

I was physically in the room when the CEO of Blockchain.info (with the very obvious support of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong) announced that Bitcoin Core devs were being fired and would be replaced. This was after a couple days of failed discussions with other industry people. This was the moment when I realized what was really going on.

And finally, you had a Bitcoin mining giant (Bitmain) controlling both asic production and mining pools with a vested interest in promoting the idea that Bitcoin was a democracy and the way to vote was to buy hashing power. The main ideology being pushed here was that a formal governance mechanism of the protocol needed to be established and that hashrate was the only objective measure of who makes decisions.

The underlying big blocker ideology was that the chaos of spontaneous consensus of nodes is unpredictable, flimsy, bad for business. The absence of a formal governance process was seen as the root cause of the issue.

These companies really believed they could control the protocol, and controlling development of the protocol was seen as a very valuable asset to your company. I imagine they thought of themselves as the founders of a new consortium that would solidify itself into a permanent institution. The business interests would pay developers and set the goals, and the mining interests would ratify their decisions with hash power voting. That was their plan.

This became blatantly obvious when Bitmain used its refusal to activate segwit as leverage to get what it wanted (a blocksize increase and recognition of its hashpower as a vote mecanism) even though Bitmain iself acknowledged it was not really opposed segwit.

It was classic traditional politics: I'll give you segwit if you give me something in return.

This is the language the VC suits, investors and tech startup people understand and they were very happy to "negotiate" and find "consensus".

This eventually materialized into the New York Agreement, negotiated literally as a backroom deal during theConsensuss shitcoin conference. I was there and I refused to attend.

This (private) meeting consecrated the alliance of startups/investors and bitcoin mining interests in their appointment of a technical management committee. If you think this sounds like Jekyll Island, you're not alone.

They packaged segwit with a blocksize increase (Segwit2x) and decided to force a hard fork as a condition to "allow" us to have Segwit.

We know the rest of the story: we ended up activating anyway via UASF (or more precisely, the miners activated Segwit after they New York Agreement signatories became scared UASF would lead to a chain split which they were going to lose). And the blocksize increase was also abandoned shortly after when they realized their hard fork would cause a chain split and that they would not be able to claim that their new shitcoin is the real bitcoin.

All these people were subsequently were very pissed off they couldn't control the network, which they thought they were entitled to. Some ragequit, others created a bunch of shitcoins out of spite, Roger went on to spearhead BCH as the real Bitcoin, all these fools realized they might as well make some money off of it, everyone went all-in on the shitcoin casinos after that. The "small blockers" eventually went on to evolve into the Bitcoin Maximalists and cypherpunks that today tell you to run your own node and own your own keys.

Best short summary of the BS wars.

I was on the wrong side of this debate until Satoshi Roundtable in Mexico where I got to speak to some genuinely smart well known people.

My initial perspective was “don’t rock the boat, keep bumping default size limits in bitcoin.conf — which had been done for many years already— rather than mess up the small bitcoin economy.

But what I learned at SR was elegant and simple. If filling up blocks kills bitcoin, then bitcoin is dead because that is the ultimate requirement for security in the future. Filling up blocks will either create conditions for better/wiser/more efficient use of block space or we shall see how valuable bitcoin is when security must be paid for as ultimately intended (fees not inflation).

I see now what most small blockers were asking for was a continued hand out to keep their businesses profitable. If they got big blocks I guarantee you miners would get to skip a halving down the road.

I, like many others, didn’t understand the importance of running my own node…I did it to help others download the chain, but that was unnecessary by 2016. The real reason to run a node is to serve as a rule checker and enforce monetary policy and all block rules to protect censorship resistance. Otherwise anyone who can benefit from violating rules will violate the rules.

You not being poor means rich people are less rich.

When they find out bitcoin did this, they will wage illegal lawfare against bitcoin. And they can buy a lot of lawfare with their cuckbucks.

Satoshi said he was Dan. And we are all satoshi. So, by transitivity…

We are all Dan.

Minor revelation: have some awesome wallet feature that requires a bitcoin soft fork? Implement it. If someone mines a block incompatible with your soft fork, those coins merely disappear from your fork. This puts the onus on coin holders to make sure their transactions get mined by a miner willing to honor the soft fork.

80085, the funniest number ever. It’s on my icon on my desktop for the calculator app…been there a long time. But only today did I realized that 8=B, 0=O, and 5=S.

Always seemed rather random, but now I see it’s a large part of the reason males exist, or at least desire to continue existing.

I like it.

I drive shitty vehicles and wear shitty clothes. I stack sats because it’s so obvious…I’m raising kids who don’t care about bullshit commercialism. But I’m not sure what is supposed to happen next. I never thought I’d get here.

Gotta buy a protege. Need to find the right balance between brilliance and work ethic, interest and aptitude. I’m hopeful our new guy in July will be ripe for passing the buck to. But it’ll be a few years before I know. Last two new guys were not compatible with the nuances of what I do.

Exactly. I’m too young to have thought well about what to do with this tool.