The biggest name in #Bitcoin is Satoshi Nakamoto.

Satoshi is no longer the CEO of Bitcoin

Matt's ideas about anyone does not inpact Bitcoin

And Bitcoin doesn't care.

It literally goes against human nature to prefer someone else to thrive more than yourself. There is nothing wrong about stating this, it’s reality. This is why socialism will never work. Why it destroys wealth, why it leads to violence. History has shown this every time. Bitcoin doesn’t change human nature lmao, it is pure capitalism. No bail outs! No inflation of the money supply. 21m bitcoin, forever. Lost coins only increase the price by making the supply even more scarce. The opposite of fiat central banking where bail outs are the name of the game and they regularly print money.

Love this platform. Will be my "home" for the rest of social media existence. Just like bitcoin for money

I like Monero as much as the next guy, but wouldn't delisting make it harder for people to get into it?

As it stands right now, I can only get Monero by getting Bitcoin for fiat and then converting that to Monero.

There's little to no market for Monero in where I live so it's practically impossible to get it even on P2P exchanges like Agoradesk.

bitcoin is money

therefore, like in any sensible wealth management strategy it forms the largest part of a good portfolio

the reason is because of the fungibility of money - and except for ever inflating fiat - its deflationary tendency versus a growing economy

one, it's steadily increasing in purchasing power as technological efficiencies steadily grow

two, its able to be traded for anything that you percieve as an opportunity to acquire a productive asset with no wait (all but money has varying degrees of delay, known as liquidity)

so, stacking sats is actually the main thing you should be doing as an market participant, always the majority of your net worth should be a stack

my two sats: sell merch, paid features, books or guides, paid 1-1 consultancy. don't make a donations button. donations are not a sustainable business model. also donations don't offer anything tangible in return to the payee.

offer a service, make a product and people will pay for it. isn't this what bitcoin advocates? don't sit on your ass. sell stuff and save in bitcoin.

Hey nostr

After 3-5 minutes of intense deliberation and research a list of the 10 greatest movies (objectively) of all time has been compiled. The research guidelines were adopted from those used by the cdc and fda involving pandemic related issues and are therefore beyond contestation.

1) forest gump

2) the usual suspects

3) Casablanca

4) tombstone (the one with Val Kilmer as doc Holliday)

5) Dennis the menace (the one with Walter Matthieu…I laughed so hard in the cinema that my 4 yo daughter and her 4 yo fren moved to diffrnt seats…mind u this is the child that will likely be pickin out my nursing home😳)

6) caddy shack

7) animal house

8) major Payne (I quit watching the Oscars after it was snubbed😡)

9) the godfather

10) Shawshank redemption

HM

The little mermaid

The hot chick with rob sneider (possible his finest work🤣)

Thoughts?

Disclaimer: dissenting opinions are welcome…no matter how stupid🧐…I remain urs humbly

The blocksize war wasn't so much about the blocksize (or, even, scaling Bitcoin). It was really about who controls the consensus rules and how we upgrade the protocol.

For context, a bunch of startups raised tons of money between 2013 and 2016 based on ridiculous user sign-up projections and then we had a long and painful bear market and they were looking for scapegoats (the developpers that were "throttling the network") to justify the lack of growth. I am thinking here specifically of Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info.

The vibe I got is that they thought of Bitcoin itself as a corporation, that they were the equivalent of Bitcoin's board of directors because they represented the interest of VC investors, and thus they were entitled to decision making power over the network.

I don't doubt that a few people were genuine about scaling p2p e-cash (e.g. Roger Ver) but I suspect what really motivated them is that they believed control of the Bitcoin network would be an asset to their business interests, and lack of control was being used as an excuse to why their interests weren't being satisfied.

There was also a bunch of developers that I believe may have been afraid of losing their relevance (Gavin and Garzik specifically). Regardless of their intentions or psychology, it seemed clear to me that the consortium of vc-backed startups (particularly Bitpay, Coinbase, blockchain(.)info and Roger) had picked a team of developers they thought they could control and wanted to appoint them as a technical management team whicn would execute their strategy, and these guys were willing to step up for that role.

I was physically in the room when the CEO of Blockchain.info (with the very obvious support of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong) announced that Bitcoin Core devs were being fired and would be replaced. This was after a couple days of failed discussions with other industry people. This was the moment when I realized what was really going on.

And finally, you had a Bitcoin mining giant (Bitmain) controlling both asic production and mining pools with a vested interest in promoting the idea that Bitcoin was a democracy and the way to vote was to buy hashing power. The main ideology being pushed here was that a formal governance mechanism of the protocol needed to be established and that hashrate was the only objective measure of who makes decisions.

The underlying big blocker ideology was that the chaos of spontaneous consensus of nodes is unpredictable, flimsy, bad for business. The absence of a formal governance process was seen as the root cause of the issue.

These companies really believed they could control the protocol, and controlling development of the protocol was seen as a very valuable asset to your company. I imagine they thought of themselves as the founders of a new consortium that would solidify itself into a permanent institution. The business interests would pay developers and set the goals, and the mining interests would ratify their decisions with hash power voting. That was their plan.

This became blatantly obvious when Bitmain used its refusal to activate segwit as leverage to get what it wanted (a blocksize increase and recognition of its hashpower as a vote mecanism) even though Bitmain iself acknowledged it was not really opposed segwit.

It was classic traditional politics: I'll give you segwit if you give me something in return.

This is the language the VC suits, investors and tech startup people understand and they were very happy to "negotiate" and find "consensus".

This eventually materialized into the New York Agreement, negotiated literally as a backroom deal during theConsensuss shitcoin conference. I was there and I refused to attend.

This (private) meeting consecrated the alliance of startups/investors and bitcoin mining interests in their appointment of a technical management committee. If you think this sounds like Jekyll Island, you're not alone.

They packaged segwit with a blocksize increase (Segwit2x) and decided to force a hard fork as a condition to "allow" us to have Segwit.

We know the rest of the story: we ended up activating anyway via UASF (or more precisely, the miners activated Segwit after they New York Agreement signatories became scared UASF would lead to a chain split which they were going to lose). And the blocksize increase was also abandoned shortly after when they realized their hard fork would cause a chain split and that they would not be able to claim that their new shitcoin is the real bitcoin.

All these people were subsequently were very pissed off they couldn't control the network, which they thought they were entitled to. Some ragequit, others created a bunch of shitcoins out of spite, Roger went on to spearhead BCH as the real Bitcoin, all these fools realized they might as well make some money off of it, everyone went all-in on the shitcoin casinos after that. The "small blockers" eventually went on to evolve into the Bitcoin Maximalists and cypherpunks that today tell you to run your own node and own your own keys.

FUNDING DEVELOPERS IS HOW WE WIN. CONTINUALLY DEVELOPING SOFTWARE OVER TIME, ENHANCING IT, MAKING IT MORE EFFICIENT, MAKING IT MORE SECURE, IS HOW WE SURVIVE.

Apparently not everyone knows this. Wild.

If you know any Brazilians, encourage them to join #nostr. Their government is cracking down on social networks in an attempt to censor their access to news and speech.

today i learned most bitcoiners don’t understand bitcoin

the public conversation/square is not owned by a corporation

keep nostr weird

your body can tell the difference between some fake ass blue light and the fucking SUN

good morning

The blocksize war wasn't so much about the blocksize (or, even, scaling Bitcoin). It was really about who controls the consensus rules and how we upgrade the protocol.

For context, a bunch of startups raised tons of money between 2013 and 2016 based on ridiculous user sign-up projections and then we had a long and painful bear market and they were looking for scapegoats (the developpers that were "throttling the network") to justify the lack of growth. I am thinking here specifically of Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info.

The vibe I got is that they thought of Bitcoin itself as a corporation, that they were the equivalent of Bitcoin's board of directors because they represented the interest of VC investors, and thus they were entitled to decision making power over the network.

I don't doubt that a few people were genuine about scaling p2p e-cash (e.g. Roger Ver) but I suspect what really motivated them is that they believed control of the Bitcoin network would be an asset to their business interests, and lack of control was being used as an excuse to why their interests weren't being satisfied.

There was also a bunch of developers that I believe may have been afraid of losing their relevance (Gavin and Garzik specifically). Regardless of their intentions or psychology, it seemed clear to me that the consortium of vc-backed startups (particularly Bitpay, Coinbase, blockchain(.)info and Roger) had picked a team of developers they thought they could control and wanted to appoint them as a technical management team whicn would execute their strategy, and these guys were willing to step up for that role.

I was physically in the room when the CEO of Blockchain.info (with the very obvious support of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong) announced that Bitcoin Core devs were being fired and would be replaced. This was after a couple days of failed discussions with other industry people. This was the moment when I realized what was really going on.

And finally, you had a Bitcoin mining giant (Bitmain) controlling both asic production and mining pools with a vested interest in promoting the idea that Bitcoin was a democracy and the way to vote was to buy hashing power. The main ideology being pushed here was that a formal governance mechanism of the protocol needed to be established and that hashrate was the only objective measure of who makes decisions.

The underlying big blocker ideology was that the chaos of spontaneous consensus of nodes is unpredictable, flimsy, bad for business. The absence of a formal governance process was seen as the root cause of the issue.

These companies really believed they could control the protocol, and controlling development of the protocol was seen as a very valuable asset to your company. I imagine they thought of themselves as the founders of a new consortium that would solidify itself into a permanent institution. The business interests would pay developers and set the goals, and the mining interests would ratify their decisions with hash power voting. That was their plan.

This became blatantly obvious when Bitmain used its refusal to activate segwit as leverage to get what it wanted (a blocksize increase and recognition of its hashpower as a vote mecanism) even though Bitmain iself acknowledged it was not really opposed segwit.

It was classic traditional politics: I'll give you segwit if you give me something in return.

This is the language the VC suits, investors and tech startup people understand and they were very happy to "negotiate" and find "consensus".

This eventually materialized into the New York Agreement, negotiated literally as a backroom deal during theConsensuss shitcoin conference. I was there and I refused to attend.

This (private) meeting consecrated the alliance of startups/investors and bitcoin mining interests in their appointment of a technical management committee. If you think this sounds like Jekyll Island, you're not alone.

They packaged segwit with a blocksize increase (Segwit2x) and decided to force a hard fork as a condition to "allow" us to have Segwit.

We know the rest of the story: we ended up activating anyway via UASF (or more precisely, the miners activated Segwit after they New York Agreement signatories became scared UASF would lead to a chain split which they were going to lose). And the blocksize increase was also abandoned shortly after when they realized their hard fork would cause a chain split and that they would not be able to claim that their new shitcoin is the real bitcoin.

All these people were subsequently were very pissed off they couldn't control the network, which they thought they were entitled to. Some ragequit, others created a bunch of shitcoins out of spite, Roger went on to spearhead BCH as the real Bitcoin, all these fools realized they might as well make some money off of it, everyone went all-in on the shitcoin casinos after that. The "small blockers" eventually went on to evolve into the Bitcoin Maximalists and cypherpunks that today tell you to run your own node and own your own keys.