Yes, I often do that too. I feel like I need to maximize the sats they have When starting out.

I agree that miners should use Sv2, but why do you feel that MEV is an existential risk to bitcoin?

Yes, that’s true but I wonder how much damage it can do in the short term. Could $300 oil set off financial market troubles in the USA for example? 🤔

Really cool. Bringing us closer to the day we no longer need big telco carriers with all their spyware. nostr:note12vsg5vw3v8fva06yp4wvwtjztvv8r6rh4fv0lygsazpuuskdr7fsxvdkgn

Good advice.

I’m also hoping people save their attack memes for people outside the community.

In here, we should discuss and respectfully debate ideas recognizing that we’re all trying to push bitcoin forward.

“I defend bitcoin by running my own node and opting out of the soft forks that I don’t want.”

😂 No you don’t. You never have opted out of any soft fork. NAME ONE that you opted out of.

You run core like everyone else. You trust them and run the soft forks they choose, like everyone else.

You don’t even know how to permanently opt out. All you know how to do is delay the inevitable.

Yeah, mute me. Then we’ll all know I was right, that I caught you in another false statement. When you couldn’t prove me wrong, you just ran and hid.

“Maybe you need to reread the blocksize war because you seemed to have learned something different from what I did when I read it. Neither the devs nor the miners/corporations were able to change bitcoin during the war. It came down to the nodes.”

But the core devs DID change bitcoin during the war, right? They enabled segwit.

The war was a power struggle between core and the other large holders. Core proposed a soft fork while the large holders proposed hard forks.

The lesson that the nodes made a choice and won the war is another little lie we tell ourselves. If you go back and carefully look at the blocksize war chronology, you’ll see that the “user activated soft fork” was threatened but never enforced. There was definite visible support for the UASF but we don’t know whether a sufficient number of nodes would have enforced to win a contentious split. The issue was moot by the time the UASF was to activate. The nodes didn’t need to enforce because the miners had already capitulated to core’s segwit change.

The lesson I learned is that core devs are powerful and that in a war between a soft and hard fork, the soft fork will probably win. Why? Because the soft fork is compatible with all nodes while the hard fork is compatible with only the nodes which decide to upgrade. Many node operators are lazy, busy, or don’t care enough to bother upgrading.

We can’t ignore the part that core’s software won. This supports why I believe we must be extremely careful with what goes into core.

You don’t think blocking shipping and a few well placed missiles in Saudi Arabia, one of their enemies, might do the trick?

Makes sense. I hope Israel doesn’t retaliate and this deescalates.

🤔 good question! Does illustrate the fragility of these decentralized systems.

My understanding is that it’s not a criminal offense to stop paying your taxes, but you DO have to file them honestly and accurately.

Generally all the IRS does is assess interest and penalties and will try to seize your financial assets and real estate. If you have everything in bitcoin, there’s nothing they can seize.

Eventually people will realize that when they have all their assets in cold storage, taxes become optional.

This sort of thing happened in Weimar Germany, according to the book “When Money Dies”. People just stopped paying their taxes because if they waited a while, the money would devalue and the tax bill became negligible.

I feel like this was all for show. What’s stopping Iran from taking oil prices to $300?

Just checked the news. Maybe triggered by the expanding WW3. We live in interesting times.

Yes, absolutely. The transaction costs on these higher levels should be very small. I’m expecting the zaps to flow freely.

For example, most people send zaps on nostr with primal which is a custodial lightning wallet. Being custodial, like a federation, keeps fees low.

It’s a tradeoff and sovereignty has a cost. Federations and custodial solutions like Primal are cheap but you give up some sovereignty because you don’t hold your own keys.

That sucks, doesn’t it, that he didn’t fund opensats, but that’s a red herring and not the debate. Saylor’s issue is with unrestricted core development. He said as much in Livera’s podcast. ODELL implied that funding was offered but it had “strings attached”.

Lightning doesn’t suck. It’s just that you want to use it for use cases it likely can’t support with its channel-based architecture.

I too miss the good ol’ days when fees were low. We all knew that wasn’t going to last.

It’s clear that Lightning’s destiny is to be used by large institutions and federations. We, the plebs, will be kicked off to higher L3s and federations like Liquid, fedimint and ecash. Those federations will use Lightning to exchange with each other. Don’t blame me or Saylor. Satoshi made those rules when he set in motion fee increases on L1.

If you think bitcoin should be used as payment by businesses, you need to first understand Gresham’s Law and Thier’s Law. There is a natural progression and you seem to be trying to jump steps. There are no shortcuts. I’m happy to explain more.

Sure, bitcoin is anti-fragile, but only if we protect the protocol. It has a weak spot which is core. Read up on the blocksize wars to understand how close the battle was. We all came close to living in Craig Wright’s world.

Don’t gaslight me with the “you don’t have to update your node” bullshit. If you believe that, you don’t understand how software requires continual maintenance just to stay working. If we didn’t update our nodes, those nodes would die in a decade.

A free market has choice, and there is only one monopoly here, isn’t there?

I can tell your heart is in the right place but you need to start getting into the details. The core network needs to be protected and defended so we and our descendants don’t lose the gift Satoshi gave us. Don’t take its success for granted.

Honestly don’t know. I kinda see it as a progression over time. As L1 fees continue to increase, more folks will move to higher levels as the UX improves.

For example, I find myself on Liquid right now because non-custodial Lightning seemed too expensive for my use case (distributing small payments to nieces and nephews).

I’m personally starting to believe that non-custodial Lightning is “fine”. It’s just that it will be used for exchanges between large institutions and federations and it won’t be used by the plebs.

I’m making this assumption because it requires L1 transactions which are only going to get more expensive. Paying hundreds of dollars for channel opening fees is likely.

We, the plebs, are probably going to be increasingly bumped to higher levels like fediment and ecash.

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/its-official-reflation-here

😂 the world isn’t so simple, is it?

Do you realize that bitcoin core is extremely important but bitcoin’s most centralized point of failure, right?

There is no alternative software version that we can run. We have a choice between core and nothing.

Maybe you love 4 MB blocks with spam jpegs, but the community fought hard for small 1 MB blocks. What happened? Why was this discovered once nothing could be done? What will stop this from happening again?

Do you really want large corporate interests to fund bitcoin core?

Do you realize that developers are not magical wizards but humans that make mistakes? That lines of code == bugs? And even bug free code can change the network incentives?

Some of us want bitcoin to be there for our descendants and don’t want people to screw it up.

Can you guarantee that the next software update won’t have another malicious unintended side effect? If not, have a little humility and push for slow and careful progress rather than a fun free-for-all.

That’s what I thought. Wasn’t sure if you realized this was harmful to the community and devs but it guess you do.

Fundamentally the “problem” with nostr is that it’s a Twitter clone.

Why would a normie move from twitter to nostr? We did because we care about freedom of speech. The network effects matter more to them.

If we want to move the world off twitter, we have to design something different and better where they spend more time.

The alternative is to just build stuff for ourselves without caring whether other people use it.