lol your "hoping he sees the light"
get over yourself
No.
I provided a informational video rather then type a bunch of shit out.
Quite different than your use of a satoshi quote to make outright dismissal without any debate sound cool
Satoshi said it dude. You're just quoting it out of acute self-righteoussness and appeal to authority.
And the follow up with a suoer defensive "ackqually I do real cypherpunk shit"
Now.
More Michael Saylor normie hodlers means more ass kissing to tradfi and seeking approval from the legacy system.
The legacy system WILL NOT ACCEPT bitcoin as censorship' resistant.
For example
Heres Andreas on why bitcoin ETFs are a bad idea. He says a lot in a few minutes, as always.
I'm all for new users and increased purchasing power. But NOT institutions aligned with tradfi or custodians.
You new bitcoiners who think any and all raw adoption is a net benefit do NOT recognize ro downplay the danger of regulatory capture of the network. Which is already happening.
Privacy is not a crime.
FREE SAMOURAI 🌀
https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/first-they-came-for-samourai
this was possibly the best WBD.
lightyears ahead of any other pod on this topic too. except maybe Max/UM.
look friends
NGU == censorship resistance
its so simple. how could anyone not understand this simple formula...
no I cant explain it to you 😂
tell me you read "the bitcoin standard" and stopped there without telling me...
you're just repeating stuff you've read online.
there is no direct corollation between NGU and censorship resistance.
one metric is a fiat measurement of buying power. largely driven by speculative investment by degens.
the other metric is a complex matrix of technical and social factors. many of those factors are *against* censorship resistance when number goes up.
Sorry
nuanced argument on social media.
won't happen again.
I mean
Saylor straight up says in the interview that there's no way adoption will happen if Bitcoin pursues strong privacy.
You think power structures will allow it to happen AFTER they are heavily invested?
We could hardly get Segwit. You think you're going to get Blackrock consensus on a hard fork to allow full chain membership proofs?
Like gold can't be a SoV?
because of supply inflation?
Moneros supply increases at a lower rate than golds.
Might want to rethink this champ.
I'll take "Things that will never happen" for $400 Alex.
+1
NGU "Bitcoiners" only want increased purchasing power and will sell out bitcoins censorship resistance to get it.
they are misguided idiots.
if you clean the floor the whole room just looks cleaner
this is some bullshit right here lol
glowie says what?
"hello fellow kids. Proton is surely a CIA honeypot amirite? haha."
you literally just said that using a coinjoin service that's been unwound (JM is NOT a zerolink implementation) and swapping between THREE different networks
is a viable solution to privacy.
get a grip.
ring signature's are the weakest part of moneros privacy.
sends are signed with a "ring" of 16 signatures. one is the real spend, the other 15 are decoys.
obviously it is less than great to publish the real spend on chain, even if there is ZERO way anyone can tell which one it is.
The Full Chain Membership Proofs (FCMP) monero ia moving towards is a more complicated signature
but instead of one of 16, it would be one of *all the outputs that exist*
A big jump in privacy.
The Zcash shielded pool works in a similar way. Ring sigs are what Zcasher fud when they dis monero.
Ring sigs are ok and have worked pretty well.
But FCMP is the holy grail for sender privacy.
basically a rounding error that effects almost nobody.
you audit the gettxsetoutinfo code yourself?
or do you TRUST the comminity to do it for you?
and why would you then refuse to trust other code (that you probably haven't audited either) that guarantees supply on monero?
it would be a hard fork and nobody will agree with that.
also the monero communitt wants to get rid of ring signatures and instead of a ring of 16 signing,
it would be a proof that the spend exists, but it could be ANY output on the chain.
liquid doesn't hide the sender or receiver.
also the monero supply is audited with every block. you just can't sum uo the amounts yourself.
not that anyone actually ever does this on bitcoin anyway.
also this method of achieving privacy is NOT recommended as it is very vulnerable to *timing attacks.*
every year some hacker or dnm admin gets popped becasue they thought they could just flip into xmr and back out and nobody would knowsl.
it is far far better to just keep a stack of xmr you use for transacting and periodically top it up.