WhoIsJohnGalt?

Oh no New York wants to tax heavy but doesn't like it when capital runs.

@philip_dath Help imo. Mining will get a little more decentralized. Smaller miners who heat homes mine for fun profit oblivious miners free energy miners All these will stay Big corp miners are more price sensitive, so they probably shut down more.

With the number of Bitcoin miners going offline at the moment, and the difficulty dropping - do you think this will help or hurt #bip110 ?

@TheBTCTherapist This is the bad of X's monetization feature. You get paid per engagement, so engagement becomes your measure of quality. Loads of empty pointless click bait posts are good for engagement. But your case is different. Apparently, you've been caught trying to manipulate the algo.

This is the hardest thing I’ve ever had to write. I’m completely devastated. Last Friday, I️ was notified that my monetization had been paused. I’ve shown up on this app for 5 years straight every single day to grow my account to what it is now. I️ never once paid for ads, never bought followers, never did anything but grow in an organic way. After appealing once, I️ was told my account was removed due to spam and inauthentic content. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I️ spend 6-12 hours on X daily in addition to my full time job; creating content, interacting and posting. I’ve adapted to new algorithms, posting strategies and even started a newsletter. I️’ve stopped using any other online platforms as I️ truly value the freedom and community X has brought me. Every single holiday, family event, vacation, wedding, birthday, you name it, I’ve been active on X during it. I’ve never once taken for granted the audience I’ve grown on this app and have thoroughly enjoyed the relationships I’ve built because of it. During this last period in which I️ was removed, I️ proposed to my girlfriend of 7 years. During this proposal trip, I️ stayed active online the entire time, which is nothing new. I have given up years of time to create something bigger with no regret. But now, after being denied and repeatedly called a spam account, with no way to plead my case, my last resort is to post here. Having to do this publicly feels so pathetic. It’s been almost a week and 2 appeals later, and I️ can’t get in touch with anyone who’s willing to help. I haven’t been given any clarification of where I️ went wrong or if there is a pathway to resolution. How can I️ dedicate myself so profoundly to something for so many years without being given any chance to make a simple change in my form of content? I’ve never had my account flagged or even been told of any misconduct in a 5 year period. The first I️ hear of an issue is ironically on pay day after spending hours upon hours working online during my vacation. I️ don’t expect everyone to be able to understand the severity of this situation because they will never see the time, sacrifices and work put into growing an account from 0 followers to over 260k. I️ can’t begin to explain the things I’ve sacrificed to get to the point of being a creator and I️ can’t help but feel like the platform has failed me. To you, this may just be a lighthearted meme account you follow. To me, this has altered my life. I️ was committing to go full time on X and even put in notice at my full time job. It is every content creators dream to be able to take this on full time, and to have it taken away from you almost as soon as you got it, feels gut wrenching. Over the last 2 years I’ve told everyone how important it is to get a blue checkmark, pay for premium and begin to monetize their account. I️ couldn’t have been louder about how much I️ love this platform and truly felt it was the only platform worth being on. The freedom I️ was given was amazing up until now. I️ truly never thought something like this would happen. All of this to say, I️ am not a spam account and I️ deserve reconciliation. I️f there is a specific thing I’ve done wrong, I️ will adapt my content to no longer do so. But a permanent suspension with a false reasoning will never be okay with me. I️ would hope that you are also not okay with taking away the livelihood of the creators on a platform that prides itself on free speech. @XCreators @premium @x @elonmusk @nikitabier

@BTCtoOblivion @bitcoinpark_ @ODELLXYZ @MartyBent

My fellow Plebs, If you are still going to the @bitcoinpark_ then you may want to think twice now since @bitcoinpark_ (cc @ODELLXYZ @MartyBent ) is giving a stage to one of the worst spammers through their newsletters. If you are truly monetary maxis then you shouldn't be going to @bitcoinpark_ anymore. WE DON'T HATE THESE CLOWNS ENOUGH.

@1914ad Like a psychopath

I’m shocked and disappointed that I have been labeled as “one of the most extreme Bitcoin Core opponents on 𝕏.” This is completely unacceptable. I want top spot.

The comments. Daauum These fried cucks can't read the room, obviously.

@bitcoincoreorg x.com/i/status/20338…

@bitcoincoreorg Does this version include the hidden soft fork too? x.com/i/status/20338… You are soo so cooked. Unbelievable

A new release candidate of Bitcoin Core, v31.0rc1, is available for testing. This is a new major release, and follows v30.2. Work-in-progress release notes are here: github.com/bitcoin-core/b… Binaries are available here: bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-co…

@_PyBlock_ @spoonmvn @murchandamus @darosior When you think you can't hate Core enough

Yes, Bitcoin Core v30 has a hidden soft fork with changes to nLockTime/nSequence. These changes were added to version 30 here: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi… Core didn't include it in the release notes so no one would notice. @Murchandamus pretends not to know, asking @Darosior…

@BTCtoOblivion @LiliH65289916 @callebtc Well can YOU do any better? It's easy to sound coherent when you have reason and facts on your side. Now try passing your point when it's all just external incentives you can't mention!

If you think that (gay) @callebtc understands bitcoin and filters better than plebs then you are either NPC bitcoiner (aka midwit) or pure coretard. It's been more than 3 months since plebs have been complaining about blowing out the op_return limit but this so-called bitcoin DeVeLoPeR still doesn't get it. Make this clown irrelevant to the bitcoin upon successful activation of BIP110...!!! 😎

Alright addendum because it just annoys me so much. I left Canada with my family and lived in Mexico for months in 2022 due to how bad the situation had become. This was due to mass *compliance* with corrupt authorities. What eventually broke the back of the nonsense was not informed intellectuals having masturbatory discussions and rationalizing doing nothing... It was a bunch of truckers staging the most successful mass protest in history. That's BIP-110. So hate on plebs all you want, they're the ones with the power to course correct the ship when the elites lose the plot. Core lost the plot. If you want a lesson from COVID, it's that the true danger is people going along with white coats blindly. Fin.

I watched. Giacomo holds two positions. That BIP-110 is bad and that even if it was good, it's set a negative precedent if it were to activate. The latter he elaborates on with something along the lines of "If BIP-110 activates, that'd mean *people* are in charge of Bitcoin and people are retarded - look at how they acted during COVID!" Yes, unfortunately it is that bad of an argument. Bitcoin is a dynamic system that can and must change at times in order to preserve itself. He does acknowledge this "homeostasis" argument but fails to apply context that can trivially demonstrate its harmlessness. i.e BIP-148 which had no consensus and as I keep saying, we did any way, after which Bitcoin was much better for having had it happen. At the end of the day, Bitcoin is controlled by node runners and you can be scared of populism/democratic uprisings among unwashed masses all you like, but there's no one more appropriate to have that level of influence. It's demonstrably not devs or miners. Many would like it to be - notice the ball-gargling going on with BIP-54. (Because nodes couldn't care less about it while a few devs liaise with a giant miner to get it pushed through. Murch describes this as "genuinely popular" which he contrasts with BIP-110's apparent unpopularity. The latter having only *checks notes* 7000 nodes.) If not nodes....then who? This isn't democracy which is essentially 99% of people pretending to decide what to do with 1% of people's resources getting betrayed and thus voting increasingly vindictively and causing the socialist death-spiral that just ends up gutting the middle class. This is Bitcoiners deciding what happens with *their network* and they have proven remarkably adept at maintaining it. Which isn't surprising - they have skin in the game. Not only that, but there is literally no other defence against 51% attacks (which are trivial in today's landscape), and corrupt/sloppy devs.

@coinjoined @murchandamus Are you sure that the monetary use of Bitcoin wins the fees war? This is not a rhetorical question. What if spammers prevail to an extent that makes Bitcoin an unusable money?

Ah, perfect an argument so nakedly emotional it saves everyone the trouble of pretending this is about engineering. 🤦 If your justification for a consensus change boils down to "i don't think people hate them enough” then you're proposing that Bitcoin become a vehicle for your personal grievances. Consensus rules are not there to hit someone on the nose. They are there to define a neutral, predictable system that doesn't care who you like, who you hate, or what cultural battle you think you're fighting this week. The moment you cross that line, when you start modifying consensus to punish a class of users, you've already abandoned the core property that makes Bitcoin valuable: credible neutrality. And the irony here is absolutely painful: You're trying to "fight spam" by rewriting the rules… when the system has already done it for you. The fee market worked. Spammers paid. Heavily. Scammers paid. Heavily. JPEG enjoyers lit absurd amounts of money on fire. 🤡 That is the mechanism. That is the defense. There was no need for social crusades, no need for rule changes, no need for moral arbitration. The market priced their behavior, and literally all of it collapsed under its own weight. WE ALREADY WON. The only thing BIP-110-style thinking accomplishes is reopening the door you claim to want closed because once you demonstrate that consensus can be bent to target undesirable use, you invite an endless cycle of new rule changes, new targets, and new attack surfaces. You don't eliminate spam that way you create a ethereum style governance game around defining it. And that's far more dangerous than any JPEG wave ever was. Whats really going on here is an inability to accept that the bitcoin solved the problem without you. That's an ego problem, not a protocol problem. Slay the ego. Recognize that the market already delivered the punishment you wanted. The losses are real, the incentives are clear, and the behavior has adjusted accordingly Bitcoin doesn't need you to swing a hammer at things you dislike (and I know hammers) 🔨 It needs you to _build_ If you've realized that JPEGs don't hold value and that spam is self-limiting under a functioning fee market, then your time is far better spent doing something productive: Make Bitcoin more useful for actual financial activity. Make it easier, cheaper, safer to use for people who derive real value from it. Expand the demand for blockspace instead of trying to curate who is "worthy" of it.

Listen to this out loud for a second. “Spam on Bitcoin is protected by fees” … Bitcoin is a protocol intended design to withstand nation state attacks. Now you are going to defend it by charging money to the guy who… **Checks notes** 📝 Has a MONEY PRINTER. You’re all fucking idiots 😂

BIP110 for the win

@lukedewolf @1914ad Growing adoption of what? If Bitcoin's monetary function is diluted to the point that it becomes to another shitcoin and the blockchain fills with horrible stuff noone wants to touch, what adoption are you talking about?

I'd rather focus on bringing more people into the space and growing adoption so that we're more resilient against external attacks. 110 is contentious because a significant portion of the network considers it contentious. I am completely fine with implementing 110. I'm more afraid of the fallout if it causes a split (chain or community).

My thinking on BIP-110 has shifted quite a bit in the last weeks and months. Where I currently stand is complicated. Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the whole thing. I stand with BIP-110 in principle, in that I disagree strongly with the proliferation of arbitrary data on Bitcoin. At the same time, my reasoning has always been a little different from the motivations cited in the BIP itself. I view arbitrary data as an attack on Bitcoin's availability as a monetary network. I mean that in a technical sense, from the cybersecurity world, where availability refers to one of 3 primary ways that cyber attacks target systems and information, the others being data confidentiality and information integrity. Arbitrary data isn't the same thing as gold jewelry, which only takes a portion of the stock off the open market and distorts the price a little. Arbitrary data also competes for the throughput of scarce block space. It's shortsighted to think that fees generated by arbitrary data are a good thing. The situation might be somewhat positive for the miners, but again, only in the short term. The real effect on users, making it more expensive to transact and potentially pushing activities off the main chain, is only net negative in my view. Growing real adoption will solve the fee issues in the long run. We don't need arbitrary data protocols for that. This is all to say that my concern over spam isn't quite the same as cited in the BIP. I'm not as worried about contiguous data as the strongest proponents are. I'm more frustrated by the size and volume generally. It has also been truly concerning to me the way that Bitcoin Core tacitly allowed the propagation of arbitrary data even before the OP_RETURN change. Taproot shipping without covering Tapscript with datacarriersize and adhering to previously established limits made it much easier for inscriptions to get a foothold in the market when it did. Refusing to fix those bugs in Core feels strongly disingenuous to me. On a technical level, I believe the BIP has some flaws. I wouldn't have set the OP_RETURN limit at 83 bytes by consensus. If the goal of the BIP was to limit data vectors to 256 bytes, set that to 256 bytes also. I've been consistent on this point. I would also have preferred to see a method of closing the "OP_FALSE OP_IF" envelope without totally disabling OP_IF in Tapscript. Breaking Miniscript isn't a good thing. At the same time, I also assert that it must be possible to walk back certain parts of upgrades, at least temporarily. Otherwise, there's nothing we can do in the case of unforeseen consequences in future upgrades. Breaking user space isn't a good excuse here. Bitcoin is a distributed system, not individual computers. It's not a valid security model to say that no individual can ever be impacted by network-level changes. Therefore, I assert that the tradeoffs of BIP-110 are technically acceptable to me. Having a little bit less development freedom (again, temporarily) is perfectly fine if it serves greater network goals. As to whether BIP-110 will actually reduce spam, honestly I'm not convinced about that anymore. I see the willingness for arbitary data enthusiasts to move to other methods. Perhaps the cost can be increased for them, somewhat, but the claim at least is that the cost increase is negligible. Still, I come back to another cybersecurity principle, where actively exploited bugs are prioritized and fixed first. Closing off the vectors that are being actively used at least forces the spammers to do something in order to salvage their precious JPEGs and tokens. Then again, is any of this worth a potential chain split? I don't think so. There are 3 logical scenarios here: One is that BIP-110 fails entirely, and the status quo is maintained. At this point, I find that scenario acceptable. Move on, continue the fight another day. The other is that BIP-110 succeeds, activates, and becomes the rules of Bitcoin. I believe this is a good outcome, and will be good for the network in the long run. Others disagree, and say that Bitcoin's reputation will be permanently damaged by a change being forced through without consensus. The final scenario is a protracted chain split. I'm told that this is unlikely by BIP-110 proponents, and that it's extremely likely by opponents. I at least acknowledge that it's a possibility. And I unequivocally believe that this outcome would be bad for Bitcoin. All scenarios probably result in some individuals leaving the space, for better or worse. It would be a shame for monetary maximalists to give up on Bitcoin. I don't want that, considering I consider myself one. It would also be negative if a lot of dedicated developers left the space if 110 activates. And a split is a split. Not good either. This whole post is mostly all to say that I'm tired of fighting for the merits of this BIP when I don't really believe in it entirely. I like the idea of the BIP, and the idea of taking action against arbitrary data. But if the BIP isn't going to be truly effective, and all it's going to do is cause community controversy, then I don't think it's a net positive. I still support the idea of taking action against arbitrary data in the future. I also support increasing the share of node implementations other than Core. In my ideal scenario, no one implementation has the majority of the market share. Perhaps it's optimal to have only one primary implementation, but in the case where multiple implementations exist, not having any one be dominant is preferable to me. So, I'm withdrawing from the fight, for now at least. I'm continuing to work on Bitcoin education and adoption efforts. Whatever happens, all I care about is Bitcoin fixing the money and fixing the world. I hope that's still possible.

If you are not happy with the current direction bitcoin is heading, from both a development standpoint as well as that of the price of bitcoin, and you are not running a full listening node with BIP-110: what are you waiting for?

It's simple. If a change in Bitcoin allows some people to profit from it, while disrespecting nodes, or other people, then that change is clearly an attack on Bitcoin.

It's much more important to preserve the monetary property of Bitcoin than scaling Bitcoin. If Bitcoin does that - it wins. If vice versa, it scales perfectly but on the way turns into crap money - it becomes another shitcoin.

@adam3us @theonevortex A short story in 2 pics:

"Bitcoin is literally already money, 110 makes it a worse money" @theonevortex

@LukeDashjr @GrassFedBitcoin If that's the case, I'm sure there will be some big brains arguing that we can't remove CSAM, because it's a precedent and better to have it on every node than confiscate the UTXO, and what is CSAM anyways, who are you to judge and censor, whatever.

@GoWingBolt @GrassFedBitcoin Indeed, though if CSAM gets mined before/without RDTS active, that's necessarily how we'd have to solve it

Bitcoiners, remember that in 2013 March, Bitcoin Core deployed a temporary softfork to limit block sizes to 500kB, expiring 2 months later, with zero notice or miner signalling. It also retroactively invalidated existing blocks.