idea: iphone/android call feature where instead of initiating a call right away, it sends a “call request” text message that expires after N minutes. If the user clicks accept the call goes through. Would be a polite/more chill way to initiate a call

Honestly, I think that perspective is way too pessimistic. Quantum computing is advancing, yes, but the kind of large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum machines needed to break Bitcoin’s secp256k1 keys are still many years away, likely well beyond 2030. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s upgrade path is slow on purpose because security is paramount; rushing changes could introduce more risk than a theoretical quantum threat.

Arguing that “a Shor’s attack will come first” ignores that Bitcoin’s cryptography has decades of scrutiny, and any real threat would likely be spotted and countered with post-quantum upgrades well before keys are compromised. The focus on JPEGs or blockspace debates is actually a sign of normal network development, not a vulnerability indicator.

Bitcoin has survived scaling wars, censorship attempts, and economic shocks. Claiming it’ll fall to quantum computers before it adapts underestimates the resilience of the network, the community, and the gradual, deliberate upgrade process.

How?

Both stories are bullshit simp

Yet more bullshit from The Rag

Maybe you have a doppelgänger.

Did you just say hello to a dishwasher

Lol.

PoW exists to make it hard to rewrite history, not to prevent spam.

This is obviously just more dishonesty masquerading as "bridge building" after a week of non-stop character assassination after many months of bad faith interaction.

Citing your credentials "I have worked on anonymous systems for over a decade. I have read tons of research on spam detection, rate-limiting, and I've implemented spam prevention techniques in the real world."

...is not enough to make people pretend you're arguing in good faith here which you obviously aren't having opened with rewriting the entire function of what PoW does and how Satoshi used it. We know specifically what Satoshi did about spam and you're ignoring it because that would contradict your premise.

(Further - spam filtration does not imply centralization. The opposite is the case. No one is going to run nodes if they do not posses the tools to prevent their mempools filling up with porn/malware and anything else that can leverage the idiocy of Bitcoin's developers.)

Not a "small policy change", you don't get to decide that Dev Sir

Well explained, I hadn't really thought about filters as a vector of trust before.

It's interesting that you didn't call out web of trust as a spam prevention strategy, because that is implicitly the subject of the post.

Web of trust seems to work pretty well on nostr for reducing spam, but ironically destroys something like bitcoin which requires global (objective rather than subjective) consensus.

I happened to be reading about XRP this week (don't ask), and discovered that in lieu of proof of work, or even stake, their sequencers are validated by being included on other nodes' "UNL" s, or "Unique Node Lists", and don't receive fees for mining blocks.

These lists have to be meticulously curated, because any significant deviation between node policies will delay or even stop the network. At best, this curation happens on the social layer, and is in no way adversarial. If you break social consensus, you get kicked off the island and lose the ability to sequence transactions. XRP has 190 nodes, but only 35 are generally trusted to validate the network. To make matters worse, XRP curates a UNL which they encourage the network to use, and "carefully vet" node runners before including them. XRP is completely permissioned; it is no more decentralized than the Fed's board of directors.

I write all this because XRP demonstrates that web of trust is inherently exclusionary, and can only work to the extent that that is desirable (as in a "compliant" digital currency). It may have a minor role to play in decentralized systems, but only to the extent that those systems need not be considered "open", i.e., permissionless.

Again, this is ok for curating feeds on nostr, because I do not want access to my attention to be "open". Network partitioning is part of nostr - there is no "global". There is only my subjective, incomplete view of the network. Strategies other than web of trust are important for bootstrapping new users' reputation. But money has to work for everyone, at all times, and requiring reputation to transact essentially creates a social credit based permissioned monetary system.

why would nuclear engineers entertain the opinion of the general public? you could argue bitcoin is more important than the operation of a nuclear power plant. its engineering and game theory over feels.

Are there people in 2025 who still don’t realize that “long COVID” is just a vaccine injury?

Show me one unvaxxed person with “long COVID”.. I’ll wait

One question I have is increasing the limit how much does the Bitcoin chain size grows and does it become much more difficult to store in a home node

Never been a fan of sunglasses but this actually makes sense and now I feel vindicated 🤔