Profile: edf93453...
What's your nr 1 argument for the uninitiated, to convey that bitcoin is NOT just another crypto lottery?
Reframe. Take your power back. Humanity steps in to solve the problems that humanity created. Stop asking. Act. You either act or you don't.
Great question. They don't compete because public banks are really just a proxy for central banks.
There are probably 10 public banks that matter (too big to fail ones) and they'll do just fine in the new regime because they are needed.
Programmable money rails (stablecoins → CBDCs → tokenized deposits)
Why private companies are used: State wants programmability without wearing every error; card networks/clouds absorb blame, scale UX.
Levers: Treasury/central-bank pilots, tax/VAT split at source, merchant MDR incentives, wallet whitelists.
Proxies: V/MA/ADYEY, FIS/FISV/GPN, COIN (custody/stable infra), MSFT (identity + anti-fraud), banks with tokenized deposit pilots (JPM).
The Controllers outsource switches (identity, provenance, programmability, audit, revocation) to public companies.
There is no fight/competition, it's all coordinated.
More context: https://controlplanecapital.substack.com/p/why-the-controllers-use-public-companies
Thanks for your view and the article. Appreciate it.
Got it. thanks. Seems that 4 firms can arb the difference/control the price. https://coincentral.com/blackrocks-ibit-shifts-to-in-kind-transfers-enhancing-liquidity-and-spreads/
What do you mean by "never cheap enough to trigger a self-custody revolt"? Thanks
Let's get specific. Yep to this? https://x.com/zara_larue/status/1502858534525931523
No. Changing the config to the previous default basically has the same outcome as the previous code.
Pls explain what "basically" means. Genuinely interested. Thanks.
$ cost isn't the issue. That's for sure.
Well didn't core change the definition of the feature? So reinstating the previous default parameter doesn't reinstate the previous feature.
Yeah I was glad to see this. Kudos to those contributors!
How do you see the dynamic between central banks with their CBDCs, and noncentral banks perhaps fighting back with their own stablecoins? Will noncentral banks have to on-board onto BTC in order to compete/survive CBDCs? Not sure how to present this question. There's a dynamic here that will have to play out somehow. Perhaps you address it in one of your articles? Thanks.
What evidence do we actually have that Core has multiple devs? I mean, it could be like the mining situation - many names, sharing one template. The devs are many names, but one groupthink? Or worse, how do we know its actually them pushing the code? Anyway. Personalities don't matter. There needs to open competition between different implementations competing for maket share of the userbase. 21% of the network migrated to knots within one (?) release cycle - despite the dev concentration risk. That tells you a lot. The plebs have signalled: competition has begun massively. Bullish af. I'd love to see eg 5 implementations with at least 10% share each. Each side is going to have to up their game to grow market share now. Complacency is gone.
With the increased threat of someone relaying some utter garbage illegal image, will we see the hashrate pointing to nostr:nprofile1qqsq9k04vahllseell55m74n3047y88pzlr0z5yany32st29fapqmgsppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgawaehxw309ahx7um5wghxy6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skctc87ckyu increase as a logical byproduct of a hightened need for self-defence?
IMO to increase the nr of nodes we need a tech breakthrough or more urgency. Nodes on mini PCs are great but it can only scale so far due to perceived need/tech ability/the hassle of it/education. If nodes served another purpose, that would help. What I mean is - look at ASICs also serving as home heaters, driving the upswing in home mining. It's the dual purpose, to the average pleb, that makes mining scale in a new way. What dual purpose can nodes have? I have no idea. Another point: ETFs and exchanges reduce the need for ppl to verify by running their own node. So the natural forces are working against it. Perhaps if an ETF blew up and no one got their BTC, then that would create some urgency. Random thoughts...
Yes that's it. At least that's my understanding. It's not the same feature as it was, anymore.
Data carrier size in v30 doesn't mean the same thing as it did in v29. Core changed it such that restoring the parameter to 83 in the v30 config does not restore to the v29 (default) behavior. There's info about this on nostr and of course the core github.
