Paul Sztorc

BREAKING: New Bitcoin Fork I am helping create a **new Bitcoin Hardfork** -- dropping this August, called "eCash". - Your coins will split. For example, if you have 4.19 BTC, then you will get 4.19 eCash. - You may sell your eCash -- or keep it. Or ignore it! Vegas: - Yes, I will be in Vegas next week. - No, I won't mention this, on stage -- (that would be rude). Our L1 Node... - is a near-copy of Bitcoin Core. - is Sha256d mined. - forks via a one-time difficulty-reset -- to its minimum value. (So, mining will be crazy at first.) - Yes, we will change the seed nodes, the name, the network magic, etc. Codewise, the L1 will remain compatible with Bitcoin Core: - We will continue to merge their changes (even the bad ones). - The L1 will activate Bip300/301 via CUSF -- the core untouched soft fork. So, no lines of code will be changed, on the L1. - The activation client will be published periodically (link below). - We will do several bug bounty contests this summer. - The client will be frozen 30 days prior to the fork. Yes, there will be Drivechains: - We have 7 in developement right now. - Users can also submit their own. - Drivechain is a vision of "competing L2s" -- this avoids the "dev capture" problem. - These L2s are all Merged Mined. Miners automatically get free $. - Our L2s are already capable of planetary scale, and onboarding 8 billion users. - We also have a zCash-like L2, with strong privacy. - Other L2s: Truthcoin (Prediction Markets), CoinShift (Decentralized Exchange), BitAssets (NFT etc), BitNames (Identity), Photon (Quantum Resistant). Unlike BCH (the 2017 fork): - There is no "Bitcoin" in the name. New name, new brand. - You are getting advanced warning (4 months). - We are replaying all txns (at first). We will release a coin-splitter tool. - This is a permanent & sustainable fix to Bitcoin's problems (instead of a 1 MB to 8 MB temporary fix). - Back in 2017, the BTC tech stack was strong, and expectations for Lightning were strong. Today, it is the reverse. Video to follow.

In other words: An ingenious idea, to ensure that it is *profitable* to locate, and fix, errors in Bitcoin Core in a 100% decentralized way

Bitcoin is like TCP/IP. It has only two possible futures: either everyone uses it, or nobody does.

"bip-110 isn't dead. bip-110 is alive and well!" bip-110:

Sometimes I hear people say that Bitcoin may take 50 years or more to become a true global currency. We don’t have 50 years. The fiat system is crumbling and will be replaced - either by something better or something worse. Bitcoin is our best and perhaps only real hope to fix the money. We must move fast. Fix the money. Fix the world.

@klos Yep

"through rapid adoption"

@joshatoshi It takes a certain number of IQ points to tell the difference between: "Bitcoin Core raised the default op return txn relay rate in v31" And "Core developers removed *an obstacle* to broadcasting large op returns" The first is true; the latter is false

If you believe increasing OP_RETURN from 83 to 100,000 bytes doesn’t increase Bitcoin’s attack surface, you’re either highly regarded or have some ulterior motive. Bitcoin does not need a “killer app” to be useful.

@Truthcoin @LayerTwoLabs @Bitcoin @eCashr Part 2 - youtu.be/3P43dPKp1rY #BITCOIN bitcoin:native

🍊 We put people at @TheBitcoinConf Las Vegas to the test for a chance to win ONE WHOLE BITCOIN. 🏆 Could you identify a famous Bitcoiner from just the top of their head?

"Relay policy" is a theory that there are multiple competing "policies" out there. But there aren't really. Furthermore, the "policy" claims that, sometimes... A) A person who wants to transact, wants to pay a fee, and who has already created a fee-paying, signed txn B) A miner who wants to collect as much $ fee revenue as possible ...A and B will somehow be unable to find each other on the internet, and pass along 500 bytes or so That theory is false.

@BitMEX_Jon @DylanLeClair @knutsvanholm (this is an *over-agreement* with your underlying point, by the way)

All nodes matter.

You know that Lighting is not very good tech When it was built since day 1 to be blockchain agnostic With atomic swaps between chains being heavily advertised in the beginning And a year of scrutiny & testing on Litecoin Only for Litecoin to stop maintaining it Decred is the only other chain that still supports Lightning And Lightning on Bitcoin, in spite of all the hype and heavy marketing, has less than 0.023% of supply locked in channels and only works decently when heavily centralized (though there are failed transactions even between custodial wallets) What a waste of time and resources! If only we didn’t put all eggs in this basket and encouraged the market participants to come up with the best designs for scaling solutions where self custody + unilateral exit are non-negotiable But then again, I’m pretty sure that the companies supporting Bitcoin developed secretly hope nothing ever gets achieved so CBDCs and other centralized solutions can get adopted within this short window of opportunity Tether on Tron is the best example of such a product. So successful even the most hardcore maxis are afraid to criticize it due to various conflicts of interest

@z_Z_zz_ZZZ_z_Z All phenomenal content

@z_Z_zz_ZZZ_z_Z yes, plus this one flew under the radar youtu.be/APr7kQi1gLg

Now available in YouTube Format youtu.be/OBBsKtlNGfI

@c64f7e94 At the time, Ethereum was a low quality vaporware product Even in late 2016, when it was 500x better -- it was still very low quality So, that is a confounding factor, certainly

This does seem like the only feasible (and honestly, best) governance mechanism Bitcoin has right now. If people want a change to Bitcoin, prove it out as a competitor, and hopefully Bitcoin is agile enough to adopt it. If not, we have a new "Bitcoin". I wonder what the world would look like had @PeterRizun won more support: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topi… Maybe the problem was that he didn't let early/big believers invest? Ethereum did, and fought the uphill battle against Bitcoin's network effects.

@LorenzoARK Genius

My thesis on dishwashers: why you should have either 0 or 2 at home, because 1 is utterly useless I think the longest-standing fight between my wife and me is about the utility and usefulness of a dishwasher. I think dishwashers are the most useless appliances on Earth; obviously, she loves ours. My argument is super simple: if there are fewer than three people at home, adults, not kids, you are better off, by pretty much any metric, washing the dishes by hand. To me, the whole process of pre-washing them, putting them inside the dishwasher, and then taking them out, sometimes still drying them, and putting them back on the shelves is utterly ridiculous and defeats the whole purpose. I just hate having to take them out the next day and put them back on the shelves. I would rather wash everything by hand in 10 minutes and get it over with. Over time, though, I have slowly realized that what my wife really hates is having dirty dishes in sight. She just hates it: the smell, the way they look, everything. So I have come to this conclusion: you should either own 0 dishwashers or 2. Having 1 makes no sense. Why 2? You start loading one dishwasher until it is full. Once you turn it on, you start using the second one. When the first one is clean, you simply take the clean dishes directly from it, effectively using the dishwasher as their storage place. Once the second one is full, you run it and start using the first one again. This really solves both problems: you never have to leave dirty dishes in the sink, but at the same time, you never have to take all the clean dishes out of the dishwasher and put them away.

@w_s_bitcoin @elpapo @cryptoquick Ok I will measure PoW using Sha256d only, though Unless instructed otherwise

@Truthcoin @elpapo @cryptoquick Whether RDTS is enforced on the heaviest chain by Oct 1st.

Hey @elpapo…whatever you do, don’t back out now. Only question is who do you guys wanna use as an arbiter?