I am not required to abide by how you think I should be using Bitcoin or whether I use Bitcoin. I am not required to adhere to your idealism.

I find it very strange that people in #Bitcoin are mad that it failed at its “cypherpunk goal” and the idealistic vision of everyone running a node and running their own keys for it to make a real difference. People got attached to this idea even though it was never even the vision of Satoshi, Hal, and other OG’s in Bitcoin. Probably because social media didn’t polarize them and cloud their ability to think like a rational human being. They were both brilliant people with the ability to see Bitcoin’s nuanced and most realistic future. People got let down by their own expectation and unrealistic views on adoption and now are surprised and angry when Bitcoin gets absorbed into trad-fi. Literally the only *legitimate* way that Bitcoin was ever going to make a meaningful change to the world was exactly this way. It can still make a huge difference and positive impact in the world because of its properties. The value of fiat still erodes. Bitcoin will likely become the standard. Bitcoin was never going to destroy the state, it was retarded to believe that in the first place. But with continued adoption and growth, it inherently limits government’s power over money. Many people out there can’t even figure out how a credit card works, and people believe that most will hold their own keys and run their own node and if they don’t then Bitcoin failed. Idealism is delusional. Here is a quote from #Satoshi Nakamoto himself: “Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.”

Does anyone have *hard proof* that the miners colluded with each other to reject BIP110? Also does anyone know the percentage of nodes that were running BIP110?

People who had idealistic cypherpunk wet dream views about #Bitcoin were inevitably going to be disappointed when they were forced to get a grip on reality. It was never going to be the perfect world where everyone runs a node and holds their own keys. I think if Bitcoin was going to meaningfully change the world, it was always going to be absorbed into our current system. I don’t understand how people are only just seeing this now. Hal Finney saw this with his prediction many years ago, and it’s exactly what’s happening. Idealists live in fantasy land.

If there is a hard fork in #Bitcoin, what are your predictions? Putting my beliefs about BIP110 and Core v Knots aside, I think it’s probably going to gain zero traction. Thoughts?

I’m not pro custodians by any means, but for Bitcoin’s scalability they’re pretty much essential. I wouldn’t store your coins there, but be realistic. Hal Finney’s #Bitcoin prediction seems to become more and more of a reality every day. That man was a visionary.

Soon I will be consolidating a lot of my online accounts, deleting services and accounts I don’t need nor use, and trying to maximize my #privacy by minimizing unnecessary connections to companies that steal my data and disrespect my autonomy. I will need some help. What are the best options for a privacy-respecting personal email? Is Proton still a good option?

If there’s a hard fork in #Bitcoin, what would that new chain offer that #Monero doesn’t? It seems to me that if there are any opportunities to be centralized, whether through exchanges or mining, it WILL eventually happen. This is a genuine question. What would make people use that instead?

If you call anything that isn’t Bitcoin a shitcoin simply because it isn’t Bitcoin, congratulations you’re fucking retarded