An_OG 🔑⚡🇺🇸

So taxing expensive Bitcoin (or large, idle BTC holdings used purely as a store of value without active on-chain or economic activity) is actually a very good tax, and as much as I loathe certain policymakers, this framing isn't a bad idea in a constrained environment.The logic is this: HODLing massive stacks of BTC and not using them (no spending, no lending, no Lightning activity, no contribution to the ecosystem) imposes externalities on the rest of the Bitcoin economy: First, it eats up the effective "monetary premium" and liquidity in a fixed-supply asset like Bitcoin (21 million cap). There’s only so much BTC to go around. Idle whale holdings consume scarcity without circulating it to people who would actually deploy it in transactions, DeFi, payments, or real-world adoption. Of course, the ideal solution is to remove artificial barriers to Bitcoin use — end capital gains taxes on BTC transactions, ease regulatory hurdles for Lightning and self-custody, encourage merchant adoption, and make sound money policies that favor velocity over pure speculation. But demand for BTC as money is always going to face friction in a fiat-dominated world, and you want that scarce supply to go to people who are actually using it as currency, not just parking it. Second and more importantly, large idle BTC holdings impose a cost on the broader Bitcoin ecosystem and its participants (merchants, developers, node runners, businesses building on BTC) because these wealthy holders, who aren’t actively transacting or spending their sats, are taking up monetary space from those who otherwise would.That imposes a cost on the network in the form of reduced real-world demand, slower adoption, and less economic activity. Those holders are also not contributing the transaction fees, Lightning routing revenue, or on-chain activity taxes (in a metaphorical sense) that they would if they were actively using Bitcoin in the economy. See? @grok agrees with you!

So taxing vacant, expensive property is actually a very good tax, and as much as I loathe Mamdani, this is not a bad idea. The logic is this: buying large properties and NOT LIVING IN THEM imposes externalities on other citizens: The first, of course, is that it eats up demand for real estate in the city, and there’s only so much room in Manhattan. Now, of course, they should just remove rent control and make more sensible building codes, etc., to increase supply, but supply is still always going to be limited, and you want that to go to people who are going to be actually living in the places that they buy. Second and more importantly, buying up real estate that sits empty imposes a cost on every business in New York and the employees and owners of those businesses because these wealthy owners, who are not in the city, patronizing restaurants, booking taxis, going to shows, etc., are taking up real estate from people who otherwise would. That imposes a cost on all of those businesses in the form of reduced demand for their products. Those people are also not paying the city taxes (ie sales taxes) that they would otherwise pay if they were patronizing businesses in the city. If you’re going to tax properties, it makes far more sense to tax empty properties than full ones.

@BitPaine @tommycarver @OppsIAteTheCat So just cuz this commie has been in office <6mo you'll give him free reign to do all sorts of stupid things?

@tommycarver @OppsIAteTheCat That ship has sailed long ago

@apruden08 @Digvijay_BTC @nic_carter What's with all the gas lighting by Matt Corrallo on the mailing list?

@Digvijay_BTC @nic_carter It only matters if we make it all the way to the finish line! But I'm confident we will and happy to see the shift in discourse.

Hate on @nic_carter and @apruden08 as much as you'd like. They've advanced the post-quantum cryptography discussion in Bitcoin by YEARS!

@Vladcostea They're gonna have to increase the blocksize finally.

My 2 cents on the whole “let’s freeze the bitcoins that don’t move to quantum resistant addresses” debate JUST DO A FUCKING HARD FORK Abandon the old network, let the quantum computers steal all the worthless coins Move to a better chain that fixes all the issues of the current one Let everyone claim their coins 1:1 on the new chain. Lost or unclaimed coins are still there, just in case the users return one day. Satoshi can return in a few decades, his coins will still be there. Quantum resistance is exactly the kind of existential upgrade for which a hard fork is justified. Don’t half ass this upgrade with something so suboptimal that a limited time for moving coins is even proposed. Soft forks are for trivial stuff. For anything major, just hard fork.

@w_s_bitcoin @kusan_btc right, non dev node runners have no problem: Adjusting assumevalid parameters Disabling certain checks Or using command-line flags to bypass version-based expirations or supermajority requirements in ancient activation mechanisms

@An__OG @kusan_btc Pretty sure you can with a couple of configuration tweaks.

NACK. Forcing migration at the consensus layer is too heavy-handed, especially given the likely tradeoffs in cost, efficiency, and usability of PQ schemes. Bitcoin has historically relied on voluntary adoption, wallet defaults, and fee incentives rather than protocol-level coercion. That approach should be exhausted first. The quantum threat remains theoretical, and the economics of such an attack make it unlikely to target the vast majority of users, particularly smaller UTXOs that would fall below the cost threshold of exploitation. Introducing hard deadlines and invalidating legacy signatures risks unnecessary disruption and sets a precedent for protocol-enforced fund restrictions that Bitcoin has largely avoided.

@w_s_bitcoin @kusan_btc the promise ALSO was you could run the original node implementations forever

@An__OG @kusan_btc Apples to oranges. We're talking about forcing people to move their coins right now. And plenty of older clients are still running on the network right now because users didn't feel the need to upgrade.

@nicksortor correction: the Democrats trusted him. or just propped him up cuz he had TDS.

🚨 JUST IN: Eric Swalwell’s close friend Sen. Ruben Gallego is throwing Swalwell UNDER THE BUS ZERO chance Gallego didn’t know. He should be investigated GALLEGO: “Eric Swalwell lied to ALL of us. He lies to the most powerful people in this country. And they trusted him. They trusted him with the most sensitive spots in our government. Whether it was a Judiciary Committee, Intel Committee, or impeaching Donald Trump. And that clouded my judgment, my friendship with him, our family's friendship together with him clouded my judgment, and I was wrong.”

@w_s_bitcoin @kusan_btc how many full node versions have we deprecated to date; too many to list

@kusan_btc I don't believe Bitcoin at a protocol level should ever force users to update or add friction to those who don't.

@coinbureau lol, Andy is a joke

🚨POLYMARKET OPENS BETTING ON SATOSHI’S IDENTITY, ADAM BACK LEADS A new market lets users wager on who the “Finding Satoshi” documentary will reveal as Bitcoin’s creator, with Adam Back currently leading at 53% odds.

Core dev conduition understands what i'm saying: "I personally don't see P2TRv2 as a suitable path towards this goal, because it still depends on ECDLP. At best, P2TRv2 PROMISES to be quantum-secure later, at the chaotic whim of the future Bitcoin community. Personally, I would rather keep my coins on P2WPKH than on P2TRv2. No: If we are going to have a PQ soft fork, it should be conclusive, self-contained, and require no follow up. Otherwise, we haven't actually fixed the core uncertainty we need to address." groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c…

roasbeef's point assumes the new output is fully secure post-move, but it isn't yet. A precautionary Taproot PQ script-path still leaves the keypath spend enabled—exposing an EC pubkey vulnerable to Shor's algorithm right away. Unspent P2PKH hides the pubkey behind SHA-256. Quantum preimage (Grover) demands far more resources than breaking elliptic curves, buying critical time. Hold legacy until PQ opcodes activate *and* the keypath-disable softfork is locked in. No exposure during uncertain timing.

@murchandamus @dallairedemers I agree with this

BIP 361: "Post Quantum Migration and Legacy Signature Sunset" has been published. You can read it here: github.com/bitcoin/bips/b…

@getrichordietri @CollinRugg You're an idiot

Everyone cheering the homeowner for beating a man with a shovel in front of his own kid? Y’all are wild. Jason Nichols broke in, sure, but the second the husband showed up swinging a weapon, it became attempted murder. Self-defense goes both ways. This isn’t bravery, it’s vigilante violence with a gardening tool. Free Jason Nichols, the real victim of overreaction. The praise for this guy is insane. Due process for Nichols

NEW: Police have released more info about the "Harry Dresden" break-in in Fairfield, CA, say both the homeowner & Nichols sustained head injuries. Police are praising the "actions of the homeowner" who raced home to confront 30-year-old Jason Nichols with a shovel. Authorities say that the homeowner's wife and child were inside when Nichols broke in. When Nichols was unable to break in through the front door, he broke in through a sliding glass door. "The homeowner's husband, who was away at the time, observed the suspect through a home security camera and immediately returned to the residence," said police. "As the suspect entered the home, the homeowner returned, armed himself with a shovel, and confronted Nichols." "A physical altercation ensued, during which both the homeowner and Nichols sustained head injuries." "We are grateful that the family is safe and commend our officers for their swift response in bringing this dangerous situation to a safe resolution." The woman and child were reportedly unharmed.

@isabelfoxenduke Then you don't know anything about building a bitcoin consensus.

Good news: it’s easier to make Bitcoin quantum-resistant than it is to build a quantum computer.

now it makes sense. i was able to get the watching wallet setup. but you're saying an updated Trezor will not allow access to private keys due to firmware incompatibility correct? thus the need to somehow get old Trezor firmware with v 1.316 and send bsv to wallet that can allows sweeping of privkeys to SVP?

@An__OG @wiseman_yeah Yes they did way back in the day. ElectrumSVP can be used the exact same way. You can also create a "watch only" wallet on a live device so you can view your transactions. But you would sign on the offline device, transfer it to the hot device for broadcast.

I'm finishing up a new feature for the new version of #ElectrumSVP that allows users to split up their UTXOs to numerous addresses in custom or random amounts. This can significantly help users to enhance their privacy. Would be better if fees were still 1sat instead of 100sat.

@cryptorebel_SV @wiseman_yeah iirc, didn't Armory have an offline version of its software that held private keys so you could sign on an offline laptop or something? is this the setup design you're talking about?

@An__OG @wiseman_yeah It can be achieved easily by having a device that you never connect to internet. You sign on that device and then transfer the transaction to a hot device to broadcast the tx. Multi-sig can also enhance this by setting up wallets on multiple devices. I will have tutorial soon.

@cryptorebel_SV @wiseman_yeah so there is really no cold storage version of SVP?

@wiseman_yeah Unfortunately hardware support will be deprecated in ElectrumSVP, there were just too many bugs and its unstable, and it always was a hack to get ledger/trezor to work because those companies hate BitcoinSV. I don't want to allow users to fall into the trap of an unstable system.

@cryptorebel_SV congrats bro! esp for all your hard work!

#ElectrumSVP beta phase is over and version 0.1.0 has now been officially released. This is the best #Bitcoin #BSV wallet that has ever existed. Read the release notes, download and enjoy new features and security here: electrumsv.io/articles/2026/… github.com/TruthMachine/E…

@Fundamentals21m Your discussion is incomplete without acknowledging that pruning can be done in Core easily; just by removing all blocks after download beyond a certain point in time.

12 Full deep-dive with the actual Bitcoin Core source code, annotated line by line: txbook.magicinternetmath.com/tools/pruning-… From "Every Byte Tells a Story" — a free interactive guide to Bitcoin transaction anatomy.

One big missing link in the BIP110 debate is the fact that witness data and OP_RETURN data are technically prunable and don't necessarily have to be part of the UTXO set. I haven't been satisfied with explanations of this from either side so I did a deep dive with my AI and finally got some satisfying answers which I'll detail in this thread. I still think forking is idiotic and damaging and every arguement I've heard for it is childish. However - to be fair to the debate - it's currently not possible to selectively prune unwanted with Bitcoin Core. Here's why — with the actual source code. 🧵

@MoonCoinRising @TheBTCTherapist @CsTominaga This is wrong too

@TheBTCTherapist I wish you were right. Unfortunately, everyone that matters knows it is Craig (@CsTominaga). Trust me - if Bitcoin could have had a creator that was other than the autistic, malevolent creator that Craig is - maybe we would all be better off. Alas - we appear to be stuck w/him.

Truth is we don’t care who Satoshi is and we don’t want to know, the less humanity knows the better.

@JohnCarreyrou Yes if you're a narcissist like adam back

If you’re not Satoshi and you know The New York Times is going to publish a big story identifying you as Satoshi, do you agree to participate in a photo shoot for that story?