My response: "No Bitcoin for you!"

She's trying her best to not get suicided in prison.

People can just do whatever they're interested and good at. It's good that we all have different strengths and interests.

Rights aren't granted by government. We assert that they're inherent, we are born with them or they're God given or whatever. Government can only restrict rights, and getting people to believe it grants them is the trick used to justify taking them away.

Obviously no-kyc Bitcoin in self custody is the only option, but if you're forced to choose between owning fully KYC compliant custodied Bitcoin or Bitcoin treasury company stock, what do you choose? Is there a difference? I think I'd rather own the stock.

He wins the Nobel Cope Prize.

I never said everybody is a shill. Clearly there are core devs who want this change. The ones who have been most vocal about it (e.g. Lopp) are shills, but many core devs just want to work on Bitcoin and are understandably annoyed by the controversy.

If you've watched the various videos by Mechanic and still think no rational case for knots has been made, then you and I somehow came to the opposite conclusion. It's ok to disagree, that's why configuration options exist.

Another reason not to use regulated services.

Thank you for not using the typical wishy washy CEO speak that basically every other one uses, where everything they say is ambiguous, neutral, and safe. It's so refreshing.

As I understand it, the main core argument for removing the op_return limit is that miners like mara are benefiting from out of band payments from spammers using services like slipstream. This extra revenue source, separate from normal tx fees, increases mining centralization because spammers will tend to use the service of the largest pool, which then can use that revenue to get even larger. So core argues that removing the limit helps decentralize mining, which would necessarily mean a decrease in revenue for large pools like mara.

So (theoretically) spam filters (i.e. op_return limits) help spammers (less need for out of band fees) and hurt pools (less out of band revenue). If this is true why are mara or other large pools not pushing back on this BIP. I think the reality is that core's concern about pool centralization are not genuine. They (some of them) just want more shitcoining on Bitcoin and both spammers and pools like mara are on board. If this BIP actually hurt pools via decreased out of band revenue then they would be fighting it but they aren't.

I should have said: makes life easier for shitcoiners. Theoretically it makes life harder for miners who will no longer benefit from out-of-band revenue they currently receive. Interesting that there's no push back from mara or other miners on BIP, seems like they aren't concerned about losing out on slipstream revenue. Why is that I wonder 🤔

The core dev logic of "miners will do anything for money so let's remove spam filtering" is asinine. Miners have the (short sighted) incentive to turn Bitcoin into another shitcoin. Node runners are a check on this incentive, and core wants to remove this check? Absolutely not. I'm not volunteering to run software at my own expense just because it makes life easier for miners while degrading Bitcoin as money.

The covid vax didn't even protect. It was so bad they couldn't water down the definition enough for it.

#CoreCope #RunKnots

nostr:nevent1qqs8xfvuaszxpdlmpgt2rd73yra3ghz0m9rl3mahst8jz2wec9q5w7qpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezuan4d3cx2mfwvdhk6q3q7u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqxpqqqqqqzkcwvue

Earth

Mostly peaceful protest.

I wish I could believe that was possible, but as Mark Twain said "Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." He said that over 100 years ago. Since then it's only gotten worse. Zero improvement in a century. How many elections during that time? How many clowns elected/appointed to posisions of power? How many decisions, like this NASA one, based on partisan political whims instead of hard science (or hard money).

Government doesn't have the money for that either unless they print it.

Separate science and state.

Bitcoin is unique in that it's the only act of civil disobedience you directly benefit from.

"very technical"

Always a favorite phrase of liars, scam artists, and grifters. It's the perfect little bit of FUD to simultaneously call into question one's own judgement and suggest that the speaker is a trusted expert.

It will continue to be a thing as long as core devs create demand for an alternative client. The tactic of accusing your opponents of some conspiracy (social media campaign built on lies) is lazy and disingenuous. And your smug confidence that you yourself cannot possibly be manipulated, only those who disagree with you can be, is laughable. There's plenty of manipulation going on from both sides, it's called persuasion and you suck at it.

This does nothing for me if the peers reviewing Core decide to make bitcoin a decentralized database for storing shitcoin spam instead of a decentralized monetary protocol. All the peer review in the world means nothing if there are irreconcilable differences in the direction Core wants to take Bitcoin.

Thanks for the reminder. Muted him.

Wrong how?

Gotta mine that moon bitcoin.

A lot of people? Who? Literally nobody is more accurate.

Their only export is regulation at this point.

Found the crackhead ☝️

No worries, all the American celebrities who moved there because of Trump will make up the difference.

To be honest I only know one in this situation. She always has cash, but I admit that's a very small sample size.

Plus they make serious bank from marketing in general by pharmaceutical companies. They are literally bribed to push whatever they're told to push.

I assume any replies to my notes are from myself in another universe.

I notice a 1:1 correlation between people who want tail emissions in bitcoin and genocide. I admit my sample size is rather small.

It's crazy to still see some support from the likes of calle and jb55. There seems to be some level of dev solidarity. But at some point continuing to defend these bad actors will harm credibility.

I'm sure a few are complaining, the principled ones. But they're not known for that quality.

Nobody has mentioned anything about legal actions or forcing anyone. He's got some delusional fantasy or victim complex going on. Such a dishonest tactic that only serves to ignore legitimate criticism. It's really disgusting.

"If you disagree with us you're as bad as Craig Wright." - Sjors Provost

I think bitcoin has gone too far to accommodate spam. Yes, that's my subjective opinion of what spam is, which is the only definition that matters to me. This is the one lever I can pull to fight that as a node runner. Maybe you think that's naive. I do not care. I'm not giving it up. Even if you're right, and I'm convinced to turn off this option, I insist on having a way to go back, without downgrading, to what I'm doing now. I feel burned by unintended consequences in the past, so I will do whatever I can to avoid the same mistake. Maybe running knots is just a futile gesture, but if that's all I can do then so be it.