Jeremy Poley 🥪

The f*ckng developers of Samourai wallet got 5+ years and they didn’t steal a cent from anyone. When you think you hate your govt enough, you find out you’re wrong.

@Strike @tpacchia @PubKey Any clearer sign than this?

Pennsylvania consumer term loans now start at $10k, down from $51k. Lower minimums opens the door for more customers to access liquidity against their bitcoin without selling. More access, more flexibility, and more ways to put your bitcoin to work.

Here’s a look at what shipped at Strike last week: Lower loan minimums. More dashboard tools. Easier ways to borrow against your bitcoin and manage your account. We’re constantly building Strike to be the best place to bank on Bitcoin.

@dathon_ohm Absolute derangement.

@JeremyPoley Discourse does not affect whether nodes accept or reject blocks. Running software does. If you run old software, it will follow the BIP-110 chain, but it could be fooled into accepting invalid blocks. BIP-110 is a beneficial change, which is why it has no active opposition.

Now they're softforking the word "oppose" too.

@markgoodw_in Bitcoin Belly

@markgoodw_in Hard not to imagine that you already have your guitar in hand for that bluesy chorus.

privacy on bitcoin today (imo, which means little) is good enough for a pleb to escape a divorce with all their funds, but not good enough for a pleb to privately hire someone to bIow up a military contractor data center.

@brian_trollz @theonevortex Keep your paper bitcoin beliefs to yourself, bro!

"Bitcoin isn't playing out the way I thought it would." "People aren't using Bitcoin how I thought they would." "Bitcoin isn't [whatever] enough." Bitcoin doesn't belong to you.

@dathon_ohm There's another way to oppose a softfork: discourse. Those in disagreement with a SF may take whatever steps necessary to oppose it. What's going underappreciated here is that the level of opposition matches the level of threat.

@JeremyPoley Disagreement is different from opposition.

It's like in elementary school when kids are playing cops and robbers. "I have an invisible shield that protects me!". The idea that the only way to oppose their SF is for the network to spin up a counter SF is exactly that: pure fantasy. In reality, spinning up a counter SF actually legitimizes their coop.

@JeremyPoley it's very odd language coming from them, and they seem to legitimately mean it.

what is the reasoning here? it's a very bizarre claim. if i introduce a bitcoin SF to reduce blocksize to 0b. the only way to oppose this is to "counter-softfork". i'm not sure how you can even come to this as any form of argument.

This was a "real" split in the community. So it doesn't apply for 110. Users didn't have 95% but they had enough to be a major threat (and indeed they won). Luke was correct here, that non-taprooters shouldn't have just sat by twiddling their thumbs. They should have been proactive and created a threat against the proponents of taproot. The fight in any SF is just like in elections. It's over the neutral middle. Both sides are incentivized to do everything they can to sway that middle to their side. Again, we aren't in that same position today. Bip 110's != Taprooters.

@dathon_ohm ok. it's luke reasoning. so it makes sense that it makes no sense. i would like to see the origina of this. my 0b softfork is now bitcoin because no-one ever did a counter-fork. or bitcoin consensus is defined by majority network decision that ignores the 0b limit.

@louisnicholls_ Every newspaper will die. Authentication will be the next value wave in new media content using sources' decentralized IDs to sign and authenticate published media.

What's your spiciest hot take on newsletters/new media? Best one gets invited on a future episode of Letterland Live

@mhonkasalo @Fundamentals21m

@GreaserRichard @bamskki Long live Bitcoin Uncensored

If monero was actually cool, there would be good podcasts about it

The Trump administration is turning banks into defacto immigration agencies and cracking down on peer-to-peer trading and cash usage. In 3 months, the Treasury will propose rules to amend the Bank Secrecy Act in order to target the use of peer-to-peer platforms and repetitive cash withdrawals. And the story they are telling you as to why this is necessary is a complete lie. The Trump administration alleges that "illegal aliens" are posing a risk to the US financial system by creating debts that may not be fulfilled due to pending deportation and loss of wages. These costs, the administration argues, are rolled over on all Americans in the form of higher banking fees. The cost of banking is a major driver for the large unbanked and underbanked population in the US: people can simply not afford to have a bank account. These costs do not come from "illegal aliens". They come from the very law that Trump has now ordered the Treasury to expand: the Bank Secrecy Act. Per year, US financial institutions pay FIFTYNINE BILLION DOLLARS in financial crime compliance costs. Now, the Trump administration wants banks to assess the risk of customers with immigration status, customers who use peer-to-peer platforms, and customers who are repetitively withdrawing cash. Using cash is not a crime. And a peer-to-peer transaction looks exactly like a friend paying you back for Pizza on your bank account. The amount of costs such compliance expansion will incur for banks is unimaginable. In turn, banking will get even more expensive, and anyone who may be at risk of deportation (including green card holders and naturalized citizens), as well as people who frequently use cash, are at risk of losing their accounts. In August, Trump signed the Fair Banking for All Americans EO. Now, he is making banking for all Americans less accessible.

🎙️NEW EPISODE | THE DIG 2025-26 Season Debrief, Part 1 @MiroslavCuk, @JeremyPoley, and I are still grieving the Nuggets' whimpering demise and have plenty of criticism to go around as we cope with yet another wasted year of Jokić's prime denverstiffs.com/the-dig-2025-2…

CryptoMondays Philly is back Monday, May 18. Join @JeremyPoley of @The21Media plus Dave Burns and Mya Flood of The Daily Bit for a conversation on Bitcoin, crypto media, AI, privacy, and internet culture. RSVP here to attend: luma.com/pyivyulp

@MrHodl I'm what you'd call a loser. Would love to see actually good money succeed. And Bitcoin is far from that. Would love to see actually good money succeed AND be a winner. But I threw mine away and that ship has sailed.

@JeremyPoley "If bitcoon succeeds," Fam, it succeeds for me and many other people. Life's unfair. Not everyone will get a winner.

Bitcoin doesn't need to scale for the whole world, and trying to do so comes with trade-offs. You lose the exclusivity that humans naturally crave, the thing that makes it feel special. It turns a premium asset for financial freedom into something ordinary. I'm not against intermediaries. I use Liquid and Ark myself for small spends, so the other side doesn't see my actual UTXO. But scaling for everybody? Lol! The real value is in its hardness. You can't print more of it. It's a push system, not a pull system. Most people are comfortable with pull, but once you get a taste of true push, there's no going back. All this talk about making Bitcoin easier to use so people adopt it .. whose problem is that? The people who thought it was too hard in 2011 and finally bought in 2020 didn't hurt me. People learn when they need/want to learn.

@MrHodl I don't think they care what their language of value is as long as it works. Which is us too if Bitcoin succeeds. If it's just the next fiat, then yes, there will be a new Bitcoin.

@JeremyPoley ..... im sorry to disappoint, but the unlucky humans not groking bitcoin in time are probably going to have to find a new language.