Avatar
zerkalo
a1c2f68f3ed04e60268a560efe2fb5858cf78fa568d4ed6a2c79a51922cd89f2
Sun and Steel to cleanse the world. Ancient wisdom, modern tech. Sovereignity through discipline.
Replying to Avatar VonMises

Interesting how bibi looks exactly the same now as he did 30 years ago

Replying to Avatar Cyph3rp9nk

Yes, islamophobia is rational but antisemitism is even more rational.

The Muslim migrants are driven into our countries by Jewish wars and Jewish open borders political projects, legitimized by Jewish media and Jewish-owned politicians.

Muslims and other migrants are the symptoms, Jewish power over the West is the disease.

Bronze age desert clan culture forms the core of both muslim and "judeo-christian" civilisation. Differences are superficial at best.

Semitic cults should have no place in European culture.

You probably ate plenty of toxic plants, carbs, seed oils and chemicals though.

I know I did. My wizardry skills improved radically once I quit.

Bitcoin is for everyone, didn't your Lordship know that? Without us lowly plebs, wise GodKings like yourself will have none to trade with.

That film is a masterpiece.

Yeah, check the ingredients list goys

It's OK when they do it.

Besides, most of the victims were probably antisemites.

Indeed. It's the love and purpose of good relationships that matter, not marriage in itself. It can happen within that framework but that doesn't mean everyone will find it that way - or that it will last.

Speaking from bitter experience here. But I'm also a bit older, seems like most posts celebrating marriage unconditionally come from milennials who are just getting started with family life and thus have a more rose tinted view than this old heathen.

Venice, Maple, and a locally hosted one for really sensitive stuff.

Would never touch the big commercial ones. Might just as well trust Bill Gates with my thoughts, plans and questions.

Ossification is not brittleness or rigidity.

It' is the solidification of a sound foundation.

Without a working bone structure, you're left with an amorophous amoeba, not a functional organism of any higher order.

Anyone arguing for the benefits of continuous modificaitons to the skeleton of an organism has the burden of proof.

That's the way they always operate. Clandestinely, in the shadows, through lies and blackmail and backstabbing, slowly poisoning the wells and sowing discord, while pretending to serve just and righteous causes.

The same people built the fiat system and use it against us to keep us weak and subordinated. Of course they hate bitcoin and want to destroy it. Of course they will do it the way they always do things. It's in their genes.

It really baffles me that so many bitcoiners refuse to see the writing on the wall here, preferring to "stay neutral" like we're discussing a fucking football league or something.

Staying neutral and not getting involved has already cost us our nations, our history and our children's future. Now will we let them destroy our only chance at reclaiming our lives and our dignity, just because they have convinced us that it's somehow wrong to take a stand?

How Bitcoin's developers have failed the community

This will not be a technical post, I can eventually write one on the specifics of how Bitcoin's developers have weakened Bitcoin’s sovereign / monetary (MoE) use.

In this post, I'll cover the predictable chaos that developer have caused.

99% of users should have never had to know what OP_RETURN is — and the fact they do means Bitcoin's developers have failed the community.

The fact that non-technical users have had to learn about these details is a massive failure on the part of the developers.

Now you have users taking sides on a soft-fork debate purely based on their blind faith in influencers without understanding the technicalities.

When UX abstraction fails, politics invades the base layer:

- Money that requires protocol literacy isn't money yet. If non-technical holders must parse mempool policy, witness discounts, inscription hacks, or soft-fork signaling to judge existential risk, you've leaked governance from experts to the masses without giving them power — just anxiety.

- Abstraction debt. Bitcoin's developers are no longer shipping "safe defaults". That created a vacuum where influencers do protocol comms, and users pick tribes by vibes.

- Legitimacy hazard. The minute regulars think "the rules can shift under me", your store-of-value narrative becomes contingent on whoever writes/merges code, not on time. That's a reputational tax that compounds.

In the Bitcoin ecosystem (developers, miners/pools, exchanges/custodians, state/regulators), no actor with power is optimizing for "simple, sovereign Medium-of-Exchange for the masses". They optimize for revenue, deniability, and policy compatibility.

All of this chaos and retail anxiety caused by developers will lead more people to ETFs/custody adoption and will lessen self-custody and MoE use.

If node policy changes keep enabling more and easier illegal payloads, pressure lands on runners/miners first.

Captured developers is the most asymmetric attack vector - it hits sovereign users hardest, while leaving institutional wrappers unaffected.

Developers have to start treating Bitcoin's users as stakeholders, not an audience they have contempt for.

The only way out of this is for the users to start working on a rough draft of constraints that should be imposed on the developers.

I might write a very rough version eventually.

Torally agreed. The whole concept of developers need to be reevaluated and reformulated. Core are acting like gaming industry devs, not like stewards of the most important software in human history.

Core 30 is a major controversial change to btc, which in itself is cause for alarm. A major change requires sound reasoning on a major level.

I have yet to see any arguments for this change that do not come from either shitcoiner scammers/ideological purists/autistic technocrats/nepotistically appointed "devs" with limited experience and undisclosed affinities.

None of these arguments are sound nor make any real sense; the gist of them all seems to variations on "calm down and trust me bro", or " btc is magical and immune to harm because it is magical and immune to harm", which just isn't enough in light of what's at stake here.

Add to this the fact that core 30 provides clear benefits for interests that are actively opposed to bitcoin's main purpose: to be sound money and a viable alternative to the broken fiat system.

This change only benefits spammers looking for fiat gains, perverts looking for a way to share their perversions, and malicious actors like banks and state agencies looking to sabotage the only real challenge to their crumbling power structure.

The rest of us have no need for it. On the contrary; using money as data storage makes it less viable as money, which means this change would be detrimental even if it only led to more "harmless" spam.

These facts combined should be enough to make you pause and consider whether the concerns that Matt and other are raising are just hyperbole and scare tactics, or whether there is a real threat here.

Just follow the money for fuck's sake.

Replying to Avatar Luke de Wolf

What exactly is censorship on Bitcoin?

Here's my answer: certain addresses being blocked on consensus level.

Changes to policy to limit specific forms of transaction is not censorship, it's discrimination.

I'll explain what I mean by that.

Bitcoin has always discriminated in terms of what can go into a transaction. It has never been possible to put whatever you want into a transaction, just like it's never been possible to double spend a UTXO. I'm glossing over a ton of minutiae here, for simplicity.

The previously agreed amount of data that is allowed in a transaction has been set to a reasonable level, through OP_RETURN. There have been disagreements as to that level, but even the most permissive amount was 80 bytes of data in practice. This has been more than enough, and it has been enforced by policy, not consensus.

Since SegWit and Taproot, more ways to put arbitrary data (spam) on chain have been discovered. That is to say, the ability to do these things was right there, as unintended consequences of development changes. Uncaught bugs, or a lack of forethought about human behavior.

Filters on the policy level have been ineffective in containing spam. However, they have provided individuals who are against spam with tools to control their own nodes and mined blocks.

Individual policy choices are a form of discrimination, not censorship. Discriminating against certain types of consensus-valid transactions is perfectly fine. I even go so far as to say that discriminating against transactions from certain address is also completely fine. These are all individual choices. Every individual on the network is free to make those choices. Anything short of that is coercion.

Consensus rules, on the other hand, are where censorship is possible. This is where it would be possible to block certain addresses from moving their UTXOs. As I understand it, this is usually termed confiscation. In practice, this would likely be the result of making some technical type of coin unspendable. In theory, some list of addresses could be drawn up that says they can never move their coins. Good luck getting that adopted.

Consensus changes that do not prevent certain addresses from moving their UTXOs are not censorship.

Making it so that transactions containing arbitrary data invalid is not censorship. Making those transactions more expensive is not censorship. Private key holders will still be perfectly able to move their UTXOs. They can even add some arbitrary data through OP_RETURN, or jump hoops (and pay fees) to encode their data some other way.

This is discrimination against certain types of transactions. Those which have no intention of using Bitcoin as money, or which misuse the network for their own purposes (I use the word misuse here to mean that they are using exploits which were not intentional developments). If the majority of the network decides to eliminate the possibility of those transactions in the future, that is not censorship. And, as previously mentioned, that has not been effective on a policy level. The consensus level is all that is left.

I'm not going to discuss the currently proposed soft fork in extensive detail, except to say that I think the proposal is technically extremely reasonable in my understanding. Compromises have been made to allow for other specific potentially useful data types by consensus. The language about legal consequences is completely unnecessary, and I hope it is removed. I hope this proposal or a similar one passes. Bitcoin is money, not data storage.

To hammer these points further: I might morally object to some miner rejecting transactions from specific addresses, but I can't do anything to force them to include those transactions in blocks they mine. I can put public pressure on them to change their view, but I can't force them to do so. This would still not be censorship. All individuals on the network are free to do what they want, including rejecting transactions they disagree with.

Here's the beautiful thing: we're not all the same! One miner might reject some transactions. Another one almost certainly will include those transactions. This is primarily why filters don't "work" - someone will always mine valid transactions. I still support filters on the node level. Nobody can force me to include transactions I don't want in my mempool.

In other words: as long as the consensus is not making it impossible for certain addresses to move their coins, it's not censorship. Discriminating against certain types of transactions or certain arrangements of arbitrary data is not censorship. Everyone on the network is still free to move their UTXOs. Bitcoin is useful as money. The best money. That's the important thing.

What do you think?

The censorship issue is a red herring, basically just sophistry meant to ideologically trigger people of a libertarian mindset into acceptance. It's a variant of the "you're not technical enough to understand" argument, but uses ideological rather than technocratic lingo.

You can call it whatever you want however. Bitcoin is a sound monetary network. If "censorship" means securing bitcoin as sound money and preventing bad actors from destroying it either through greed, stupidity, evil, or a combo of the three, I'm pro censorship all day long.

Anybody arguing against limiting spam should logically be in favour of having frogs and csam permanently printed on their coins and bills as well - limiting that kind of abuse is obviously censorship, right?

Humanity's right to sound money and an end to the fiat standard is more important than some little shitcoiner faggots' right to make extra fiat. They can fake their smut peddling elsewhere, and go fuck themselves in the process.

This is true. Being "anti" a group of people who hate you and literally sees you as cattle is not evil, it's a sound survival strategy.

The fact that following this survival strategy is considered the most evil thing you can do nowadays, should tell you something about who runs our current society.

Why is the US financing and arming that state?

This is not just about Israel. It's about Jews wielding an absurd amount of power and influence, and that power and influence being used to bankrupt and destroy western nations.

Until all Jews that don't want to be associated with that fact come out and admit it, no amount of criticism of "Zionism" will suffice. Israel is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wake up goys.