A strategic reserve is interesting, but is anyone working on legislation that upgrades VA and Social Security payments to bitcoin?
Issuing fiat money to veterans and seniors undermines the spirit of genuine care and respect.
My latest article, which I’m looking for feedback on:
The retrofuturistic renaissance: A return to quality, beauty, and virtue
I can't wait to get a Post Chevron Deference vehicle
One of the wildest and most impressive bitcoin transactions I've ever seen, presumably by nostr:npub1kyxqqqq8n2pu7f5pthr48zqcmr2k52vrud6wxzjpg0jsqcyhs3tshfc6vv
https://mempool.space/tx/b10c0000004da5a9d1d9b4ae32e09f0b3e62d21a5cce5428d4ad714fb444eb5d
I didn’t know about these “portals” but I like the idea, would be cool to have more of these around the world imo
nostr:note19htvhcp0rw9r5m9ly68c5yq3g86hqx2h7h0c0etd0n26zwy6w47swlr3p3
That makes sense. Thanks Jack.
I think I’ve learned that the weird characters are produced by taking hex bytes and using UTF-8 to produce Unicode which has some really crazy stuff far down the list. And this is the standardized way of reading op returns. Interesting!
Who has a good resource for me to learn about the gobbledygook characters found in the OP_RETURNS of most coinbase transactions?
And/or the gobbledygook characters found on the right side of the famous genesis block code display (along with “chancellor on brink..”)
I’m not even sure how best to Google this.
I realize I did say “sell a UTXO” but that can be interpreted and understood in different ways.
You seem to interpret it as “moving ownership of a UTXO from one person to another” while someone else might interpret it as “using the UTXO as an input to create a new UTXO”. The people playing these games don’t care about being technically precise with their language.
To the extent that the imprecise language misleads people about how bitcoin works, I’m against it.
A “UTXO moving” are your words not mine.
It can be obvious what input(s) led to the creation of a UTXO. If someone is sentimental about one of those inputs and it affects their behavior, that’s pretty hard to stop.
And clearly, people can come up with whatever arbitrary system they’d like (FIFO), to play games they want to play. If they understand it’s a collective hallucination that only has relevance so long as other players keep playing, then I don’t see the problem. There are many communities that invent parameters for games or collectibles that amount to “let’s agree to pretend such and such matters.”
It appears I have two separate wallets linked to this nostr profile. One from my NIP5 with Alby and one created automatically from Primal.
Trying to decide which one to keep and how best to consolidate. Any suggestions?
"You can't sell a UTXO" ... "A UTXO doesn't move and neither does a satoshi." This seems like you're picking on the use of imprecise language, irrelevant to the actual phenomenon itself.
It's clear that if Alice mines a block and has a 3.125 coinbase reward, and Bob wants to own a UTXO that came from Alice's coinbase reward, they can make that happen. Alice can use her 3.125 bitcoin as an input, and deliver him an output. If Bob thinks it's cool to say "look at me, I have a UTXO that came from this coinbase transaction!" good for him. Nobody can deny the truth of the statement, either.
Now if Carol is jealous of Bob, and wants to be the owner of a UTXO traceable back to Alice's coinbase, can Bob facilitate this? Technically, yes. He can use his UTXO from his transaction with Alice as an input to a transaction with Carol.
This could continue across many people, and would be quite simple to follow, if there were only 1 input and 1 output each time. A value of 3.125 slowly deteriorating due to fees. But obviously things can get messy and confusing if multiple inputs and outputs begin to get involved.
We could say "stop being sentimental, it's dumb." Rather than listen to this advice, they've decided to use ordinal theory, to keep track of "the traceability which matters for sentimental reasons." (Lots of collector cultures set various boundaries as to what they consider valid, special, interesting.) If you believe they should be stopped, how??
I think people are differentiating how the seller markets what they are selling. "I'm selling an epic sat," vs "I'm auctioning a UTXO produced from the coinbase transaction of block 840,000 and you can interpret that however you want," the later should be much less controversial.
By extension, "I'm selling a UTXO that, viewed through the lens of ordinal theory, contains an 'epic' sat" or "I'm selling a bundle of sats, one of which you might consider epic" seems fine. It's factual and upfront that a certain viewpoint is required.
"I'm selling an epic sat according to ordinal theory" or "I'm selling an epic sat" seems like shorthand for the above... not nuanced, but also not necessarily malicious. I'm not sure where people are drawing the line.
I think the responsibility falls more on the buyer's side.
It's okay to be sentimental about a notebook that says "buy bitcoin".
It's okay to be sentimental about satoshis that can be traced back to the coinbase transaction in block 840,000.
If ViaBTC was able to identify the ASIC that mined block 840,000 and auctioned it off to someone who was sentimental, that'd be okay too.
During the ETF approval process, the Securities and Exchange Commission tasked their research department with learning the details about bitcoin. The researchers were so impressed by bitcoin's mechanisms that they decided to go against Gensler's direction, and secretly participate in the network directly. To this day the SEC mining pool retains 1% of the hashrate.
If you thought the moon temporarily eclipsing the sun was a cool, rare event:
Keep an eye out tomorrow, when you can watch live as bitcoin permanently eclipses gold in terms of stock-to-flow ratio, officially dethroning the commodity leader for millennia.
Like the solar eclipse, we could predict this event many years in advance, because bitcoin has transparent and reliable rules which could be compared to the laws of physics.
1 year is not always a great measure of progress towards someone’s low time preference goals.
4 year #bitcoin halving cycles can be much better.
Time to reflect: where were you last halving? Where do you want to be next halving (2028)?
What are your New Epoch Resolutions?
It’s quite possible that at some point we see a coordinated effort by the establishment and mainstream media to convince the public that the cryptography protecting bitcoin is no longer secure or highly vulnerable.
Not because it’s true, but as a last-ditch effort to lower prices for the old guard to scoop up.
This could be one of the hardest tests for the hodlers. Only those who have learned to deeply mistrust the media, and/or have internalized the binary outcome of bitcoin vs. dystopia (willing to hold no matter what & prepared to go down with the ship), may emerge unscathed.
My latest article: Seven deadly psychological hurdles to reaching bitcoin maximalism
I was one of those people, and for anyone interested in what I think about the remainder of the decade, here you go:
https://tomhonzik.com/articles/this-decade-a-trillion-dollars-will-be-unable-to-purchase-a-bitcoin