If your response to adversity and situations you don't like doesn't start with "how did I contribute to this", you will not grow and learn. It doesn't matter if it's "not your fault", asking whose at fault is the wrong question. You are a person, not a court. First ask yourself how you found yourself in this situation, how your actions contributed to it, if at all, and how you can avoid it in the future. After you've done all that, assign all the blame you want. Yes, this is for everything, the more extreme the situation the more important it is to ask that question so you can avoid it. Maybe the answer is there's nothing you could have done to avoid it. That's fine. But give yourself the opportunity to be honest and grow by asking it.

We need to enforce #nonerdmondays with greater enthusiasm View quoted note →

Simplex had to use a shitcoin for their decentralized governance/fundraising because of Bitcoins limited program ability. Drivechains would have prevented them and most of the entire altcoin ecosystem from leaving BTC. BTC could have underpinned it all. Drivechains.info View quoted note →

If you are an #amethyst user and not getting notifications in your notification area and wondering why, check what the top of the feed says. If it says follows, it only shows you notifications from people you follow. Set to global to see the rest. 1 year in, I finally discovered this (in retrospect) very obvious setting.

The more I think about all the drama around bip110, the more I realize how much drivechains would have prevented it all. And the block size wars. Bitcoin was meant to be forkable so people could experiment with new ideas, but once it grew that became impossible. Convincing half the network and core to try new ideas is nearly impossible, even if those ideas are widely agreeable. It leads to inevitable holy wars. Drivechains solve this. And L1 scalability. It allows people to make side chains to try out new ideas while making sure it's still BTC and miners still get paid. Vitalik left BTC because there was no way to get smart contracts into core. Bcashers left because they wanted bigger blocks, BIP 110ers left because they wanted stricter rules. The brain drain is constant. With drivechains, altcoins and all the market value created/absorbrd could have been Bitcoin side chains, paying miners to keep the whole of BTC alive at the same time. Drivechains enable trying new things without the entire network having to agree at once. That's valuable and it's way more scalable than lightning.

Brutal but true. Bitcoin really needs to have the drivechain discussion. Or only banks will be able to afford an on-chain utxo, if it becomes the globally dominant currency at all. Because banks don't give AF if it's perfectly trust less, decentralized, and free. View quoted note →

There isn't enough UTXO space for everyone in America to have a lightning channel, let alone the world. Channel factories help but nowhere near as much as is needed. What are the proposals that actually promise to scale L1? Because with current tech, the only people who will be able to access L1 after global adoption will be banks. Drivechains are the best proposal I've seen so far that doesn't result in increased centralization. What other options are there? #bitcoin #asknostr