Hodling does not imply that one should refrain from using bitcoin as a means of payment. Instead, it means not to sell it in order to have more fiat aka realizing some gains. If you do not use the lightning network for payments, you miss out on benefits such as lower fees, reduced surveillance, and uncensorable transactions. It is really unfortunate that, even in 2025, some keynote speakers still claim that Bitcoin payments are unimportant.

Everybody pays the fees they deserve. Instead of complaining about high fees using the Twint payment app the "swiss retail federation" could promote payments with lightning. https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/anzeige-gegen-twint-das-muesse-sie-wissen-229818778320

Open source projects as for instance gnome, debian, f-droid etc. should maintain strict neutrality on topics unrelated to their core mission, rather than seeking favor with unrelated movements. This approach would help to ensure that they do not alienate supporters who may disagree with these unrelated issues.

"The Bitcoin Enlightenment" by Ricardo Salinas, @Pascal Hügli and Daniel Jungen delves into some aspects of monetary history that are not yet broadly covered in other Bitcoin focused books, such as the founding of the Bank of England and the inflation in Mexico. It also addresses recent developments, including the growing influence of Bitcoin on political events, and offers some forecasts where the journey may go in the future.

In the long run the concept of bailing out the hashers by spam is not sustainable. The trend is rather one hodler=one bitaxe.

According to my full node the share of Knots is 12%.

Sometimes I have the feeling that AI is like a child. If it does not know the answer it just makes something up.

Hodling is the exit from the fiat imposed treadmill of permanently trading and investing.

What is a safe place to donate some sats to bitcoin development without supporting the spam supporters? #askNostr

Because of the fixed supply of Bitcoin we can not fix the scales at a convenient level. Sooner or later a sat will be worth more than a cent. What will you do then? Redefine again? Therefore redefining Bitcoin as Satoshi is a futile endeavor.

At @LN⚡️VPN - eSIM & VPN & Phone Numbers they really give very good and quick support within minutes including a refund through lightning for a technical glitch. I can really recommend their services.

Increasing the OP_RETURN limit is besides cooperate interest a desperate attempt to get off the hook quickly for having ignored the problems with the UTXO set for too long. The arsonists however will do what is in their nature and that is trying to burn down the system. They will not play in a "safe environment" that is provided for them. Trying to be nice to arsonists is just naive and will lead to your own demise. Literature recommendations: The Arsonists by Max Frisch, Getting Libertarianism Right by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Don't be fooled in thinking the whole discussion is about technical details as for instance how the term database has to be defined (UTXO set vs. blockchain) etc. It’s about control again as it was in the blocksize war eight years ago. Some people want to dictate how bitcoin should evolve and their technics are perfidious by intentionally removing elements in the code that could be used by disagreeing folks. The saddest thing about this is that some previous freedom fighters are now cooperatized and are helping to gaslight and confuse bitcoiners.

@Jeff Booth is right that Bitcoin only wins if it stays decentralized. The current fatal pull request when merged will probably not kill Bitcoin, but it sets a bad precedence. It represents a centralized decision taking that takes away configurability from sovereign node runners. Unfortunately many of the Bitcoin educators are involved in the gaslighting of the community as well. So the question is: How many of such blows will Bitcoin survive?

Has @Stephan Livera been corrupted by some (hidden) interest conflict as well? This is certainly not a Austrian argument

X (formerly Twitter)

Stephan Livera (@stephanlivera) on X

Picture a city with a strict limit on how much graffiti can be painted on a designated public art wall. Because the space is so restricted, some ar...

Who owns the houses being distorted? That's communist ideology. The house owners are free to use spam filters if they like to do so to prevent their houses to be distorted would be the correct analogy.

This liberal point that there is no such thing as a spam transaction has already been made in the early days by Andreas Antonopoulos. Well, he is not really active here anymore. Maybe real maxis have more endurance than talking heads.

Some Bitcoin core developer are attempting to negotiate with terrorists thinking they are somehow the representatives of the Bitcoin community. Well, it does not work that way.

There are alternative scenarios out there to the fee pressure (funded by spam) that must increase in order to finance big miners. A gold holder is responsible for the safekeeping himself. Therefore it is in the interest of Bitcoin hodlers to run their mining in the future as well and take responsibility for safekeeping of the time chain. With Bitaxe, DATUM etc. the community is slowly shifting towards that. Big miners listed on the stock exchange sounds quite fiat to me. This may be just an intermediate thing that may disappear again.

"The Big Print" by @Lawrence Lepard is enriched with amusing anecdotes and expressive charts. Definitely a nice reading.