GM

How about connecting a working LN-address, which will enable sovereigns to zap you freedom money, nostr:npub1ejlgajqh7ynfh3ktd4erye9043hje00r0j2qqvjgstxk6ftktrtqjlfyer?

had a real shitty day today. plz send memes

Cleaned the fucking by bbq

🍖 🍗 🥩

No I am in absolute agreement that you can block whatever transactions you want for any reason with your own node.

The consensus rules have always been about morality

One charge that's frequently levied at knotzis is that any attempt to reject spam at the consensus level is based on "moral" objections to spam transactions instead of "technical" objections. One problem with this argument is that *many* consensus rules are based on moral objections to potential transactions:

- no doublespending? It's there to prevent "fraud"

- the 21 million cap? It's there to block "inflation"

- proof of work? It's there to ensure "honesty"

Those are the words Satoshi used to motivate the "rules and incentives...enforced [via bitcoin's] consensus mechanism" (the bitcoin whitepaper), and I think they resonate with many of us.

So yeah, "spam is illegitimate" is a moral claim. And if we enforce it, it will be one of several moral claims enforced at the consensus level. Because that's what bitcoin is for: to create a monetary system that is fundamentally *more moral* (in certain ways) than the alternatives. Spam limits, if they become consensus, are just more moral bricks in the wall.

I am happy to discuss the effectiveness of spam limits in another thread. In this thread, my aim is to get consensus on this proposition:

it's sometimes okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections

Got a problem with that?

Then you'll have to get rid of the 21 million cap, doublespend prevention, and proof of work. Because those all exist to block other people's transactions based on moral objections.

So what do *you* think? Is it sometimes okay to block other people's transactions based on moral objections?

The consensus rules have always been about morality

One charge that's frequently levied at knotzis is that any attempt to reject spam at the consensus level is based on "moral" objections to spam transactions instead of "technical" objections. One problem with this argument is that *many* consensus rules are based on moral objections to potential transactions:

- no doublespending? It's there to prevent "fraud"

- the 21 million cap? It's there to block "inflation"

- proof of work? It's there to ensure "honesty"

Those are the words Satoshi used to motivate the "rules and incentives...enforced [via bitcoin's] consensus mechanism" (the bitcoin whitepaper), and I think they resonate with many of us.

So yeah, "spam is illegitimate" is a moral claim. And if we enforce it, it will be one of several moral claims enforced at the consensus level. Because that's what bitcoin is for: to create a monetary system that is fundamentally *more moral* (in certain ways) than the alternatives. Spam limits, if they become consensus, are just more moral bricks in the wall.

The saying ‘You are your own worst enemy” is valid.

It’s always me that derails myself. Impulsive behaviour, weak character and monkey mind are there to trip me up when I’m not vigilant and self aware.

The good news. The only thing I can change is my own thoughts, feelings, actions and perspectives.

There is always the choice to get better.

Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

Was asked yesterday by some very good friends (over 20 years together) in YPO about how I would feel if Bitcoin went to zero - and as a result….i went to zero.

I had to explain (again) that I can’t believe I’m lucky enough to live at this time, with all of you, and contribute to this protocol that is aligned to my beliefs. That the reason it won’t fail is the tens of thousands (and growing quickly) people like that who have also realized their agency in creating the world they want to see.

But even in the unlikely event that it did fail, that I wouldn’t change a thing.

What a ride and so fortunate to be creating it with you!

We are so early.

Me: In the bitcoin community we all refer to each other as retards.

Journalist: “Oh I get it, it’s sort of tongue in cheek right? A way to keep egos in check and remind people to stay humble and remain mission focused…”

Me: What? No. It’s because we’re all retarded.

lower.

It's incredibly difficult and frustrating to make pseudonymous high value payments over $10,000.

None of my privacy / corporate cards have high limits. And most merchants still don't accept cryptocurrency...