Retirement: my former self paying my present self so that I can do whatever I want.

Do I think it's ok to sell BTC from time to time? Of course. But when someone says "never sell" that's different. And it doesn't matter that they only sold some tiny percentage. In the same way that it doesn't matter that a person kept their marriage vows for all but 2 hours of their marriage. The vow / promise makes a huge difference in the behavior.

The tomb was empty! Thank you, Jesus!

Testing

I am running BIP110. And you made an argument against it that made me reconsider. The argument was that BIP110 changes Bitcoin because it allows a minority to force their opinion on the majority. After thinking about it, I do not come to the same conclusion. I don’t think that BIP110 changes anything with respect to this risk. And opposing BIP110 doesn't mitigate that risk. This is a feature of Nakamoto consensus that exists today and will continue to exist regardless of which way BIP110 is resolved. If this risk didn’t already exist today, BIP110 couldn’t leverage it. There are two ways (that I’m aware of) to reject BIP110: 1. Almost all miners refuse to mine BIP110 blocks 2. Those opposing BIP110 exercise a URSF: user rejected soft fork. This effectively splits the chain. If BIP110 is rejected, those will remain the only ways to reject a different minority driven soft fork in Bitcoin. Heck if BIP110 becomes the only type of blocks that miners mine, those will also remain the only ways to reject a different minority driven soft fork in Bitcoin. So opposing BIP110 doesn't mitigate the risk that a minority can control the direction in Bitcoin. That will continue to exist regardless of which side wins. So I’m going to continue to run BIP110 because I think it does mitigate some significant risks for Bitcoin. But I’m willing to have my mind changed. BTW Intransigent minorities are a feature of complex systems not just Bitcoin. Taleb wrote about them in his book Skin in the Game. Here's the relevant chapter discussing it: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://fountain.fm/episode/SrnH7P2j6W6Nf04kFnFb View quoted note →

Merry Christmas!!! 🎄🎄🎄

As a pilot, there are some outcomes that are so catastrophic that we build in lots and lots of mitigations so that we don’t EVER encounter them. An example is fuel. Running out of fuel increases the likelihood of a crash to nearly 100%. Meanwhile the actual incidence of fuel related crashes in commercial aviation is very close to 0. The fact that the incidence is close to 0 doesn’t mean we can safely remove fuel reserve requirements, or proper fuel planning processes. This is how I see the SPAM debate. There are some outcomes (e.g. illegal data in the chain) that are so bad that, even if we haven’t seen it yet, we have to build as many mitigations as possible. If the US government can prosecute the samourai developers despite Section 230, it’s hard to imagine that node operators that knowingly host illegal data would also be immune from prosecution. So we have to build in multiple layers of mitigation to prevent that catastrophe. With Core deciding to open up OP_RETURN to 100k bytes, they’ve taken away one of those mitigations. For me personally, best case scenario: OP_RETURN goes back to 83 bytes and the inscriptions bug gets fixed. Barring that, what is the next best mitigation in order to prevent the catastrophic result of illegal data on the chain? Certainly a soft fork is a far worse option. But it might be the next best option. Still I’d much rather that core come to their senses. If not, that more people run knots - or some other bitcoins that allows for filtering OP_RETURN. Only after both of those fail, would I like to see a soft fork. Because we can’t tolerate the catastrophic result of illegal data on chain.