Oh my gosh how i hate this stupid narrative of "bitcoin being scarce". This is the worst phrasing that could be used. Money can never be scarce in the real sense of scarcity. Money supply can be absolutely limited, but whether some people horde it away or not, prices on the market will still adapt so even a very small amount of bitcoin is totally enough to run the economy and if ppl stop hoarding then prices will temporarily spike but then again stabelize. This is different from goods like food or housing or any other goods and services. People need to survive and nothing adapts here, so there can actually be real scarcity. Bitcoin is the money of abundance mindset - the fear of your buying power disapearing from your hands a thing of the past. This stupid "scarcity narrative" scares people away for no reason, because its just creates a big misunderstanding.

The enemy of the people is complications. The enemy works towards unnecessary complications - instead of simplifying rules, removing lines of code, removing outdated laws, simplifying the stack, streamlining workflows, you name it, they pile on wherever they can - its more convenient, its easier in the short term, and so on... its tempting. why do complications do that? ...because it makes things unmanageable for anyone else other than large organisations with the need to centrally manage and coordinate - that central position is where the complication leaderd position themselves to direct others in the name of managing "complications" - a powerful position where everyone is divided while the chief complicators are free to take for themselves - after all they do the important job of keeping the complications working whoch would fall apart without them and that wpuld make so many suffer... Wherever they go, this is their modus operandi.

BIP-110: The Temporary Softfork A deep-dive game theory analysis and code audit

melvin.me

BIP-110: Game Theory & Code Audit

A deep-dive game theory analysis and code audit of Bitcoin

Tone Vays BIP-110 Mecanic Reaction Video Worth watching if you saw Tone Vays talk. Especially around minute 8 to ponder whether claimed process transparency does actually exist as claimed by Vays. For many people who never worked in open source it might seem very transparent, but if you did have serious open source experience you definitely notice the stark difference between these claims and reality. In addition a core argument is that knots would mean less devs would work on bitcoin now, thus more centralized, but bitcoin works by nodes running software and that is and stays decentralized - and in addition more implementations means the devs of one implementation plus the devs of another one as well -it means additional developers and more redundancy and options - just like people benefit from multiple brower implementations instead of having just one web browser produced by one team. Surprising Tone's talk makes so little sense - he claims he is sad about what is happening in core and v30, but he is against the decentralized governance process of people posting BIPs and coding open source to give node runners option and let the network decide in a decentralized fashion - very strange, but let me know what you think by posting your own notes here on nostr. I think many people are very happy to have people like @Bitcoin Mechanic with a more public profile to not let certain narratives go unchallenged and spell out what the many of us think. And all the way to the very end, Vays not once mentions what he exactly think is problematic that is in BIP110 ...most have been waiting for him mention it at some point, but it actually seems to be purely a hit piece - something i for sure didnt expect after following is imho valuable interview series over the last month that he did together with @jimmysong

The best articles debunking bitcoin FUD

End The FUD

Energy

The best articles debunking Bitcoin FUD

The Secret History of Satoshi Dice Arguments made in 2025 are 2013 all over again.

Zooming into the US Dollar System

Absolutely. This needs to become an important discussion topic to educate more people in the bitcoin community who might not yet understand this. This will help us as a bitcoin community at large to resolve differences and avoid division

Interesting to learn, that **Bitcoin Core** is maintained by employees. The marketing bitcoin core was "decentralized" because it has so many contributors is a farce. There is no formal process, but instead a handful of existing maintainers pull in/up new contributors instead of the other way around. And of course, everyone is incentivized to stay on the payroll - ultimately who pays decides. https://www.youtube.com/live/3BFgoQawG7Q?t=8188s Thanks @jimmysong for shedding light on this. In fact - bitcoin developers can always ask for donations, but the point is - if you have a lot of bitcoin as a developer, you have stake in the game and helping to make bitcoin successful pays you. True decentralization means - if we already have employees implementing, then at least lets have them paid by a diverse set of companies and not all on the same group that keeps everyone on payroll. Thats really bad. I see knots vs. core as a huge improvement to decentralization and we should have even more implementations.

The gist of why knots and why BIP 444 to start making it a habit to always fight spam and fight it early, because publishing spam is a cost to spammers and to deny them their (scam) business model, mean they will sit on their costs instead of making profits from it. But if spam will cause net losses for spammers, they will not even try to spam in the first place and thus the bitcoin chain gets rid of spam, which is great. Let's all join this "whack a mole" game to proof to scammers trying to spam means making losses to stop them from even trying in the future.

Had a great time at Portland Bitdevs meetup 🙂 #portland #bitdevs #meetup The zines they shared are great and made by @satsie 🇹🇭 🇱🇹