Question to bitcoin devs or other techies here.

Have there been thoughts about temporary soft forks?

In other words, suppose there is some potential change to bitcoin that there is some difference of opinion in even though it seems solid overall. Rather than permanently tightening the rules (which potentially requires a hard fork to undo, depending on the change), is there a case to consider a temporary soft fork instead? Eg it becomes active for the next 100,000 blocks and then will revert to the prior state for future transactions after that point unless renewed again, temporarily or maybe permanently that time depending on consensus at that point?

anyone serious about bitcoin has to turn a lot of blind eyes to their iphone. the only things you're allowed to install are what the app store permits you to. apps have to be "approved" first.

i've seen a lot of apple apologists strongly defending their preference and the reason is never freedom, control, sovereignty, independence, responsibility, or values: "it's so smooth!" "it just works!" in other words, aesthetics & convenience.

when push comes to shove re: separating money from state, the choices you'll be forced to make by your government will be a lot harder than leaving behind some aesthetics & convenience. maybe start practicing now.

plan for the future

"May you live in interesting times" is an interesting expression, sometimes referred to as a curse.

Many of our best stories, from literature to shows to movies, are about horrible times. They're about conflict, and people overcoming that conflict. And our heroes, both real and fictional, are tied to those times.

And yet as people with lives and families, we don't want to live through those times. We don't want to live through war, oppression, or conflict. We don't want to have to be the ones to stand up and tell some more powerful force to go fuck themselves. We'd rather read about others doing it, and how cool that was when they did.

I continue to view this period of time as "interesting" in the historical sense. The 1990s were probably the best recent time to chill, but it wasn't where history was made. The 2020s and 2030s are not as good for chilling, but from looking back in the future, it's these times where the bulk of the historical content is likely to be focused on.

For some regions, it's outright war that they're dealing with now.

For the majority of other regions, it's instead a cultural war, and an economic war. And it's going to get worse before it gets better. Do we fund those who are at war, and if so, which side? What values do we subscribe to, and who is "we"? How do we determine truth, and with what framework? For breakthrough tech, who gets to control it? Should it be centralized and regulated, or open and accessible?

And more directly it's about stepping up and saying, "It's good for people to be able to own and transfer money without state control and state dilution. And it's good for people to be able to communicate how they want to without the state silencing them. Even when they buy things and say things that I disagree with." That won't be an easy battle.

Someone on Twitter sarcastically asked me today what army defends Bitcoin. My answer was:

"The army of encryption and energy spread around the world.

A shield, not a spear."

The same is true for Nostr, in a slightly different way. The developers and relays, and the people willing to use it and finance it, are what defend it.

Communication and value are the two key components of free commerce. All of those people today who build strong shields for communication and value are living in interesting times and contributing to them in a positive way.