Aslans Mane

Usually you talk about economic node power or hashrate as indicators. Those are different than what pleb bitcoiners would actually prefer. Look at the relative market share of Core vs Knots and how that has changed over the past year, then factor in that most bitcoiners aren’t even engaged enough to run a node and many of those that do just leave an outdated version running out of apathy and you should be able to understand that the numbers are very different than you often portray if you were actually able to poll every single bitcoiner.

@Aslans_Mane @zndtoshi I'm saying BIP110 lacks social support

BIP110 does not have broad social support. It's Luke, Mechanic and their followers who are trying to ram it through. But they keep lying to bluff up the support they have. See @zndtoshi's consensus.health for a quick example

👇

Genuine question: Would your modelling consider me a bot? I ask because I think lots of folks are misinterpreting traditionally quiet voices as bots, meanwhile they are people who feel compelled to join and contribute to the fight because of the existential crisis that BTC could be headed for. Bonus comment: Large and influential accounts that aren’t acting in good faith will mess up your analysis in a big way. That could cut both ways.

I do think they skew newer, but I don't have any conclusive data on that off the top of my head. I specifically focused on accounts that are much more active and associated with the debate rather then the smaller accounts because I usually try to eliminate bots and look for folks I'm very confident are real (or engage like a real human). I can actively investigate this more though.

I didn’t want to write this. One of the deepest lessons I’ve learned from researching sentiment data is how irrational and angry people get towards the bottom of Bitcoin bear markets. People that are historically aligned often fall into conflicts that wouldn’t exist near tops. The BIP-110 debate increasingly feels like one of those moments. I wanted no part of that. I’ve been publicly cancelled before, and I have no desire to go through that again. I know how painful it is to have an angry crowd criticizing and shaming you, which gives me a strong bias to avoid situations exactly like this one. But I’m pushing against that bias because (for better or worse) I have a novel dataset that offers a unique lens on the BIP-110 debate. I’m going to attempt to keep this unbiased, but before I do, I’m going to lead with what will be my highest-conviction opinion of the entire piece: People like Mechanic and Luke Dashjr understand Bitcoin’s consensus mechanisms better than I do, while Adam Back and Jameson Lopp grasp Bitcoin’s technical nuances more deeply than I ever will. I am not here to pretend I understand these dynamics of this debate better than the people who have spent years studying them. That’s not why I’m writing this. “Then why should I care what you have to say?” Because there is another side of the debate that is also important, and it’s on this side I have a different perspective. The social layer. For those of you new to my work, I’ve been researching the language, narratives, and emotional patterns of different groups throughout Bitcoin. I’ve been (obsessively) studying the emotional regimes and crowd psychology associated with the space. That includes the people now publicly associated with both sides of the BIP-110 debate… and the differences between these groups are striking. I believe I would be doing a disservice by keeping that data to myself simply because publishing it might piss people off. So there will be no paywall on this piece, no call to action halfway through, and I won’t ask you to become a subscriber. I simply want these charts to exist publicly, where anyone can examine them or interpret them differently than I do. I will try to present it as fairly as I can, but I am not neutral, and neither is anyone reading this. People will inevitably see different things in these charts. This data cannot tell us who is technically correct. But it can help us to surface clues about how the debate is evolving, who thinks they are winning, and why I believe one of these groups is currently experiencing an engagement-reinforced narrative environment.

@david_parker @ezralevant I’m trying my best to stay in the fight but it’s incredibly challenging to fight for people that don’t want to be saved. At some point you have to shrug…

People keep saying that Canadians will eventually realize how bad things are and do something. The Argentinians never did. They have had 100 years of terminal economic decline, and nothing has changed that. Once socialism engrains itself in your society, it never lets go.

@arcbtc @jabulanijakes @stephanlivera @adam3us @EliBenSasson The moment you change the hard cap, bitcoin becomes just another shitcoin. You can’t possibly be serious.

@jabulanijakes @stephanlivera @adam3us @EliBenSasson Most economists agree 0-2% rate of inflation is ideal for money (austrians traditionally prefer "mild" deflation). No PoW chains are secured on just fees. For security and to create better money, future users may opt for steady rate. "There will only ever be 21m" is dogma.

Capping the supply of Bitcoin at 21M doesn't make sense. Beacuse over time, keys will be lost. In fact, as time goes to infinity, all keys will be lost. I strongly support a clear monetary policy with an absolute upper bound on the # of Bitcoins in the future. Say, fix a max issuance rate and you get that (a good choice is 4% a year, this is a reasonable upper bound on human population expansion). This way, you ensure there's enough to go around. And I'm not even talking about the security problem, looming large on the horizon.

The entire debate comes down to permissionless MONETARY maximalists vs permissionless EVERYTHING maximalists. These two groups often appear to be the same. They even use the exact same language in many ways. But they are different and they are fighting for different things. This dichotomy will not go away after August. This will be a perpetual struggle over what bitcoin is supposed to be. One side is wrong, and it happens to be the side who will risk humanity’s first ever form of perfect money because that’s not enough for them. Take your jpegs and shitcoins and put them on literally any other chain in the world, just not the best one, please.

Pro BIP110 argument that I like

@crypt0e @saylor My baad

@Aslans_Mane @saylor corpporate

👇 Enjoy the future you are cultivating, @saylor! Imagine trading the monetary maximalists for people like this while your entire corporate structure depends on the success of BTC.

It’s insane to think that bitcoin will survive in spite of @saylor rather than because of him.

@IIICapital Prediction: There will be no URSF because no one is insane enough to put forward an explicit proposal to allow spam on-chain. They are trying to do it as passively as possible. This is why the opponents of BIP-110 are left with counter-signalling on X as the only option.

Contentious soft forks face an extremely steep uphill battle. 1. They first need enough support to activate. (BIP-110 currently has, generously, around 1% voluntary miner signaling.) 2. Even if it appears likely to activate, it still has to avoid a user-rejected soft fork. If a meaningful group commits to continuing under the original consensus rules, activation could produce a chain split between Bitcoin (the original consensus rules) and Bitcoin Jr. (the new consensus rules). 3. The possibility of point two makes point one even less likely. The credible threat of a chain split forces miners to consider whether signaling for the soft fork could leave them supporting a disputed chain with weaker economic backing.

@SpectrGen @LukeDashjr 🤮

Michael Saylor discussed his new vision for Bitcoin at the Xapo Bank conference. It goes something like this: ——— Layer 1 is Bitcoin as “digital capital”: the scarce base asset, like digital gold or prime reserve property. Layer 2 is “digital credit”: Bitcoin-backed fixed-income or preferred-share instruments, like STRC. Layer 3 is “digital money”: dollar-pegged instruments that can earn yield through the credit layer. ——— Bitcoin as “perfect money” no longer fits his narrative.

@elkrun21 Yep. They cooked up something fresh in the group chat. I fell for one a couple days ago. Realized my mistake when Island Adam came out with his.

New anti-BIP110 narratives incoming … the current ones aren’t working as desired.

@KirkLubimov @grok What percentage of Canadian senators were appointed by the Liberal party?

The foundational constitutional purpose of the Senate of Canada is to provide a sober second thought. They are not elected. Almost all of them been appointed by the Liberals. Many Bills are passed with "We have figures that show some Bill have passed with barely half of all Senators voting." There is no second sober thought and with such democracy in Canada is broken. The Senate basically became a taxpayer funded reward club for the Liberals, with another reminder as Mark Carney appointed his staffer/advisor.

My favourite part was when he unironically explained why BIP-110 happened and didn’t realize it… “The implication of which is no developer can change anything without technical consensus from hundreds of other developers and protocol observers who are pedantic and extremely knowledgeable clever people who won't let any unaddressed technical question past. The protective change resistance is robust and decentralized in an amplifying way because of this technical consensus.”

I read his entire post so you don't have to. Classic case of 'intellectual intimidation'. A whole lot of nothing was said, 'appeal to authority, 'you're too dumb to get it', 'trust me', etc. However in this day in age with AI, we can all ask questions and do our own research. Adam Back is a grade A/opportunist/grifter/moron. 😂

@GrassFedBitcoin @LukeDashjr @CaminaDrummer4 Imagine being like this and trying to claim you embody the true bitcoin ethos. Classic establishment behaviour.

That robust rejection in full: - no complaints on the mailing list - accepting the BIP into the BIPs repo - banning all discussion elsewhere within the Core github org - banning reddit accounts that mention it - even if in a neutral capacity - spreading constant lies "it confiscates UTXOs"/"they say it will stop all spam but it won't!"/"the nodes are all fake" - insulting/shaming everyone who runs it - never making a better suggestion

"OK insults aren't working - we can't shame them into submission. Let's try something else."

@graveskies @venorusprime Have you ever heard of the word ‘almost’?

@Aslans_Mane @venorusprime It means that you both are wrong. Because you are in a bubble and I just popped it

Why is it that almost every pleb with >90% of their wealth in #bitcoin, and without a sponsorship, insider allocation, or political connection, understands what BIP110 is BUT every BTC trashury insider, shitcoiner, ETH maxi, nodeless dev, sponsored influencer, and Ordinals degen is against it? 🤔

@_genk__ *censorship resistance of monetary transactions Fixed it for you.

tbh the so called "spam" that bip110 wants to filter isn't even remotely a threat to Bitcoin's sovereignty. spending energy and resources on this makes no sense because trying to prohibit it goes against bitcoin's greatest value: censorship resistance. if a tiny group of people gets to decide which transactions are or aren't valid, it would open a dangerous door: the door to subjectivity.

@graveskies @venorusprime 🎻

@Aslans_Mane @venorusprime x.com/i/status/20759…