Just breaking your balls...good meming

Goats actually cost something to produce though...

Great to have you! Your contributions to the meetup dialogue were awesome.

Cheers to building local communities of bitcoiners.

Nice troll guys

🤯

nostr:nevent1qqszmf4860j5pjfqmhtldgr6t4qctdv06n3ug56vr2z6444sxs9vergpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsyg9ha45tqck7dd9p9egl6559c8s7pmgw2y5vm2f6kyd5z594tmfjlspsgqqqqqqsgxupxs

We keep learning about the iceberg beneath the surface that is/was Swan custodian train wrecks.

#cafebitcoin Sept 6th 2023

"Saving for the long term is really hard in the fiat world. You have to gamble, because you don't know what share of the future you have."

Tomer Strolight

If there were a malicious soft fork that still follows current consensus, has majority of hash rate, and many don't agree with it, some nodes would have to be a bit more involved.

Let's say Foundry, Antpool & F2pool all have dominion over the machines running on their pools (which they don't, but let's say they do). They collude (well over 50% of hash), and say they're not including txns that spend from addresses starting with bc1. That'd be allowed by all our nodes, since it's not breaking any existing consensus rules, yet the economic nodes would be highly incentivized to scrap that new more restrictive rule.

There would already be fat fee txns in the mempool that spend from bc1 addresses, and minority miners wanting to include them in blocks. Economic nodes could enter the command "invalidateblock" and use the hash of the first block of that lousy softfork. Once a block is mined by the minority miners that includes a bc1 txn, it would be included in the first block of the chain the nodes want and ignored by the malicious miners. The malicious majority miners could keep mining on their softfork chain, but it includes that block that you invalidated, so you don't care about it. To keep with consensus (and make money instead of bleeding it) they'd have to abandon their soft fork and jump on your chain. You don't ever have to worry about their chain overtaking yours, since it includes that invalid block, however deep down it is.

You could slip into a coma, come out of it 10 years later, plug your node in, and it'll give you the consensus history like it always does.

Except in 2017, it wasn't just sock puppets trying to push the shitcoiner narrative.

Well, maybe it was mostly sock puppets.

Thanks Roger! Go play with Bcash.

Also, if you're buying a safe from a store, employees with potential backdoor access shouldn't know that one of their safes are in your house, right?

That's one item you probably don't wanna fill out the owner's registration card for...

Yeah, multisig is the antidote to this risk.

One CC in a potentially pwned safe, one hidden under a mountain, one in your safe deposit box. Still need PINs too, like you mentioned.

Name

Ph#

DOB

Address

Bank statement

Utilities bill

SS# (which has become de facto national ID in the US)

Pay stubs

W2's

Photo of gov ID

Selfie

Selfie holding gov ID

DNA sample

Photo of taint

Selfie including taint and holding gov ID

???

Even if we put aside the tracking issues with CPI, someone would have to administer this. Armstrong says that an advantage over current stablecoins would be resistance to censorship, however there'd be no difference as the administrator could be leaned upon.

Also, in fiat terms, this product would have a "return". Buy for $1 in 2024, spend/sell in 2026 for $1.20. Where does that difference come from? Someone has to be on the other side of that to finance the difference, in essence shorting the CPI.

Swap products, futures, or street craps...someone has to be on the other side of the transaction.

https://nostr.build/av/1a372ea2070e4867b282c13de8d602b85f8e8b8640e1a097e0eaf020df7f0597.mp4

Check out open source fitness...dude was talking about it on Blue Collar Bitcoin pod in past few weeks.

Walking 10k steps/day and having an 8 hour eating window are free and promote great health and discipline.

Great idea...question about standards/technicals when signing a message proving knowledge of a pubkey associated with a bitcoin address possessing UTXOs of a certain value...

For single sig, it's easy. One privkey-->one pubkey-->one address. Verify the UTXOs on the ledger, here's a signed message corresponding to its pubkey, done.

For multisig, it's more complex. I can give you an address and you can verify the UTXOs, that's easy. But I'd need to give you all of the pubkeys that combine to make the address, so you can calculate it yourself, and then sign however many messages with those individual it would take to reach the spending threshold.

It'd take more effort to create, and more effort to verify. I wonder if there are already standards that exist for this, or if there are any in the works.

Self-custody does put a lot of responsibility in your hands...all the responsibility, in fact.

If you feel like you're getting in over your head, zoom out, and practice some reps with smaller amounts. Get your coldcard (or whatever cold storage you're using) set up, send 50k sats to it, then back out. With a relatively small amount of sats on it, and with seed in hand, wipe the device, then go through the process of restoring from seed. Keep increasing the amount that you're storing on it as your comfortability level increases.

All these things take time and may seem tedious...it's time well spent. Once you've developed familiarity with these processes, it becomes to feel natural to trust your hodl to your own setup.

Make sure to keep that seed safe...keep it secret, keep it safe.

Sly, roundabout way...love it

Lunch thought...what an inefficiency that breakfast/lunch wait staff has to deal with..."white" and "wheat" are basically the same word when spoken.

You're spot-on about the debt rolling over being the impetus for more massive QE (aka sanctioned counterfeit of USD)