If the future doesn't have Bitcoin Treasury companies then the future doesn't have companies.

In a bitcoinized world every person and every company will stack sats. You are free not to invest in companies of course, but the ones that provide value will thrive in a free market.

If the future doesn't have Bitcoin Treasury companies then the future doesn't have companies.

In a bitcoinized world every person and every company will stack sats. You are free not to invest in companies of course, but the ones that provide value will thrive in a free market.

Can Bitcoin Treasury Companies be the heroes of the Spam Wars?

Bitcoiners can stack sats without running a node. BTCTCs do not have that luxury. Their custodians must run a node, and therefore a decision must be made. What protocol to run?

Michael Saylor said that, "the war for the future of money will be won with money," and now that BTCTCs have taken their places on the battlefield, I believe that they can be the critical force as economic nodes that holds the line against spam.

According to the doctrine of 5th Generation Warfare, we as individuals, and bitcoin itself, are under constant attack.

Spam is one attack vector that distorts free market signals. How can 1 satoshi = 1 satoshi if some satoshis have "valuable" arbitrary data glued to them? That would be like a fiat decree that paintings are legal tender and valued at a penny, and now you need 100 Mona Lisas to buy a candy bar. It's why we stopped making pennies because the copper in the coin is worth more than the fraction of one dollar a penny represents.

Spam on money makes perfect money less perfect, and any effort to degrade bitcoin's ability to be money is clearly an attack.

Whether Core is complicit in the attack or simply too incompetent is irrelevant. It reminds me of the Lysander Spooner quote:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

So Core has either authorized spam as we have had, or it has been powerless to prevent spam. In either case, it is unfit to exist (on my node).

How are BTCTCs uniquely positioned to help?

They have fiduciary obligations to preserve shareholder value, meaning they have an obligation to preserve bitcoin's value.

They can commission studies to analyze the threat of spam (and CSAM) to bitcoin's value, and direct custodians to run Knots or fund developers to find alternative solutions to spam. The war for the future of money will be won with money.

This will require courage, however as all heroic efforts do. Luckily, it's been said that bitcoin is a courage test, not an IQ test. If it were an IQ test then all the "but you're not technical" arguments would be correct. The plebs who understand money is supposed to be money (and nothing but money) recognize the appeal to dev authority as tech slop.

But what if BTCTCs aren't motivated by the carrot of being the heroes we need? There's always the stick, and shareholders hold that stick. If a spam event like CSAM is connected to the next black swan event, shareholders will be wondering why BTCTCs didn't protect shareholder value by running nodes that filter spam and why they didn't advocate for BIP-110 to move this protection to the base layer.

So while individual node runners are likely insulated from legal repercussions of a CSAM event, BTCTCs will have made themselves juicy targets of litigation for failing to protect bitcoin's value.

Anna Lappe is attributed to the quote, "Every dollar you spend is a vote for the kind of world you want." This is easily converted to philosophy of stacking sats, and also by investing in companies that are aligned with bitcoin ethos. That could be finding a cure for cancer or it could be converting the fiat financial system to a bitcoin standard.

Will BTCTCs be the heroes or the villains of the Great Spam Wars? Only time will tell.

And I will be voting with both my time and money.

it has a shitcoin wallet in the nav that i can't disable. i just can't use something like that ...

lives are being rekt on polymarket but you only see the screenshots of the winning bets on twitter. it’s great that polymarket and others make it possible to bet on world events in real time but behind every winning screenshot, there’s a trail of wrecked hopes you’ll never see.

Unpopular: you can and should have everything you want in life.

Will Bitcoiners adopt Rumble?

Had an incredible dinner last night with John Perkins: Author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Well on his way to deeply understanding #bitcoin and freedom tech.

Thanks to nostr:npub1trr5r2nrpsk6xkjk5a7p6pfcryyt6yzsflwjmz6r7uj7lfkjxxtq78hdpu

Within the datacarriersize/OP_RETURN change is hidden a change to how many OP_RETURN outputs are allowed. Previously, it was 1. With the datacarriersize change, it's now as many as the user wants.

The technical justification for multiple OP_RETURNs now being standard is completely unconvincing. To quote

@theinstagibbs

:

"The motivation for doing this is for situations where you cannot commit to all data efficiently otherwise. Think SIGHASH_SINGLE | ACP scenarios. The datacarriersize argument applies to payloads themslves, so yes, if someone wants to do ~80 bytes of payload and can do it in one output, they should just do that."

To paraphrase, he's saying there might be transactions where multiple people sign one input and have one output that they get to control, which are each OP_RETURN. No wallet I know of even supports SIGHASH_SINGLE/ANYONECANPAY constructions. I'm not sure if you get 10 Bitcoin seasoned developers together that they'd be able to construct a transaction like this together without a lot of debugging.

I have never seen any transaction like this in the wild (multi-op-return, sighash_single), and I have not seen anyone even ask for something like this. This justification was never brought up until I specifically asked this question in the un-deprecation PR. The multiple OP_RETURN becoming now standard was pointed out in the original PR, asking if this was an intended effect, to which no one responded with anything like the quote above. Thus, the rationale quoted above looks like to me an elaborate post-hoc justification for bad code.

This modification is going into v30.

Honestly, I'm not too concerned about the consequences of this particular aspect of the PR as the effects of it aren't too great (the 100k default is far more consequential), but the fact that this flimsy rationalization was accepted without much question is what makes me question not just the user-alignment, but code quality of the datacarriersize PR.

Knots. After seeing that fruitloop maintainer Gloria Zhao, how can anybody believe Core isn't captured?

FUN FACT: If you bought #Bitcoin with your $1,400 stimulus check in 2020 you'd now have over $21,162.

ok, thanks for sharing your opinion. unfortunately this doesn’t make any progress on the issue at hand

not really, unless you want something to be super censorship resistant and have it replicated across many computers across the world. you just have to pay a decent amount of coin to do this.

noone disagrees that bitcoin should be used mainly for monetary transactions.

noone disagrees with this, except for some extreme degen gamblers and bad actors

this is the conundrum. to stop this multisig transaction would require you to censor a valid bitcoin transaction.

did you know you can get the bitcoin whitepaper from your pruned node? Its stored in the utxoset permanently. Heres a one liner i created to extract it

seq 0 947 | (while read -r n; do bitcoin-cli gettxout 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713 $n | jq -r '.scriptPubKey.asm' | awk '{ print $2 $3 $4 }'; done) | tr -d '\n' | cut -c 17-368600 | xxd -r -p > bitcoin.pdf

This is why we prefer people use large OP_RETURNs instead of 947 outputs that can’t be pruned. OP_RETURNs are probably unspendable so they will never end up in your pruned nodes utxoset.

They also produce smaller blocks than inscriptions. Unfortunately they are 4x more expensive… but lifting the filter restriction is one small thing we can do to encourage it over other options that are much worse for bitcoin spam-wise.

You definitely don’t want illegal, unprunable stuff in your utxoset permanently, which is why i am running core v30 to do what i can to disincentivize this spam.

I’ve been grinding full-time since I was 17.

Overtime. No sick days.

Just two weeks of “freedom” a year.

I’m 38, about to be 39. That’s 22 years of my life sold to the time clock.

I refuse to burn the next 30 the same way.

I’m done being a wage peasant.

I’m stacking #Bitcoin until the system can’t own me.

Welcomed a new Bitcoiner into the world on blockheight 913,569.

Actual magic.

My salary is converted to BTC via Strike and live off Gemini CC and use strike bill pay to pay the bill.

83% of Americans have NO bitcoin.

Of the 13% that do, only 9% of them have it in cold storage. The rest have it on exchanges.

"People don't trust cold storage solutions."

💀

Scary if true...

Cheers plebs 🤙🏼

remember when Americans were laughing their asses off at German politicians for selling their Bitcoin?

Now the Biden clown crew dumped U.S. Bitcoin too?

Let’s call it even?

1-1 in the Fiat Clown World Cup?🤡⚽️

Can we finally agree that politicians have no business holding hard money?

That’s why we Bitcoin, don‘t we?

That’s why we self-custody, don‘t we?

That’s why we don’t elect, we verify, don‘t we?

Don’t be a clown.

Be a pleb.

Stay humble stack sats.

Don’t vote. Verify. 🧡

Timestamp of freedom 905,864