nostr:npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j
So I have to confess that I did not anticipate the “fight you” phase playing out as it is. Let me unfold my thoughts on this:
I had expected coercive measures from the get go. Such as “must declare on taxes”, “illegal”, “KYC only exchanges” and so on
But what I think is unfolding is much smarter and darker. It’s a “buy out” strategy. Not even using government fiat money but using everyday regular Joe’s money. The ETF being the proxy tool. It’s based on the “everybody has a number” theory. Here’s how it goes:
Step0 - Very Weak Hands: let me give you 50K to 70K per Bitcoin. They sell. BTC goes into Coinbase and other such custodian
Step1 - Weak Hands: let me give you 100K per Bitcoin. They sell. BTC goes into Coinbase and other such custodian
Step2 - Medium Hands: let me give you 150K to 250K per Bitcoin. They sell. BTC goes into Coinbase and other such custodian
== at this stage I expect that 45 to 60% of all BTCs are either in custodian or in US corporate companies such as MSTR
Step3 – Strong Hands: let me give you 500K to 1000K per Bitcoin. They sell. BTC goes into Coinbase and other such custodian
Step4 – Very Strong Hands: let me give you “your number” per Bitcoin, even 10M if that’s what it take. They sell. BTC goes into Coinbase and other such custodian
== at this stage I expect that 75 to 85% of all BTCs are either in custodian or in US corporate companies such as MSTR
And along the way there will be:
- orchestrated rug pulls to create FOMO on the fiat splurge. It will be hard to resist for a long time… if you see BTC at 1M and then down at 200K and then back at 1M when do you not sell ? only the strongest Lions
- mandatory KYC/OFAC transactions. Meaning once enough coins are in US custodians they are either frozen to death or not moving unless its KYC
- at some point they might try to ban transactions outright
- they might decide to kill BTC via rug pull of the price or to keep it as a geostrategic advantage
So what could be left?
- Maybe some coins moving around between citadels and federations, but we’ll need to add zeroes to break down satoshis further in order to have enough flowing
- Maybe a fork with an OFAC one and a Rebel one
- You can’t kill an idea so maybe there’ll be a Bitcoin2 initiative
Truly I hope I’m wrong but this “buy out” possibility is terrifying
"Your number" diverges to infinity when the supply thins out. You can't make a divisible asset disappear by buying it all.
I think that both "filter teams" I mentioned (OCEAN-led datacarriersize proposal and Chaincodelabs-led bare-multisig proposal) are skeptical of important higher order effects of updating current Core's filter due to the fact that current Core's filter seamingly didn't produce such effects, and the new proposals don't change their fundamental logic. The stronger arguments I've seen about why these new updates would be worse are actually by the team proposing to remove non-fee-based filters from Core completely. But I'm quite sure that would have important higher order effects as well.
I'm not sure Luke or Murch want to wish away any economic game theory, but it's clear it's not a game theory "that makes Bitcoin work", since Core currently filters away high-fee-paying txs from mempool.
I think is entirely reasonabe on their part to suggest only mempool-level upgrades and not soft fork: mempool policy is a matter of local preference, relatively safe & dynamic, block validity is a matter of global consensus, very risky, hard to change and very hard to change back once changed. So far the only one I've seen suggesting a consensus change was a malicious troll by an "ordinals" developer, trying to lure anti-spam users into running a disastrous fork without even an activation date (I don't remember his name, but he's friend with some Bitcoiners so he gets a pass for such irresponsible behavior, sadly). In general, managing something as dynamic as spam with consensus rules seems frankly crazy to me. Spam attacks and DDoS are preferable to consensus failures and splits.
Bitcoin deva always advocated for whitelisted script templates, nothing new: currently Core stansardness rule explicitly whitelist 5 types of txs, while all the other possible types are nonstandard, regardless of the fees. Not having whitelists in mempool policies is *most definitely not* "what makes Bitcoin bitcoin".
I can't prevent malicious or apatic miners get their massive stack of fees coming from "NFT" frauds and spam attacks: I can just refuse to cooperate actively and shame them publicly.
I absolutely agree with you that one can think all of the inscriptions are spam, and accept nothing can be done about it. It may be the case. One could also think that something may be done to some degree (as I suspect) but that it's still better to focus efforts on other things: totally honest and respectable take.
I mostly see people yelling because he's claiming that even in the case of the inflation bug, it would be legit bug fixing to change the documentation to align with the (buggy) code. But maybe we have a different follow-list so we see different yelling.
Thank you for answering one-off even if blocked elsewhere (I block very liberally on Twitter, here it's neither possible nor needed).
The proposal you list is the second "type" I mention in my brief list. The higher order effect you mention (increasing already present offband auctions of blockspace) would be common between that and the third "type" (Much's proposal to filter out bare multisig, apparently popular among Core devs). But since Core already filters high-fee-paying valid txs, it seems to me that, at least in principle, the first "type" is the only proposal that would avoid that higher order effect completely...not the status quo. Even if I find it likely that the umprecedented move to a total lack of mempool filtering could produce way more/bigger higher order effects.
Matt, which of the people listed below do you think are misunderstandings higher order effects? Or there are others?
Uh? The only radical mempool policy change proposal I see (removing incentive-incompatible filters entirely) are from Peter Todd and Ben Carman, but don't seem to have much following. Milder, more conservative proposals come from Luke Dashjr in Knots & disrespector-patch promoters in Core (extending to tapscript the very same datacarriersize policy that Core uses for pre-taproot txs) and Mark Erhardt (filtering out bare multisig in Core as well, as Knots already does since year). All minority views. Do you hear about anything else?
True. It would also be less useful to do so, as of now:
- I post less frequently, so there wouldn't be much of my content I can ban you from anyway
- I don't get tagged frequently, either by friends or foes, so I don't have to prevent that very aggressively
what is LN-symmetry in ten words or less?
nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j - you do have a fetish for symmetry so might be good for you too!
Thanks! I do indeed!
Can't say (closed source).
cc nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j for more info.
Stock Knots. Initially v23 (that's why some spam creeped in), now should be updated to v25. Knots is 100% FLOSS. No proprietary patches.
nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j all valid critiques if yall want to grow market share
No, I think most of them actually invalid.
nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j why not let ocean miners participate in the capital re-allocation process from monkey jpegs “investors” to pow miners?
Given miners game is maximizing revenue, and minimizing costs surely the decision not to process these fees could drive miners to favor other pools?
Actively proposing block templates that hurt Bitcoin users is not something that we can ask Luke to do. But that's irrelevant to the actual Ocean's plan, which is to move such decision to adult miners, instead of leaving it to daddy pool. The possible negative revenue diff for miners (still to be demonstrated, since for example Luxor's "wizard" blocks were paid offband by shitcoin spammers and paid nothing to workers) just needs to be small not to overshadow positive revenue diffs.
My ass is here but in a specific GrapheneOS user that I often forget to open! :D
I'll find him! And sue him for personal brand copyright infringement! ;)
Thanks a lot! I still don't understand how the stream packets go from my device to yours: if relais added such a services or it is a direct connection between us, where the relais only relayed the post with the necessary instructions in the post. Is there any documentation I can read?
It wasn't me to post it, though. Lugano Plan B account. I don't control it. :)
Forgive my ignorance, didn't have time to search around: how do Amethyst lives work? Do they use nostr to identify a server that the client connects to? Or does it employ a centralized Amethyst server?
Also, first post in a month because I finally found the time to install amethyst (via apk, since google play asks for a credit card I don't have) and transcribe by hand the hex format of a bip85 derivation from a coldcard. Postponed for so long.
The video was uploaded on Twitter directly. Are links to YouTube that better?