I would like to answer this question. The Bitcoin community stubbornly says "no" even when faced with painful consequences. Only dire consequences tend to get action, because the downside of leaving behind people who say no approaches an acceptable threshold. So what if we no longer have a block subsidy, and we got so good at layer 2s that no one is paying for on-chain security? Well, attackers could undo open channels and prevent the latest channel state and justice transactions from getting mined (hypothetically) Then, the consequences of leaving behind people who refuse a change mean nothing in comparison to the consequences of doing nothing. It is only when we're in this situation that inconvenient solutions will be able to activate on mainchain Bitcoin. Bonus take: I think the ideal solution is to have multi-block fees for transactions so that you're paying for your block and the security to keep that block in the most proof of work chain. I think this will be convenient in a multi-party channel system (even more so in a vutxo/lightning hybrid system) because so long as we recognize a difference between operators and users, users pay routing fees, which operators use to pay for the security of the system + profit. View quoted note →

Bukele is the Bitcoin President. The US elected a Shitcoin President View quoted note →

"If you attempt to mass-onboard 'tech normies' too early, they will force you back into the system they left because they can't hold the abstraction in their head, while it is being built. They just want what they're used to because 'it just works'." This is the danger of "adoption" for adoption's sake rather than adoption with an end goal in mind.

Eternal September - Wikipedia

View quoted note →

noView quoted note →

Ye. View quoted note →

In response to people celebrating Christmas for two months, I'm celebrating new years until the end of February. Happy new years.

Tell me you hate Bitcoin, but love the FIAT it can get for you, without saying that directly. I could post an example, but instead of making something you can argue with, I'll let you imagine what that would look like to see if you can figure it out for yourself.

Imma be real with you all. This is my red line. If custodians become normalized because of a technical failing, and the Bitcoin culture continues to reject anything that might fix it (good technical reasons to reject are fine, but not nontechnical "just use a custodian" reasons) These are the conditions under which I would hard fork. but I'm patient though but fuck you if this is your vision of the future.

Stacker News

Federated VS Decentralized (Don't Call it Decentralized) Deus Lo Vult Edition \ stacker news ~bitcoin

"Perhaps one of the most fascinating abilities of the mammalian brain, is that it can generate flexible behavior that is generalized across context...

View quoted note →

True View quoted note →