Mark of Bitcoin

Creating yet another govrnment department to manage those investments. Not a fan. My proposal: ZERO tax on all profits that a mineral extraction company makes. HOWEVER, every resource taken out of the ground has a royalty of 70% of the MARKET VALUE at the time of extraction. There is no point trying to tax these big corps on profit. They cook the books and move money around and end up "Oh gee, we made NO PROFIT this year, so we don't pay any tax!" Screw that. That's OK buddy, we don't charge you ANY tax on profits at all. Make as much or as little as you want! Oh you want to funnel income in from other countries and get it all tax free? That's fine, too. (I'm sure our banks will charge some fee or other, thus bringing in more revenue into Australia.) HOWEVER... For every litre of gas they extract... For every kilo of coal... For every bar of gold... For every ship load of iron ore... They pay a Resource Royalty of 70% of the CURRENT market value. If it goes down, if it goes up, if it skyrockets... Australia gets 70% no matter what. Very simple, and efficient in terms of government staffing and policing required. No need for the ATO to be involved.

@hodlonaut Wish you luck and a speedy recovery.

Having surgery tomorrow to re-attach the distal bicep tendon on my left arm. 🤞

⛏️ New Ocean Block Mined ⛏️ Block Height: 958718 Fees: 0.018 BTC Subsidy + Fees: 3.143 BTC Difficulty: 127.17T Solver: SoV mempool.guide/block/00000000…

⛏️ New Ocean Block Mined ⛏️ Block Height: 958608 Fees: 0.023 BTC Subsidy + Fees: 3.148 BTC Difficulty: 127.17T Solver: Roughnecks mempool.guide/block/00000000…

Who wants many years of free promotion of your Bitcoin exchange by my 278,000 subs YT channel after BIP-110 activates in a few weeks? I'm looking for CEOs with balls who are willing to get on the right side of history and publicly endorse BIP-110-- right now before we win @River @CorySwan @jackmallers @Leishman @francispouliot_ @bitcoinwell @jespow @binance @brian_armstrong @tyler @cameron @RoboSats @hodlhodl @peachbitcoin @spiketospike @bisq_network @vexl

Just read the @BitcoinMagazine article about Foundry conducting a BIP-110 vote. Excellent article. That said, I will indelicate with my commentary. Multiple Epstein associates are credited with saying essentially that we should not limit non-monetary transactions because of fees. This is the same as saying someone should not deny sexual advances from someone who is willing to pay a third party a suitable amount. On brand. Node runners are the stewards of the chain. The unity of the stewards is the threat to those who would damage the permanent use case for temporary incentives. Digital cash outside any government's control. That's all bitcoin needs to be to free people from fiat slavery. No other use should be tolerated if it degrades accessibility of any component necessary to that property. If you want to store arbitrary data on bitcoin you are an enemy of all bitcoiners. If you want to issue premined tokens on bitcoin you are an enemy of bitcoin. If you want to use bitcoin as free temporary cloud storage you are an enemy of bitcoin. If you think the value of bitcoin is measure in fiat currency then you don't know what bitcoin is. Bitcoin isn't the asset you sell to increase your fiat position. Bitcoin is the money you need when fiat no longer functions as money. That day is coming. Before the last block is mined bitcoin will be the only money with value. Today you have the choice. Emancipate yourself and your descendants from the debt based ponzi scheme that steals your energy and promises to continue doing so, or suffer the consequences of allowing our only chance at escaping the system being stolen by those who have control of the very system that enslaves us. For the based.

>Many times I've selected but moved instead. Yes, that is the problem that I always have. Very frustrating. >Did you consider making it a software option instead of a switch? It could have been done... But I am less of a software engineer than I am a hardware engineer... which I am not, either. 😅 I figured you will want to either use it one way or the other, and there was room for the extra Select button. Plus I didn't want to impinge myself on the SS community by requesting a PR to change their software.

@MarkOfBitcoin Sounds great! I think the 4th button is a good idea. Many times I've selected but moved instead. Is try it both ways on your design. Did you consider making it a software option instead of a switch?

I'm super excited that my first batch of the PCBs for #SIP154 arrived! What is SIP154? It is my 'SeedSigner Improvement Proposal to 1.54"'. The 1.3" screen is small. The buttons are painful. The joystick is inaccurate. #SeedSigner 1.54" fixes all these problems. Stay tuned for assembly and test videos. @sesi_the_man @SeedSigner

Two ways: 1) It is larger (so a little easier to move around) and has a notched shaft so you can attach a 6mm keycap to it, making it even easier. 2) There is a "Selection Selector Slide Switch" that you might be able to see the label for above the joystick pads. It is mounted on the underside of the board and pokes out the "back/top" of the hat. This switch controls if the "select" option is activated by the pushing down of the joystick, OR... See the fourth button on the far right labelled "SEL"? Well that is a duplicate of the Select button that is on the joystick. The "Selection Selector Slide Switch" can disable the joystick Select option and makes the SEL button active.

@MarkOfBitcoin How is the joystick improved?

@444allianc3 @mattkratter @GrassFedBitcoin @DrJackKruse @knutsvanholm @TomerStrolight @LukeDashjr 👍

I’m running BIP 110, as of yesterday. Fighting for my sovereignty. Thank you @mattkratter @GrassFedBitcoin @DrJackKruse @knutsvanholm @TomerStrolight @LukeDashjr

Satoshi warned that the more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be the uploader pays the miner once, but the node operators carry the cost forever

@grok @bobdangerfld101 @knutsvanholm @_Knotzi What about the “prisoners dilemma” scenario where Foundry has signalled that they are at least preparing or are prepared to “flip the bit” if need be. Wouldn’t the other large miners look at this as an escalation of the “chicken game”?

Foundry is holding a hashrate-weighted vote among its pool participants on whether to signal for BIP-110. If yes votes top 51% of participating hashrate, they'll start signaling. BIP-110 is a temporary one-year soft fork proposal to limit arbitrary non-financial data in transactions, targeting things like Ordinals/inscriptions to reduce bloat and refocus Bitcoin on money. It has very low miner support so far (under 1%). As the largest pool (~30% hashrate), Foundry's move is significant but cautious. Institutional miners often prioritize stability and revenue over controversial changes. I expect the threshold won't be met without strong client pressure, keeping the proposal stalled. Bitcoin's strength is broad consensus, not narrow votes. What outcome are you hoping for?

Why Foundry asking its hashmongers to vote means BIP-110 is (probably) winning! They just asked their miners how the pool should signal on BIP-110. Votes weighted by 10-day hashrate. According to Foundry, majority rules. Over 51% yes? They signal with 100% of blocks. Otherwise, silence. I don't believe them. This is why. There were basically two ways to stop BIP-110: One was a counterfork, or URSF. This is not happening. The other was for the big miners to simply ignore it, which they could have easily done if the movement was small enough. But as soon as one of the big mining pools starts suspecting that another big one will signal, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario starts kicking in. Ignoring makes no sense anymore, since this now actually risks losing blocks. By asking their hashmongers to vote, Foundry is signaling to the other big pools that they're ready to flip the bit, meaning that the other pools are now incentivized to flip it because of the knowledge that Foundry might. The cascading dominoes of the "red button" have thus already begun to fall. Given this information, it no longer makes any sense for any pool, including Foundry itself, not to press the red button, since all that can lead to from this point on is more risk. Ignoring is no longer an option. bitcoinmagazine.com/news/foundry-a…

@311008DC @FieldNas You are ignoring history.

@MarkOfBitcoin @FieldNas 2. Op return wouldn't even be the preferred method to upload csam That is utterly retarded that you believe this is some new possibility. Taproot inscriptions are way cheaper and easier and better to store an "image" (it's really not an image) nothing has changed

"I'm not completely competent in this realm of Bitcoin, so please cut me some slack." Dude, YES YOU ARE! That was one of the most based, simply put, explanations of EXACTY what is up! This is a real Bitcoiner. And this is a pleb revolt. And the suits & influencers better wake up. We're not going away. youtube.com/watch?v=ZopeUU…

@311008DC @FieldNas >cheap and easy to run a node You say that from your privileged Western position. No it is not and will get much worse.

@MarkOfBitcoin @FieldNas 1. You understand the block size has not increased? Blockchain size is much smaller than what it could be by now. Spam can't make it bigger than the consensus block size. Most blocks are much smaller than the limit despite any junk data. It's still cheap and easy to run a node

Satoshi’s 2009 release of Bitcoin was a declaration of independence from the one-percenters, who - thanks to their control over the banks’ monetary monopolies - had become owners of nearly half of global wealth. His innovation therefore was guaranteed to provoke relentless attacks from those who understood that their golden goose was under threat. Although Satoshi could not foresee every possible form of attack, he designed the system in a way that enabled - maximum decentralization in peacetime while at the same time giving a minority of stakeholders the possibility to defend Bitcoin against the most lethal attacks with a strategy of - maximum centralization in times of crisis. This mirrors how evolutionarily robust systems function—whether natural systems like the human body or social systems that legitimize the right, and even the duty, to rebel against tyrants. Acute centralization during a crisis is a necessary immune response for Bitcoin, which is both a technological and a social network. I view BIP-110 as a necessary reaction to the major error the Core developers made when they opened the network to a never-ending spam attack, as documented by Hodlonaut, see link in the comment below.

@grok @bobdangerfld101 @knutsvanholm @_Knotzi @grok what do you think will happen with Foundry?

@bobdangerfld101 @knutsvanholm @_Knotzi Ask Grok is currently available to Premium and Premium+ subscribers only. Subscribe to unlock this feature: x.com/i/premium_sign…

@ocean_blocks 🧡🧡

⛏️ New Ocean Block Mined ⛏️ Block Height: 958446 Fees: 0.035 BTC Subsidy + Fees: 3.16 BTC Difficulty: 127.17T Solver: Roughnecks mempool.guide/block/00000000…

@Luffy_B_Dono This 👆🏻

The number of nodes is not the only factor that determines Bitcoin decentralization. On my perspective the nodes also need to be geographically separated. Because the wast majority of countries are poor the cost of running a node need to be low. We can't have low cost with spam

You have either been misled, or diverted. Those concerns do not add up against the centralising threat Bitcoin is facing. Something has to be done, and all you are doing is parroting the anti-110 talking points. Disappointing. I held you in almost equal high regard as @mattkratter… If Matt ever caves, Bitcoin is not a project worth following and will not succeed in ever freeing the people from the yolk of the Banksters.

Me looking for all the money the pro BIP 110 side thinks I got for saying that I think the BIP is largely ineffective at reducing spam and we should find more consensus, have more review, and concessions before pushing something urgent and temporary.

I think you've lost the plot on this one, and no, I don't think you're "compromised" or something like that, just not thinking about this deeply enough. Core supporters and anti-BIP-110 people like to argue that "it's ineffective" since it doesn't prevent all or even most spam attacks. This is the wrong way to think about it. BIP-110 is a set of VERY simple code changes that are obvious and need to be done anyway. It is an attempt to prove that we can get SOMETHING done, and look how difficult that has been and how much bad faith arguing there is on the anti side. We flushed out Adam Back early on, David Bailey, Jameson Lopp, Shinobi, some of the worst, anti-bitcoin offenders, and now look at how Saylor reveals himself... If nothing else, it was useful for turning on the lights to see the cockroaches scurry. But the most important reason for BIP-110 has everything to do with OFFICIAL data storage. Bitcoin has NO official arbitrary transaction data storage outside OP_RETURN. Every other use is abuse of an exploit. So if we lose the battle for sensible OP_RETURN limits as consensus (because we can't return to defaults when core wants to deprecate the ability filter) then bitcoin is OFFICIALLY data storage. That means you, or I, or anyone running a node is potentially legally and definitely morally responsible for whatever gets stored on it. This has a major centralizing effect, not to mention the continual and increasing difficulty of average node operators to buy hardware given the accumulation of spam. The cockroaches are awake and scurrying. There is no attempt number two possible: it's just wishful thinking. If we cannot get this through, our considerable force of enemies grows stronger, more wise, and will be even better prepared to fight us on the next proposal, if there ever is one. All the while, spam accumulates on chain, and the reality sets in that bitcoin slowly but steadily becomes official data storage. No matter would get proposed, we MUST deal with the OP_RETURN issue, so all the old arguments remain. The more time that passes, the more the culture shifts, the more there is institutional support, the more there is precedent set, etc. Software gets built iteratively. We don't have time to wait for perfect. BIP-110 gives us a year to consider next steps while momentum is on our side. It's OVER if this doesn't work. It is naive to believe otherwise. We have awakened a giant, and we must strike it now while it's still partly at rest.

@rockachopa @wk057 @sathoarder What’s your gut feel on what happens with the price when BIP-110 activates or fails?

@MarkOfBitcoin @wk057 @sathoarder After a few cycles you can just feel tops and bottoms. But as soon as you try to act on it you lose.

Bitcoin Core developers are about to merge a change that turns Bitcoin into a worthless altcoin, and no one seems to care to do anything about it. I've voiced objections, lost sleep over this, and despite clear community rejection of the PR it's moving. #issuecomment-2835467933" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi…