Jason is an obvious grifter hypnotist trying to start a cult. His word use, voice pacing, are all salesman, neuro linguistic programming, in group building. He's like a deliberate tease for the conspiracy aware mind.
You, Cahlen, could make a 5 minute video and cover what takes him three two hour videos, hours of unrelated padding, repetition.
I would say he leans more towards Sorcerer. He could just be trying to bore the evil A.i to death, in this case we should thank him for freeing us when it dies trying to run away from his voice.
Is this ship cannon ?
Vintage thrift stores are a scam. Post-modern fraud. 120$ for a tshirt is not thrift, hipsters.
Controversial opinion: In stand up comedy, crowd work isn't really stand up.
The kind of crowd work where you ask them what they do for work and riff off that.
It takes talent and can be funny, but something about it is hackey.
Nazi Germany: "Never fight a two front war, especially against Russia in winter."
America 2023: "How about a five front war ?"
Deep dive medical Insurance codes. Admin is the biggest cost.
Thank god for doctors when you have a broken bone or need a standby anestisiologist, but most medicine nowadays shoukd just be : " Stop eating so much and take more walks fat ass."
And hides a sort of medical madness of bad incentives that drive up costs.
Many wallets, lead developers and bitcoin companies.
Zaps are its most successful usecase.
If Lightning is the future of Bitcoin, why do people keep abandoning it.
Back in the 60's When a company started accepting Visa, they did not stop using it at some point.
Try it raw. As god intended.
This is a commonly held, but inaccurate assertion by nuBitcoiners. Realize first, that the pessimism towards scaling solutions you've just demonstrated in that comment has been implanted in you by a very carefully crafted marketing campaign, pushed by a very specific faction, who engineered a "solution" they intend to profit from.
Bitcoin is facing a type of Vendor lock-in, from deliberate ignorance like yours. The scene was very different at one time.
Since these self destructive factions are bent on being against Drivechains (a non custodial scaling solution), and that having read the word drivechain your brain is already scurrying with memes and objections carefully worded for dumb money, get on your knees and pray to whatever god you believe in that BitVm two-way pegs work out.
Please interpret any snark in this comment as contempt for the faction i just mentioned.
A digital photo paints on your mind.
Do it. Sell it or rent it out. Buy Bitcoin. Live in a Van down by the river. Wait 😁
The Great #Drivechain Debate with Paul Sztorc and Peter Todd (SLP533).
Official Podcast Episode: https://www.stephanlivera.com/533
Drivechain is a proposal from 2015 which has had a lot of community debate recently. Joining us today to debate this are Paul Sztorc (CEO of Layer Two Labs) and Peter Todd. We discuss a range of points:
- Drivechain and miner centralisation
- Whether you can delegate running a node
- Legal risks
- Fees and Blocksize limits
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
01:22 - Guests Introduction
02:12 - Paul's Opening Statement
11:08 - Peter's Opening Statement
19:42 - Paul's Rebuttal
24:56 - Peter's Rebuttal
30:47 - Guests Challenge each Other
01:30:59 - Closing thoughts
Peter Todd is selectively retarded.
No one talks about how we could have bitcoin-like seed phrase custody on a layer two sidechain. Two layers of self custody with distributed, public and impersonal escrow as collateral.
Nah, lets do this instead: keep your money with a private companies infrastructure based on the assurance that you can sue them.
Or, lock up capital to create channels that are the bitcoin equivalent of Duck genetalia. Twists, turns and a rough time.
# Taproot didn’t cause Ordinals ❌
I've seen the view that "Taproot caused/enabled Ordinals" commonly mentioned across Twitter, and it's one that can be extremely harmful. Many in the space would love to further ossify (prevent change) in Bitcoin and use Ordinals "spam" as the reason for doing so, but I'd argue that that would be the worst possible outcome from this situation.
This needs a lengthy explanation to properly grasp what's at play here, though, so let's get into the fun details.
## Arbitrary data in Bitcoin has always been possible
Something most people don't understand is that a system like Bitcoin is built for data storage, it's just intended for monetary data. This design made it possible from day one to include arbitrary (arbitrary) data into the blockchain, either through methods like OP_RETURN (a good place for storing arbitrary data as it can be easily pruned) or in tweaked pubkeys (a bad place for storing arbitrary data, as it cannot be pruned).
Some examples of this:
- Satoshi inscribed a newspaper headline in the genesis block coinbase (https://mempool.space/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b)
- Luke Dash Jr. used his pool to inscribe Bible texts and prayers in 2011 in the coinbase (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38007.0)
- Someone added the entire Bitcoin whitepaper to the UTXO set in 2013 (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/35959/how-is-the-whitepaper-decoded-from-the-blockchain-tx-with-1000x-m-of-n-multisi)
All of these happened before both SegWit and Taproot, and there are many more cases of this type of data storage on Bitcoin.
## But I thought Taproot enabled this?
Unfortunately, there is a common misunderstanding (thanks for the troll name [@TaprootWizards](https://twitter.com/TaprootWizards) 😅) that Taproot enabled this type of data storage, thus opening the way for Ordinals "spam." In reality, this type of arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin has always been possible, but was made much cheaper to do with the introduction of SegWit in 2017.
SegWit was a major upgrade and bug fix for Bitcoin that enabled the Lightning network to be built and included a 3MB "witness" data allowance within each block w/ reduced fees for data to incentivize spending UTXOs (therefore making them prunable). More on SegWit in a fantastic post from [@River](https://twitter.com/River) here:
<https://river.com/learn/what-is-segwit/>
This incentivized portion of each transaction (called "witness" data) is intended for things like Bitcoin scripts, but can be used to store any data as long as it's done the "right" way. Specifically, Ordinals store them in an "envelope" between two opcodes, allowing the data to count as witness data and get the discount. This storage method was possible before SegWit, but now saves on fees in comparison to pre-SegWit usage.
While this of course was not the intent of SegWit, it underlines the simple fact that if someone wants to store arbitrary data in a blockchain, they will find ways to do it.
## Does that make SegWit bad?
If your first reaction is then to want to raise a pitchfork and campaign for no more changes in Bitcoin, remember this -- without the SegWit soft-fork there would be no Lightning network, no discount for users consolidating UTXOs, and instead users would be incentivized to create more un-prunable UTXOs as it's cheaper to create than to consume UTXOs w/o SegWit.
Additionally, Ordinals being stored in witness data allows those who run a node to easily prune them and not store them in RAM, unlike any method that leverages pubkey tweaking or other types of stenography to include arbitrary data on-chain. This means that the actual impact of Ordinals on those who run a node is drastically minimized versus other arbitrary data storage methods.
## If we didn't have SegWit, Ordinals would all use the UTXO set
It's extremely like that if we had never included the SegWit soft-fork into Bitcoin that the Ordinals craze would still have happened, and along with it a drastically worse outcome for the blockchain. In this alternate reality, Ordinals (and all similar NFTs) would likely be inscribed directly into the UTXO set, similar to how Stamps function today.
Some within the Bitcoin community have been asking for a removal of the SegWit witness data discount to force Ordinals to pay the same fees as all other users per byte. Unfortunately, this would have two extremely detrimental side-effects: it would disincentivize healthy UTXO management (consolidating UTXOs vs creating new ones) and incentivize Ordinals to be put in the UTXO set directly.
While putting the data into the UTXO set does cost those creating these NFTs drastically more, it also means that those running a Bitcoin node cannot prune the data, no matter what. Bitcoin relies on nodes being able to retain the entire UTXO set in order to verify transactions properly and prevent double-spends, and any data within that UTXO set must be kept in perpetuity.
That would be drastically worse for those running a Bitcoin node, and makes the Ordinals in SegWit witness data pale in comparison when it comes to negative impact on Bitcoin nodes.
## So what can we do about it?
The solution to reducing the cost of using Bitcoin is not censoring Ordinals (something that isn't even technologically possible, BTW), but rather is finally building solutions to Bitcoin's long-term scaling. Ordinals have highlighted something most of us knew would happen -- base-layer fees would become untenably high, as they have to for Bitcoin to be secure long-term.
In order for the average person to use Bitcoin, we need powerful scaling solutions like layer twos, and unfortunately Lightning in it's current form isn't the final solution. Lightning relies on every channel-owner (and thus user when done in a non-custodial manner) being able to settle back on-chain to resolve disputes, something that isn't economically feasible in a realistic fee environment.
## The solution? Covenants
Enter covenants, an improvement to Bitcoin that has been a long-time in the making and is finally picking up the steam it deserves in the space. Covenants enable both improvements to Lightning that make it drastically more scalable, and new layer two networks to be built that have different (often better) trade-offs compared to Lightning.
As this post is already getting a bit too long I won't dive into the details of covenants, but instead ask you to spend a few minutes going through this fantastic set of resources on covenants to better understand what they enable:
Have questions? **ASK THEM!** The best way for the broader Bitcoin "rough consensus" layer to work is for more people to step up, learn, and ask questions as they go.
Calling Segwit a bug fix, is a bit political, if not adventurous use of the word.
Yeah, i'm saying this is not a good thing. One of my points in the preceeding long form comment that was somehow not understood by Lyn and others, is that the plan for scaling and onboarding the third world are mostly custodial in some shape.
Fedimints, Ecash/chaumian rely on custodial and extra complicated trust models. And LN breaks down for them at high fees.
This is a form of colonization.
This third party middle-manism is not how they use cash or store wealth now. Continuing to refer to them as an example of how mint type systems and multisig arangements can work, is just marketing, divorced from on the ground social realities.
Cubans use single owner wallets. In so much as they have to save their few dollars on Custodial WOS type apps is a failure on the part of the project. Contrary to Blockstreams go to excuses, they have no legal means to challenge a rugpull, or other abuse by the likes of liquid partners, for instance.
The whole point was trustless, non-custodial, pear to peer cash.
I'm so lucky. I just need a solid tree and some leaves.