JFC now we are once again entertaining block size increase discussions. Fuck this shit. Honestly, who thinks this is a completely organic coincidence that, all at once, the fucking shitcoiners are here to save bitcoin.

Gigabrain gigachad move: use your healthcare savings account to pay for suppressors. It's PPE: hearing protection!

have also divested all my Ford stock

rolling all proceeds into #Bitcoin

#Bitcoin is simply the safest & most asymmetric upside asset I can find.

i'm going all in!

tailwinds have never been better.

The fiat mine is kicking the crap out of me guys

Here I go again, zapping myself …(unintentionally), and no idea how it happens. Self-Sat, so Sat-isfying!

I’ll show myself out…

What's the End Game?

================

My last post advocating for a Bitcoin chain split drew various reactions. Some labeled me as irresponsible, while others claimed I was undermining proof-of-work (I wasn't) or promoting a hard fork (again, I wasn't). The critics want more technical discussions to reach a consensus.

Here's the core issue: what's the endgame for drivechains? We've debated the technical aspects for seven years. Do we expect new information that will suddenly unite everyone?

The reality is, those in favor of a drivechains soft fork aren't going away. If anything, they will grow louder. So, what's the end result of endless discussions?

Prolonged debate without consensus not only wastes time but stall other valuable updates. I'll remind you that seven years of discussion have not resolved this issue.

A peaceful resolution now has a lot of benefits. We can put much of this debate to bed by engaging the market instead of claims made by marketers. We can see whether the things promised by the advocates actually come to pass and we'll learn a lot more about miner incentives.

Of course, there are other ways to resolve this conflict besides a chain split, such as creating a separate chain, using a different sidechain mechanism, or adding the needed op codes in an altcoin. Yet, these options have been available for seven years and haven't been pursued by the drivechain advocates. I think those are better resolutions than a chain split and a successful use case would be the best way to convince those of us that are skeptical of the drivechainers' claims. But that's not what they're doing and so we are at loggerheads.

In summary, the drivechain debate isn't resolving itself. A split will end this divisive conversation and allow us to focus on more productive projects like improving the Lightning Network or furthering Taproot features.

26 years ago I was put on this earth to ruin your lives. Here’s to me.

Zapping 420 sats to everyone who posts proof they're not a CCP agent or scared of commies.

(Today only)

Just reply with a picture of Xi the Pooh

Having a cold so i'm spending more time on Nostr this weekend.

There are a lot more good accounts with quality notes and more little bubbles than i used to think.

Still undecided on Drivechain.

I'm posting for both sides.

For me it's all about this: RISK.

Paul Sztorc says zero risk.

Plebs say non zero risk.

Problem is whenever i see "zero risk" i get scared.

Who’s running #wayland? Worth the switch? #linuxstr

There are even bigger corporate and governmental interests for Bitcoin to not scale so millions of users get onboarded via exchanges and never leave their custody due to high fees.

These parties would also be unhappy if Bitcoin gained more privacy/fungibility. Think about the million dollar blockchain analysis contracts that will look silly.

Controlling a majority of the miners is not that easy.

The debate about Drivechains is mode political than it is technical.

In practice, every sane bitcoiner wants real sidechains to provide privacy, scalability, speed, more advanced scripting languages, and the opportunity for everyone around the world to own a UTXO and self-custody it in cold storage.

A Zcash sidechain would contribute towards fungibility. A big block sidechain can be used to open and close Lightning channels at the lowest price. An Ethereum sidechain can attract some projects that want to port their code to a more secure Proof of Work chain.

Lots of shitcoins would lose their purpose and get drained of use cases. The exchanges would no longer act as scaling layers to the same degree, as the users won’t have to worry about high fees for their withdrawals.

The 21 million BTC limit also remains unchanged forever, as the fees coming from sidechains would cover the security budget. No more discussions about tail emmission or inflation.

But the issue is that miners refeivr godlike powers in these sidechains and can potentially refuse to release the funds to users or else steal. According to the game theory, miners should follow the economic rationale that maintains their reputation and keeps their revenue source flowing.

But it’s hard to have guarantees when you deal with dynamic actors that follow their incentives and might think short-term.

Lots of parties don’t want miners to gain even more power/control. But the issue is not shitcoinery, that’s only the lazy deflection which doesn’t excuse anyone from not reading.

😫

Fuck them mosquitoes!

Bitcoin has arrived.

Is ECC RAM a scam? 🤔