Some OGs get it 🤙 View quoted note →

The good and the bad about Bitcoin-BLAKE2b The bad: 1. You lose a large part of the network effect. 2. The price probably takes a massive hit initially — potentially 80–99%. 3. You lose access to the existing ecosystem of software and hardware wallets until they add support (if at all). 4. You won’t be able to run Lightning nodes initially, until someone forks/adapts an existing implementation or builds a new one. 5. Trading it initially might be pretty cumbersome. It all depends on exchanges adopting it. 6. You get to be called a shitcoiner by literal shitcoiners and retarded Bitcoiners. The good: 1. All users who want to participate initially have to run their own nodes — a huge boom for decentralisation. 2. The low price gives you the chance to buy a bunch of coins for non-life-changing amounts or pick up a few mining rigs. 3. The low price gives you the opportunity/confidence to learn, experiment and build your own tools. 4. Someone might build an actually good wallet (basically all current ones except Sparrow are trash). 5. Someone might actually build a non-retarded Lightning node client. 6. We get to build an ecosystem around widely available, general-purpose hardware rather than relying exclusively on the existing third-party infrastructure. 7. We get a changed PoW algorithm and a redesigned block header intended to make mining more efficient, harder to centralize at the hardware level, and easier to evolve in the future. 8. We get rid of the scammers, spammers and suits for at least a few years while we get to build our defences and robust mitigations. 9. If no exchanges list the fork, we get to work on our P2P exchange network, with the added benefit of better privacy and no mandatory KYC. 10. We get to use Bitcoin as intended — as internet money — while we work with laser focus on improving its quality as rivalrous digital commodity and an open monetary system.

“No problem, demurrage and tail emissions will fix this, I promise” - Peter RekTodd. View quoted note →

Save this tweet. We might have to revisit it in 5 years or so. Giacomo Spooko has a diplomatic passport btw. Probably nothing.

In the end, trusted third parties are what killed the Gold standard and trusted third parties are what stands in the way of the Bitcoin standard. It’s not a protocol bug or a bad design decision. It’s a human problem. You cannot solve human problems with code alone. View quoted note →

Couldn’t say it better.

I’ve been fighting the spam war longer than most. I’m genuinely tired and disappointed by the outcome. The healthy thing to do is to just drop it, enjoy life and hope for a miracle to happen and fix bitcoin somehow. Nah, I don’t think I will. 😂 LFG

Removing the only obstacle in their way (BIP-110) has empowered the spooks, scammers and spammers to ship every possible grift and shitcoinery to Bitcoin-SHA256d. They actually can’t wait. Not even a week has passed since then. sTaYiNG iN bITcOiN tO fIX tHinGs 😂 is like putting a lipstick on a pig. View quoted note →

This is why Bitcoin is never going to become a mass MoE. And no, I’m not talking about BitCohen here. That ship already sailed with Saylor (pun intended). Bitcoin only needs to succeed for sovereign individuals willing to go 100% DIY: node, wallet, backup, the whole stack. Nothing that arrives at your house in a box can be assumed to be safe from attacks. Unfortunately, that excludes by default everyone who simply wants to buy their sovereignty and stack & chill. @Control-Plane Capital gave me the signal, this guy helped me process it 👇

Same pattern playing out in BitCohen right now. View quoted note →

Market seems to value the monetary use case above almost every other technical aspect of a protocol. Attached some receipts: 1. Monero vs BitCohen, 1Y chart (during a bear market — no other shitcoin is in the green). Probable culprit: Monero banned Ordinals right away and retained its monetary premium against BitCohen. It used to have mostly exchange demand (MoE); now it’s starting to form something that looks like reserve demand (SoV) too. Technical flaws: possibility of hidden inflation bugs (supply isn’t trivial to verify), large chain bloat due to privacy, a history of 51% attacks and some reorgs — all irrelevant to the market. 2. Gold vs BitCohen — same timeframe. Although when extended back to February 2023 (when spam started), gold breaks out of an 11-year consolidation against BitCohen. Up ever since, except when BIP110 was launched. Flaws: hard to verify, has only reserve demand, can’t be moved globally, isn’t natively divisible — all irrelevant because its monetary use case as a SoV is stable and hard to dilute. 3. Ethereum vs BitCohen — same timeframe. Down because nobody uses it as money, despite sloppy attempts to change the marketing around that (“ultra sound money” nonsense). Technically superior to BitCohen, has all the use cases, complex smart contracts, generates yield, etc. Again, irrelevant to the market. It prices ETH at a discount to BitCohen, although I’m not sure for how long given the recently changed direction of protocol development. My hunch is that ETH/BTC will reverse direction before the bear market is over. My reasoning: BitCohen’s monetary use case will only keep getting worse. P.S. This is NOT an endorsement of Monero, gold or (lol) Ethereum. Just some observations and something I’ll keep looking into over the following months and years. cc: @Control-Plane Capital