While we cannot make this decision on behalf of a theoretical future Bitcoin community, I think burning vulnerable bitcoin is inevitable. First of all, I think it’s the right decision. In a world where a CRQC (cryptographically relevant quantum computer) is on the short-term horizon, these coins will not remain with their original owners. No amount of hopium will solve that. Instead your options are only (a) freeze or (b) let some CRQC owner eventually steal them. I definitely prefer (a). Luckily, it doesn’t have to be a lot of coins - any addresses which were created from a standard seed phrase + HD derivation can be recovered with a QC-safe ZK proof. It’s only the very very old coins (or more esoteric wallets) that would be frozen. Finally, it’s worth pointing out that I think this is inevitable. In a theoretical future where a CRQC is on the horizon, both forks will exist. The market will ultimately decide which bitcoin they value more - one with an extra million coins of supply as the CRQC owners steal lost coins or the one without. I cannot imagine the market preferring the former. View quoted note →

It’s quite a shame where Bluesky ended up. Having infrastructure be neutral was a core tenant of the way it was originally pitched, and is why the whole “labeler for moderation” thing was built at all. They’ve ended up rebuilding Mastadon with the insane cross-instance blocking wars. View quoted note →

Idiocracy, but for people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

I think most Bitcoiners haven’t fully grokked how much work Gloria (and Greg Sanders and others) did to get package relay and zero-fee anchors and TRUC over the line and how absolutely critical this work is to Lightning, Ark, Spark, and nearly everything bitcoiners are going to be using over the next few years.

Bitcoin is going to zero if this fork activates. A few devs deciding it’s okay to seize people’s money just because they use the same feature as some spammers use isn’t even remotely bitcoin. View quoted note →

TIL in the US banks often share every transaction you make with third party credit reporting services (not the big three, ones dedicated to checking/savings account credit risk). You can view the report under the FCRA, but anyone can access your report (as long as they promise it’s to “provide services to you”).

Why on earth would you use or promote a wallet that lies to its users about how their funds are stored? View quoted note →

Please don’t run 28 over some overblown drama. At least run 29 (or if you’re running Knots please tweak the default configuration to not block Lightning). View quoted note →

It’s always good to be conservative around upgrades (as long as you’re still applying bugfix releases that fix important issues like 29.1). But please, whether you run Core or Knots, at least run 29 and if you’re running knots enable 0-fee transaction relay so you don’t block new 0FC lightning transactions. View quoted note →

After more than a decade, BIP 21 has finally been replaced. Existing wallets shouldn't need to change, but this is a great opportunity to check that you pass all the test cases! Also, if you support lightning check that you support paying to QR codes and URIs of the form bitcoin:?lightning=bolt11 (many do not) and bitcoin:?lno=bolt12offer (most do).

GitHub

bips/bip-0321.mediawiki at master · bitcoin/bips

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Contribute to bitcoin/bips development by creating an account on GitHub.

Sadly people nearly universally end up with an information diet of “left evil we must destroy them to save our country” or “right evil we must destroy them to save our country” these days. Means political violence is trending up and people not often than not can’t see past their own shoes. Not sure what to do about it, either, it’s just sad. View quoted note →

It’s so annoying having to remove emdashes from text I write to avoid people thinking I just had an LLM do it.