BTCbello

I've been quiet on the ongoing debate of Core vs Knots. I want Bitcoin to be a monetary network only. It's not possible to eliminate spam, but limiting non-monetary transactions is positive in my book. I have a problem with what Core did. They didn't change Bitcoin, because they can't. Nodes control Bitcoin, not development teams. But they did nudge the network's behavior through inertia. Changing policy defaults without consensus is soft power. It's influence. That's dangerous. On BIP 110, my issue isn't the goal. It's the 55% signalling threshold. Consensus changes should need overwhelming agreement, not a simple majority. The thing I love that came out of this: client diversity is good for Bitcoin. Knots is a positive reaction by the community. We can't have one group having influence without pushback. It's a good thing for node runners to have options. That's where I stand. Money first, sovereignty at the node level, and a high bar for changing the rules.

Listen to this liar try to scare a bitcoin hodler wrt the upcomming BIP110 soft-fork. Rob, try and keep up, this is not a Hardfork.

🚨BITCOIN BULLS SAYLOR AND ADAM BACK BOTH OPPOSE BIP 110 Strategy chairman Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back have publicly rejected the proposal to restrict non-monetary data on the network. Saylor says there are "110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam" and the precedent is the real risk. Back says Bitcoin "respectfully says no" to policing others through code. "Your permissionless recourse is to fork. But Bitcoin won't be joining it."

It's not existential because of the spam threat. We could fight that in policy over time. It's existential because of the CSAM threat that Core30 just created last October. It only takes one incident and it's over for Bitcoin. And we know someone is just waiting for Core30 to prevail before doing it - we saw them exactly testing this playbook on BSV some years ago. It's also existential because if miners can overrule the users, it means Bitcoin is not decentralised. That it's just another CBDC scamcoin. That's worse than fiat.

Bitcoin is an emergent network of wallets weighted by satoshis, nodes weighted by commerce, and miners weighted by hashrate, with capital, consensus, and security held in dynamic equilibrium. $BTC

There are 110 things more dangerous to Bitcoin than spam. BIP 110 turns a spam dispute into a consensus change that would invalidate some currently valid, fee-paying transactions. That precedent is the danger. We should save our energy for threats that really matter. $BTC

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.