Avatar
petar
a64d5dd4f433c324da5a4b4c153881648f65e19d39ee50242c8511f26e0b8fb1

I'm still waiting to see AI be anything more than a clever google search / word smith.

If you're job is replaced by AI you never really offered much to begin with.

https://fountain.fm/episode/TsjYcSND9ErctWjdWSoZ

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqu2rrfa69mhrr22g5ru4svhjprqu9v0ejw3htnlgm0y6dmlselz3fhyetr

Good conversation. Will carry it on in discord.

https://fountain.fm/episode/zvZP6Et8HKGiDdZM3Fmw

Never realized what a$$hole Mike Benz was until listening to this show. He's a deep state apologist, not a crusader of truth, wtf. His bullshit argument that prosperity will disappear unless you uproot foreign governments, cause conflict and death, lie, cheat, steal, etc. It"s f*cking discusting. Pencils will not disappear Mike, they'll just be 10% more expensive, its about profit margins and not existential, jerk.

https://fountain.fm/episode/wJD97c9BB9v7JvVgmapw

Please remind Dave in 4 years he said he would buy bitcoin after we increase in value after the next stock market bust cycle.

https://fountain.fm/episode/SBoQrpg3CuetjbyMhtYd

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqsl2vf6ymgafkr4kk0tmyze567hf79n5gupy5ftmxm9d3r2946yz6pnezj

Replying to Avatar Gigi

GM

Reminds me of an Edward Hopper painting, Sun in an Empty Room.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8se66vS90Z8

Never once installed Twitter, never understood the draw.

The blocksize war wasn't so much about the blocksize (or, even, scaling Bitcoin). It was really about who controls the consensus rules and how we upgrade the protocol.

For context, a bunch of startups raised tons of money between 2013 and 2016 based on ridiculous user sign-up projections and then we had a long and painful bear market and they were looking for scapegoats (the developpers that were "throttling the network") to justify the lack of growth. I am thinking here specifically of Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info.

The vibe I got is that they thought of Bitcoin itself as a corporation, that they were the equivalent of Bitcoin's board of directors because they represented the interest of VC investors, and thus they were entitled to decision making power over the network.

I don't doubt that a few people were genuine about scaling p2p e-cash (e.g. Roger Ver) but I suspect what really motivated them is that they believed control of the Bitcoin network would be an asset to their business interests, and lack of control was being used as an excuse to why their interests weren't being satisfied.

There was also a bunch of developers that I believe may have been afraid of losing their relevance (Gavin and Garzik specifically). Regardless of their intentions or psychology, it seemed clear to me that the consortium of vc-backed startups (particularly Bitpay, Coinbase, blockchain(.)info and Roger) had picked a team of developers they thought they could control and wanted to appoint them as a technical management team whicn would execute their strategy, and these guys were willing to step up for that role.

I was physically in the room when the CEO of Blockchain.info (with the very obvious support of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong) announced that Bitcoin Core devs were being fired and would be replaced. This was after a couple days of failed discussions with other industry people. This was the moment when I realized what was really going on.

And finally, you had a Bitcoin mining giant (Bitmain) controlling both asic production and mining pools with a vested interest in promoting the idea that Bitcoin was a democracy and the way to vote was to buy hashing power. The main ideology being pushed here was that a formal governance mechanism of the protocol needed to be established and that hashrate was the only objective measure of who makes decisions.

The underlying big blocker ideology was that the chaos of spontaneous consensus of nodes is unpredictable, flimsy, bad for business. The absence of a formal governance process was seen as the root cause of the issue.

These companies really believed they could control the protocol, and controlling development of the protocol was seen as a very valuable asset to your company. I imagine they thought of themselves as the founders of a new consortium that would solidify itself into a permanent institution. The business interests would pay developers and set the goals, and the mining interests would ratify their decisions with hash power voting. That was their plan.

This became blatantly obvious when Bitmain used its refusal to activate segwit as leverage to get what it wanted (a blocksize increase and recognition of its hashpower as a vote mecanism) even though Bitmain iself acknowledged it was not really opposed segwit.

It was classic traditional politics: I'll give you segwit if you give me something in return.

This is the language the VC suits, investors and tech startup people understand and they were very happy to "negotiate" and find "consensus".

This eventually materialized into the New York Agreement, negotiated literally as a backroom deal during theConsensuss shitcoin conference. I was there and I refused to attend.

This (private) meeting consecrated the alliance of startups/investors and bitcoin mining interests in their appointment of a technical management committee. If you think this sounds like Jekyll Island, you're not alone.

They packaged segwit with a blocksize increase (Segwit2x) and decided to force a hard fork as a condition to "allow" us to have Segwit.

We know the rest of the story: we ended up activating anyway via UASF (or more precisely, the miners activated Segwit after they New York Agreement signatories became scared UASF would lead to a chain split which they were going to lose). And the blocksize increase was also abandoned shortly after when they realized their hard fork would cause a chain split and that they would not be able to claim that their new shitcoin is the real bitcoin.

All these people were subsequently were very pissed off they couldn't control the network, which they thought they were entitled to. Some ragequit, others created a bunch of shitcoins out of spite, Roger went on to spearhead BCH as the real Bitcoin, all these fools realized they might as well make some money off of it, everyone went all-in on the shitcoin casinos after that. The "small blockers" eventually went on to evolve into the Bitcoin Maximalists and cypherpunks that today tell you to run your own node and own your own keys.

What you describe is accurate on how things ended up. What most people seem to forget is that "Block War" did start off as a legitimate debate to address the very real problem of full blocks. Segwit / Layer 2 scaling wasn't as obvious to us pleb node runners as it was to people like Peter, Greg and Luke etc.

I don't think Roger was an "evil" person trying to destroy bitcoin, I think he actually believed he was doing what he thought best, but he turned out to be wrong. That being said, his devolving into a bitter shitcoiner scammer in the end is totally accurate and ugly. You gotta know when to admit you were wrong buddy.

Ironically, what convinced me to run a UASF node was the attempted power grab by the big blockers. Fighting against big powerful money controllers was THE main reason I got into this project, I sure as shit wasn't going to let anyone dictate how my money works anymore, whether it was with fiat or Sigwit2x.

Coffee has arrived. Has a nutty fragrance and a mild but complex taste. I like it with milk, overall pretty good.

My partner says it's the best coffee she ever had and she doesn't bitcoin.

I think I'll try the dark roast next...

Ordered me some nostr:npub1myenv9vns3ce5ccfjaldtf40uqjgzm28tparptuezjwt63q7wdzquf7464 coffee thanks to nostr:npub1vwymuey3u7mf860ndrkw3r7dz30s0srg6tqmhtjzg7umtm6rn5eq2qzugd mention on his podcast. Will report back my review.