What's the topic of your interview, is it related to optimal human nutrition?

Using bitocin as free data storage doesn’t scale. Satoshi wrote extensively on this. Such ignorance. Keep the base layer free and lean. We don’t need any other use cases other than money or bitcoins security will be at risk… it already is 70% non monetary data.

If all that is inscribed is value…. That which is built on the timechain…. That is most aligned with the value it hold…. Those additional layers or second, third, fourth…. order effects. Those are what society uses and those are what impact us the most or have the most noticeable impact on our systems/institutions we use for measuring everything else we hold dear in society…. All that…. Does not need to be recorded on the timechain…. The value embedded there is how society will keep score

lol explain to me how a monkey jpeg performing an disgusting act being inscribed onto the chain has value? Cause that’s what happened. That’s what Core allowed to be inscribed. Over and over again. 70% of blocks are now non monetary. Or what about dog$ coin? A meme coin built on Bitcoin, inscribed into the ledger to scam people. It provides zero value. It’s not money. And it’s a security risk to the network. What you just posted is a bunch of nonsense. Run a node and verify for yourself what is actually happening. Cause prentending everything inscribed into BTC is value is complete ignorance and extremely foolish. That’s not how decentralization works. The nodes run the network and decide what bitcoin is. And it’s money. Not jpegs. Not scam tokens. Not Data storage.

I love the Janus aspect that Bitcoin facilitates. Time, consciousness, power curve. Chapeau to everyone who is exploring this 🎓

How many jpegs of monkeys doing whatever do you think people will pay for when block space becomes more and more expensive? Bitcoin is going to do what it is going to do. I run a node

You won’t be able to run a node for long with that attitude… if you like perpetuating scams and are okay with storing csam for free on your node, I really don’t have time to convince how fucking stupid you are.

Nodes don’t get paid for storage of the data dumbass… Im not talking about fees, you deliberately are misinterpreting what I mean by free data storage. Fees just prevent minor attacks and go to miners. Csam, institutional attacks, and scams on BTC are essentially free at the expense of the node. If you really can’t understand how this is a security risk Im just gonna block you cause I don’t have time to explain this to you over and over again. These fees haven’t priced out large op returns and we are at the highest level of non monetary data on chain. So that is evidence it doesn’t solve the problem. the incentive to keep bitcoin mostly non monetary is worth the price for bad actors. It’s a Landauer attack on the nodes. This isn’t about segwitt or quantum. It’s about fundamentally what bitcoin is… Is it data storage… or a peer to peer cash system? It cannot be both.

I don’t think I have the attitude here in this conversation…you have a lot to say and I get it and I appreciate you for sharing it with me. I would humbly suggest that we all have to remember…. We have been programmed to believe that which we believe….and hold as our strongest ideals… Maybe….we….should…. Believe instead that which is most aligned with the universal truths. Bitcoin now gives us this ability….we can record for eternity the ideals and values that we wish….however only those ideals/beliefs/systems/institutions that most closely align with universal truths will propagate into the future as a result of the value they provide to society. These values are certain to change over time.

Okay so you are just going to remain ignorant and avoid the issue altogether… interesting. Keep pretending that you are standing up for universal truth! As for me and my node, we will be protecting the chain from illicit material, and fighting to make it sound money.

dont even waste your time with these freaks.... they are doomed to smell their own intellectual farts right unto the Fire.

Ya just muted them lol

🎯

Speaking of Satoshi ...

Also this was said by Hunter Beast who now supports BIP 110 too: "I'm generally supportive of the changes in this BIP. Aside from minor nitpicks in language, the 34 byte scriptPubKey restriction I think will prove to be quite valuable in addressing the larger concern of DoS blocks / poison blocks that impose such high computational costs on nodes that a single block would take 30 minutes to verify on decent hardware instead of taking about a second. This is an even larger threat to Bitcoin than either CSAM or quantum, because I've read that CSAM has already been present on Bitcoin for a very long time, and quantum computers aren't anywhere near good enough to be a threat, and may never be, whereas DoS blocks could be introduced by miners who take direct submissions without sufficient checks at any time."

Nothing is perfect in the Universe as you know, in reality. We can't have perpetuum mobile due to friction. But we still can have systems that operate with 99.99% efficiency.

Good take. I think we could start with BIP-110 since a lot of people like @Kyma Fi and @FreedomMoneyIsFuture rooting for anti-spam and anti-csam. I’m pretty sure BIP-110 supporters (myself included) will support anti-discount movement. We should use next BIP-110 wisely to further strengthen Bitcoin.

Of course I will support anti-discount movement 👍

To be fair to core supporters… they are hopefully also anti- csam. The problem is that their client is NOT.

It sounds like you are suggesting that someone gets to define what “illicit material” is? This is the core of the discussion isn’t….why do you or I get to decide what that is? It is a slippery slope when someone else gets to start making these decisions for those of us that are sovereign??? Or are we not sovereign? Do we not get to align ourselves with that which we believe is “truth?” I am not saying that what you define as CSAM should be allowed to be propagated into the future on the timechain-rather I am saying that the beauty of the timechain is that anyone who believes anything of value should be recorded on this immutable ledger should be allowed to record that which they want - the market of the future will decide if it retains that value over time. I think there is a distinction there - I could be wrong - I could be right - but it isn’t about that if “sound money” or “immutable communication of value” is what Bitcoin truly represents…???

Bitcoin being Freedom Money should be another common ground and I am sure we have many. for example Bitcoin is THE Global Most Secure Decentralized Unconfiscatable Peer-to-Peer Scarce Hard Sovereign Permissionless Freedom Money, The Greatest Store of Value and The Strongest Hope for Humanity.

@Jack K I’m testing different ideas for post BIP-110. Looking what is best discussion start What better resonates with you and physics? * 1MB block should be hard constraint, same as 21M * Abolish discounts and return to pre SegWit * review Bitcoin through thermodynamic lens I know you are starting with 3rd point as most grounded in physics. I wonder what is best message for everyone else. I assume “no discounts” is a good one building on top of BIP-110. 1MB is what Satoshi said, maybe it’s even stronger message so that we don’t why we are here in a first place.

Please note that the more changes the harder it will be to agree on them. For example I will support removing the discount because the discoint is abuse by spam. But I don't think we should change the blocksize any more. It is limited to max 4MB but its dynamic. I am not against for it to be filled to the brim with monetary transactions. And that gives bigger throughput for monetary use. I think in the future when Bitcoin starts being used more and more that will be very helpful. At the moment blocks being half empty is absolutely fine. The block reward is still enough for miners. In fact is was estimated that the spam they mine brings them only 0.7% of their revenue. Fuck spam.

So are you *for* this conservatism Jack? Would you like to go back to pre segwit?

I guess the real hard pill to swallow is that everyone's perception that we won the blocksize war is actually false. The same way that these United States didn't survive the Civil War, they became THE United States.

While I agree about clear messaging to find social consensus, really this strikes at the root of the problem versus treating symptoms.

It’s incredibly arrogant that you would rather revert bitcoin to a previous state without lightning than admit you are wrong about core. This is not politics. This is simply a defense of Bitcoin as a decentralized monetary system. There is no legitimate hard fork being proposed. It’s nothing like the block wars. Core has zero counterpoints, and there is no URSF. RDTS, is a temporary soft fork with a fast growing base of nodes (more than BIP 148 had at its activation), mined blocks and an implementation that doesn’t effect Bitcoin as money. What isn’t legitimate is CORE. Nothing they did in the last two years that was helpful to Bitcoin… it’s pure malware, serving only the interests of getting more funding, no matter the source and by any means necessary: Core deleted wallets. They exposed IP. They received funding from Epstien through MIT media lab and Adam back went to the island… then they hired incompetent devs, who ignorantly made these radical changes to Bitcoin like op return blow out and flooded the chain with a stablecoin scam, runes, ordinals and even memecoins- not just “spam”. This wasn’t enough for them. After that they sought to protect their dying reputation and funding with absolute lies concerning the alternative client. Claiming RDTS was contentious and irresponsible. They claimed it did things it didn’t, because the truth would lose their credibility as a dominant client. The truth is Core is contentious and harmful to the network, not knots. Core is captured by corporations and are an enemy to Bitcoin. Full stop. Anyone defending them at this point is either ignorant or a fraud. What’s even worse is your proposal to avoid this issue by going back to pre segwitt. A pre segwitt BTC would disable lightning (bip110 preserves this). Lighting was the mechanism that made bitcoin a more scalable medium of exchange and what made Bitcoin one of the fastest payment systems on earth. Hell, it’s the reason this app exists. BIP 110 doesn’t change this… your proposal does, for no other reason than to avoid the possibility that Core is comprised… You are so terrified of what the Core supporters think, and wishing to remain in their inner group, that you have to run logical circles to defend alternatives. It’s making you look like a fool, when you have actually really great ideas outside of this issue. I suggest you take other look at RDTS and what Core is really doing then ask yourself: Is bitcoin decentralized money? Or should it be a data storage system controlled by a bunch of centralized node servers? … because that’s where we are headed without RDTS.

We did win. We got lighting. You use it on this app. BCH has to have a bot farm to con people into using BCH nostr…. On BTC nostr protocols lol

I don't know if you realize that you can still have lightning without having a 4MBs of block weight space. And to carry the analogy further, you are kind of making my point. In the Civil War, THE United States abolished slavery, (got lightning) but at the cost of a federated union.(a fixed bit correct block limit.) The thing we are talking about is more nuanced than "Got Lightning".

You are ascribing a lot of unstated motives here.

My point is BTC solved the issues of scaling with consensus and innovation… BCH failed to solve it with narrative and trusting a few influencers. The civil war was BCH vs BSV lol. Bitcoin doesn’t have “wars”. It moves based on whatever is agreed on by the nodes. You are seeing debates in the community as how Bitcoin functions… that’s not how actual protocol consensus is reached. It’s just noise.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but you are definitely not a second order thinker. No one is arguing what you're straw manning here. And a majority of the people in this thread are highly technical. I'm not saying that BTC didn't "win" over BCH. I am saying the second order effects of winning caused us to lose in the long term, creating unintended consequences that have knock-on effects that I'm not sure that we can escape from. No one here is talking about getting rid of lightning. No one thinks that there was a literal war where guns were shot.

“I guess the real hard pill to swallow is that everyone's perception that we won the blocksize war is actually false.” Which is it then? You think bitcoin is dead or you going to take back your ridiculous analogy?

The way you think is utterly confounding to me. If you kill your enemy in war, but you're forever bound to a wheelchair afterward, would you say you won the war? Technically, yes. But the cost is so much, one might say, you lost something more valuable. Also, by cutting off the second paragraph of my note, you betray how you are trying to misconstrue what I've said. In the U.S. Civil War, there used to be a confederation of states that had their own rights. When half of those states had a war with the other half, the result was the confederation of states no longer existed. It was a solidified union that was one entity instead of a bunch of states federated together. together. The Federation is what gave these United States their identity and differentiation from the rest of the world, which is why they were so exceptional. While the state still existed after the war, they were never the same. This is my analogy for the blocksize war in Bitcoin. You may choose not to believe that or think somehow Bitcoin is in a better state than it was prior to the SegWit activation. That's your prerogative. I think that BIP110 treats the symptoms of the problem and not the root cause. In my estimation, Bitcoin needs three separate things: 1. A defined specification for consensus. 2. A modular code base to allow different relay policies, and gossip networks, while still adhering to the same consensus spec. 3. The removal of the witness discount and possibly a refactoring of the weight unit system of blocksize measurement.

💯

Good point, no more discounts

No one talks about reverting lightning, just remove witness discount, it’s fiat

Okay sure… it wouldn’t remove lightning but it would kill nostr because it would make it incredibly expensive to send zaps. lol

It won’t change any of this. It’s independent of lightning protocol. What is your logic on zaps being expensive?

SegWit data is far from arbitrary; it is foundational to the Lightning Network’s ability to facilitate fast, low-cost, off-chain transactions. And the 1MB block limit was to prevent spam attacks early on in the network development. It wasn’t a hard cap like the supply. That makes no sense to sacrifice the mechanism which allows it to be a medium of exchange for no reason at all. Segwitt bits don’t cause the chain bloat and aren’t arbitrary. Unless you think sending zaps, or making payments on lighting is arbitrary lol

There’s a list of downstream effects of removing the Segwitt discount. It causes more harm to BTC as money and solves nothing…

We've already described what it solves and the harm is actually not that large at all. It's paying for the block space that you're using. I mean, if we're just going to misrepresent each other's positions, I'll just say that you love spam because you want it at a discount. And no matter how you reply, I'll just repeat that as if you haven't said anything.

The change in block size or “velocity of information” on Bitcoin is done through node consensus… that’s what makes it decentralized and secure. That’s literally what eliminates a need for a third party. By invoking a 'God' or an abstract, pre-ordained authority to define these constants, you are actually arguing for a the worst form of centralization in physics and bitcoin simultaneously. You're treating the universe like a centralized server where the laws are 'defined' by an admin. That isn't how physics works, and it certainly isn't how Bitcoin works. We don't need a cosmic 'God' to define constants, just as we don't need a central bank to define value. Both are emergent, bottom-up phenomena. If you believe the universe requires a Lawgiver, you are admitting that you prefer a centralized architecture for reality.

@Efrat Fenigson when would we see the interview released?

I’m sorry I still have a few other ones to release first… soon.