It's not a thing. It's not open source, it's practically impossible to run a node, it doesn't trade anywhere, and the centralized organization behind it has changed the protocol to let them confiscate anyone's coins. In recent days the price has hit new all time lows.

Tell your friend to forget about it.

Just scheduled another bitcoin meetup in Bergen, Norway.

---

Er du i Bergen? Kom og treff lokale bitcoinere over noe kaldt i glasset. Om du er ny på Bitcoin eller erfaren er du like velkommen! 20. august på Biskopen. https://www.meetup.com/bergen-bitcoin-meetup/events/310055402/

Even simpler, they could just sign the CoA with their private key.

"We got a little bit famous in a niche market — but that niche is becoming a really big market now"

So they go back on popular news media with their names, photos and travel plans.

This is why I refuse to label myself a "bitcoin maxi" even if I'm really only interested in Bitcoin. "Bitcoin maxis" just seem angry and scared all the time and they parrot dogma to try to feel better.

It's amazing that you needed to post that.

Can you explain Rust's computational marxism? Strong ownership semantics isn't what usually springs to mind when I think about Marx.

I don't understand why they're going to vote to kill their tech sector. Do they really think privacy-oriented tech companies who chose Switzerland for their privacy laws are going to implement surveillance instead of moving to the next best country?

Something needs to trigger this, sign the messages and publish them. I wouldn't share my private key with a relay for this. You could always write a bot to do it, but this requires more setup than most would probably be prepared for.

Quality shitpost.

He doesn't post a lot and never seems to talk about his money. https://youtube.com/@JacobRising

Coinbase promised to reimburse everything lost as a result of their KYC leak. Let's hope they stick to their word.

They ported Lemmings from Amiga to C64. Each developer had to bargain for every byte they needed. And they delivered.

Coinbase leaked KYC data. 🙄

nostr:nevent1qqsrdx6fmxprhfu6ewqkq4pu09cdszjqnlanmqgxt54v4f8t8dm5xhgpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqzyzw96rwdkg5lsn8e06phugah2vc38638c637gadszukjvr06lavfqqcyqqqqqqgw87u9y

An old laptop. Very handy when the server has a built-in monitor and keyboard, and even a UPS.

> I can understand your point about letting devs code and not having to convey their decisions, but I don't think this approach is feasible (so ppl should blindly trust what few devs do withouth any explanation?)

I didn't say that at all. Developers do debate and explain, but my understanding was that you cannot find explanations that are understandable to you. I was saying explaining nuanced technical matters in a way that is understandable to someone without a sufficient technical understanding is difficult.

I don't mean to be rude, but I can't spend a lot more time on this right now, and we seem to be going in circles where I thought we were maybe reaching some sort of amicable end. Thanks for the exchange, but I'll cut it off here, and wish you well.

There is a nice and relatively accessible compilation of questions and answers here which you may find useful: https://stacker.news/items/978404

As a final word: please do not assume bad faith among bitcoin developers. They keep bitcoin working for us but it can be grueling work, especially when they have to face horrible accusations from social media.

The story so far: In the beginning Satoshi created the genesis block. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as an attack on Bitcoin.

Bitcoin's developers have long been criticized for not being the best communicators. You should have seen how it was when we tried to get SegWit activated. Eventually they published a pretty good FAQ. Later we got the OpTech newsletter etc. It's a lot better today compared to then, but it's probably not good enough. Developer time is scarce, and it would be nice to let them just work instead of becoming expert communicators able to convey nuanced technical concepts to regular people.

> if it turns out this change creates harmful consequences, can we simply roll it back withouth any issue?

Yes, it's just a mempool policy thing. Rolling back a mempool policy change does not involve a consensus change, just a new software release with adjusted mempool policy, and then encourage people to switch to it.

That said, this stuff is very well understood by now (we literally had the first OP_RETURN war in 2014, not much is new) – there isn't really any risk of harm.

> - PR being locked, then unlocked to let someone submit ACK, then locked again

This wasn't handled well, but a PR isn't a battleground for non-contributors to go in and say "NACK" in large numbers and then expect their comments to be tallied as a vote. It needed to be handled in some way.

> - ppl paid to submit PR withouth disclosing it upfront

This is influencer propaganda. We should be thankful that many talented people are able to collect a salary for their work. There is no ill intention – that's just something influencers want you to believe in order to make you angry.

> - the focus being on miners wellbeing rather than nodes

The focus is on bitcoin's well-being. Bloating the UTXO set dangerously impacts the cost of running a node, OP_RETURN avoids this cost. You may think you can avoid or reduce undesired data in the blockchain, but this is demonstrably wrong (look at the blocks you're storing). You can choose between bloating the UTXO set and not bloating the UTXO set.

> - core smirking at oppostion during btc++ debate

I'm sorry you found someone's demeanor offensive. That's not a technical argument. A smirk is bad, but probably not as bad as the accusations of corruption and hidden agendas that a lot of bitcoin developers face these days. This person shouldn't have smirked, but this gesture probably didn't come out of nowhere; people are upset and frustrated.

> - core devs saying things like "if you don't like what we are doing just change software", instead of reassuring ppl when they express concern for what you are doing

It's difficult to communicate effectively. I thought Greg Maxwell did a decent job here: nevent1qqsgsc3lfarzl6sjrnrewxxl88fme3ztewhrtf4tp5u56l7uhuxzdmcr9hwpf

People are complex and difficult. When it comes to bitcoin, we need to focus on technical arguments to protect bitcoin's decentralization, and not choose our actions based on who has offended us.

The block size war clarified the existing nature of the system, which is that miners can't unilaterally decide on a softfork against the wishes of nodes used by economic actors. This was just a fact that we learned, and not some agreement that was reached saying miners must obey people's wishes.

In this current drama, miners are already mining large OP_RETURNs, and we are not debating a consensus change. We know that miners will continue to mine large OP_RETURNs regardless of what some nodes will relay. Miners do not, and will not, obey your node.

Bitcoin forces actors to face harsh technical realities, and people who harbor idealistic fantasies are forced to abandon them. You can hold on to them for a while, at the expense of decentralization through mempool fragmentation and private mempools favoring the largest miners. I wish you wouldn't, but in a while, you won't.

And what are the practical implications of their supposed "moral responsibility"? How do you want to sanction them if you think they neglect it?

Bitcoin is the epitome of individual responsibility. You can't go crying to some stranger on the internet who wrote code that you chose to run. You can't complain that you're not being communicated to in a way you prefer – getting information is your own responsibility. The mailing list is there, Delving is there, the GitHub project is open, and if you don't have time for all that, a bunch of busy contributors set aside time to produce a weekly newsletter to summarize everything for you, and if you don't even have time for that, they make a podcast version of the newsletter.

If you just don't want to try to understand the technical aspects, your opinions on technical aspects don't weigh particularly much. I'm sorry that's harsh, but bitcoin doesn't let us ignore harsh realities.

The idea that bitcoin developers owe users a fiduciary responsibility is catching on.

nostr:nevent1qqstql4cnksr6v0n547dpqf6nt57ssk5se7r0ecpnccw32vwlehrvsspzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgq3quy6fplfrgddrex6ndcvwsvy7nlv4gadlw2j80vgkduk5ceg69e3sxpqqqqqqzrufrp3

Craig Wright sued a dozen bitcoin developers, claiming damages because they owed him fiduciary responsibility. He wanted to force them to hardfork bitcoin to assign 111k bitcoin to him.

You're going down a ridiculous road. Nobody would write open source software if it entailed fiduciary responsibility. If you succeed, bitcoin dies.

Yes. A typical mempool should contain as many as possible of the transactions that go into the next block. This enables more accurate fee estimation, and faster block propagation thanks to more efficient use of Compact Blocks.

Slowing down block propagation causes higher orphan rates, which favors large miners and therefore contributes to centralization.

Filtering causes out-of-bands distribution of transactions to miners, which again favors large miners, making it harder for small miners to compete, which creates a centralization pressure.

Many miners use Windows? How weird.

Good morning! Start every day with a smile and whatever else.

(2020 quote)

Up here in Scandinavia we know.

Light roast Kenyan or Ethiopian specialty coffee, carefully handbrewed with V60, ground at the spot, weighed and timed just right ... No sugar, milk or anything, just coffee and me. I live for that shit.

Try going to an unbearably hip indie coffee shop and see if you like theirs.

Har vært så heldig å få være gjest på Andreas Harding sin podcast EN OG TYVE TANKER. Vi snakker Bitcoin-historie, hvordan Bitcoin fungerer, Faketoshi-rettsakene, @BPINorge og mer. Takk for praten, nostr:nprofile1qythwumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qys8wumn8ghj7cnfw33k76twd4shs6tdv9kxjum5wvhx7mnvd9hx2tcqyzppgdvhsr52ag3ufqkefldstvhajmzl2aplcqx76wg2jqpz2hht5v2unzr !

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpqs5xktcp69w5g7ystv5lkc9kt7ed304wsluqr0d8y9fqq39tm46qqsw33rq0cgxqha94e0fqrgrna44mg59v8qx4hazyc0wr9zzqd2jwqc5dj5aj

Oh my fucking god

You kids with your "bitcoin" and "sats" have no idea how easy you have it. Do you even know how many bitcoin-bongs to a san-bitcoin?

An honest man

Sure he's funding a lot of open source, but it's the *wrong* kind of open source. He's funding Bitcoin projects, which fuels the climate collapse and pulls us into the capitalist pigs' sweaty hands, and he's funding fascist social media alternatives that cannot be properly moderated, trapping vulnerable people in unsafe environments and allowing people to say the wrong things.

He does all this with dirty, illegitimate money he earned from selling Twitter to a fascist, destroying our communities. Nobody should have as much money as Dorsey does. Honestly, nobody should have money at all, because money feeds into class mentality, but until we have achieved the post-capitalist money-free society, at *least* nobody should have more money than anyone else.

(This is how they think, more or less. If you're in a bitcoin bubble, you may not realize the intense opposition to bitcoin that exists within the mainstream free and open source community, especially in Europe.)

I see Jack Dorsey was scheduled to give a keynote on FOSDEM 2025 this weekend. It's a very big European conference for the free and open source community.

The plan caused outcries in the community. "In my view", wrote one, "billionaires are not welcome at FOSDEM", warning that Dorsey would promote his "AI/blockchain/bitcoin/climate-disaster-as-a-service grifty business ventures". (https://drewdevault.com/2025/01/16/2025-01-16-No-Billionares-at-FOSDEM-please.html)

A protest was planned. FOSDEM responded by asking them to reach out about planned crowd sizes, so that they could scale crowd control and fire safety measures accordingly. (https://fosdem.org/2025/news/2025-01-16-protests/)

"We will be occupying the stage for the duration of the scheduled time slot in order to prevent the talk from proceeding as planned.", wrote the protest organizer in a later update. (https://drewdevault.com/2025/01/20/2025-01-20-FOSDEM-protest.html)

Finally, last week, FOSDEM appears to have quietly relented, withdrawing Dorsey's keynote from the schedule. "We extend our heartfelt thanks to the staff for reconsidering the decision to platform Dorsey and Block, Inc. at FOSDEM.", wrote the protest organizer. (https://drewdevault.com/2025/01/23/2025-01-23-Transparency-and-governance-FOSDEM.html)

Block remains one of the main sponsors of FOSDEM 2025.

(After doing this research I noticed it's been reported widely already, but this is my post and I'm sticking to it)