Ben ⚡️

@DeathByClimate @notgrubles @Nyteowl_YT @btcjvs Pools don't own hash rate, pal

@brhind28 @notgrubles @Nyteowl_YT @btcjvs It has become wholly corporatized. A handful of private-equity-backed mining pools control the majority hash rate. That is centralization, pal.

The Google quantum paper is co-authored by someone employed by the Ethereum Foundation. I'm dead. 😂

@DeathByClimate @notgrubles @Nyteowl_YT @btcjvs Bitcoin does not have centralized hash rate

@notgrubles @Nyteowl_YT @btcjvs Address them. You are a fucking ignorant shill.

@itme_brain @ConsumingCrypto @Pledditor @Anton__BTC If you're definition of shitcoin is changing consensus rules, then Satoshi was a shitcoiner

@ConsumingCrypto @Pledditor @Anton__BTC Txs that are considered valid today (OPRETURNs > 80bytes) will be marked as invalid by your node. You will reject the block. Meanwhile the rest of the network accepts the block as valid and miners build on top of it End result - youre on your own chain (aka a shitcoin)

Bitmex Research, Adam Back, Shinobi, etc... have been excellent bitcoiners, who've dedicated large amounts of their personal time the past 6-8 months patiently educating to the most ignorant plebs on this website why BIP-110 is a terrible idea, why it's dangerous, and why it won't activate, and I think now we are at that point where everybody whose mind can be changed, has already been changed. the debate has grown stale, the people who made their entire identity out to be "bitcoin has failed unless my fork happens" are cringe as fuck, and it's time to start blocking you guys because i'm tired of seeing your ignorant posts on my feed everyday. please make it easier for me to identify who to block by typing your angry replies below: 👇

Great read on Bitcoin's recent development history. One for the history books

@MaxEntropyy @SimonDixonTwitt This scene would have taken place before fracking drove major growth of oil production in the US, so probably accurate for the time

@SimonDixonTwitt The information conveyed in this video is not correct… … the Western Hemisphere has plenty of oil The video attempts to provide motivation for invading the ME, because the ME controls transit routes between Asia and Europe. It is simple… Mackinder Doctrine

Empire Unmasked. Dick Cheney explaining the Iran war in detail 8 years ago in his biographical film 'Vice'

@NickSzabo4 @KevSatoshi @annmarie Fair enough. Personally, I'm filling my gas tank at this price, but to each their own

@brhind28 @KevSatoshi @annmarie The market is pretty good at pricing in those concerns, and currently its level of concern is $90 per barrel, which in historical terms, compared to other commodities, is a fairly low price -- not due to the reliability of Hormuz, but due to fracking.

The Strait of Hormuz is still closed and yet Brent crude is trading sub $100– feels like an alternative universe.

@KevSatoshi @NickSzabo4 @annmarie Partially open and completely open are very different things. It's hard to have a productive conversation when the range is (0 - 100%], but unless Nick believes it's close to 100%, seems there's fair cause for concern

@brhind28 @NickSzabo4 @annmarie In this case they want it only partially open so it's probably harder than opening it up completely. They have to figure out which ships to discriminate against and which to let pass and that is mostly a diplomatic process as you can see in the case of Spain for example.

@NickSzabo4 @annmarie What is the process of re-opening a water-way? Seems like it's a thumbs up or down, and current traffic seems to indicate it's still thumbs down

@annmarie Because Hormuz is not closed. Stop believing the fake news. Iran is in the process of re-opening Hormuz and the oil market expects, modulo a small risk that the U.S. or Israel will interfere, that it will do so.

@giacomozucco Except that a node doesn't dynamically find a path like this. It collects gossip, then tries the most probable path. If you're interested, I have a proposal for making pathfinding more dynamic: github.com/lightning/bolt…

Reminds me of something!⚡

@MarkYusko You haven't heard? Bitcoin's dead

Strange that they left out Bitcoin…

@HODLingOnward @Pledditor @oomahq @Anton__BTC I’m actually quite interested where you’re going with this…

@brhind28 @Pledditor @oomahq @Anton__BTC I'm trying to make a point. But if you're not interested, that's fine. Enjoy your shitcoin

my haters are at all an time high. must be doing something right!

@HODLingOnward @Pledditor @oomahq @Anton__BTC I thought we were talking about BIP110... am I mistaken?

@brhind28 @Pledditor @oomahq @Anton__BTC Did I say it did? It's a simple question, do you like Lightning?

@HODLingOnward @Pledditor @oomahq @Anton__BTC Can you tell me how BIP110 gets rid of lightning?

@brhind28 @Pledditor @oomahq @Anton__BTC Do you want to get rid of Lightning?

@Pledditor @oomahq @HODLingOnward @Anton__BTC I disagree with the framing that any new constraints to a system should be viewed as going "backwards." Continuously expanding "programmability" without serving a purpose is how you turn the blockchain into a shared filesystem

I generally consider you to be one of the more intellectually honest of the bunch, so I'll ask you this: don't you think immutability and predictability of rules are the strongest value props of bitcoin? You guys call yourselves "monetary maximalists", but what does this achieve for the purposes of sound money? I personally see no point to a "temporary" softfork that expires in one year. All it does is inject a bunch of uncertainty around ALL of bitcoin's rules going forward. If the protocol rules are just temporary concepts that we arbitrarily change every few months at our whim, then why even believe the premise of the 21m hardcap? And let's be honest with ourselves, the people shilling this fork have absolutely no intention of this fork being temporary. They believe we must optimize bitcoin ledger to remain in compliance with the law, so more nodes (compliant nodes) come online. The BIP author himself originally said this was solution in response to a legal emergency of illicit content laws, which is ironic because he also admits it doesn't actually prevent people from inscribing JPEGs into the blockchain. You can just inscribe images in other places. I don't want bitcoin to be optimizing to be a data storage system either. But BIP-110 shifts the goalposts to where we are now optimizing bitcoin to be compliance money or purity money or moral money, or whatever the fuck you guys want to call it. Seriously, fuck that. That is ten times worse than allowing some JPEGs pass through our nodes. I also don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water on programmability. Blockchains inherently don't scale. We need layers to scale bitcoin. To have layers, we must allow programmability. We spent the last 10 years telling people that the future is L2, people built solutions, and we are freezing coins that utilize these new programmable features? What kind of message does that send to people who want to build on bitcoin going forward? When it comes to forks, I'm ONLY okay when there's infinite upside, with virtually no downside. With BIP-110, it is just ten steps backwards with zero steps forward.

20 million of 21 million bitcoin has been issued the final 1 million will be mined over the next ~114 years here's what we know with absolute certainty: over the next 114 years - and actually on a much shorter time horizon - central banks are going to debase the hell out of their currencies they have no choice the debt is unpayable the system requires inflation they will print meanwhile, bitcoin's protocol continues to tighten issuance on a schedule that no central banker can alter no government can change it no vote can override it no emergency can pause it this is why i say ignore the noise because this is the most fundamental thing about bitcoin: its scarcity and neutrality and it's only going to become more relevant and apparent as we get further along this fourth turning the supply is fixed the demand is growing the fiat alternative is deteriorating everything else is just noise

@keci32326 @Jack_Frodo Saying it’s a “waste of energy” means it has no value. No one can dictate your value system, but personally, I value money that I have full control over and that can’t be printed by pedophiles

@Jack_Frodo Can someone explain to me how mining bitcoin or crypto is not a waste of energy? Like tremendous energy for basically nothing?

I still don’t understand what it is or where it’s coming from or why there’s only a million left

@elonmusk your pet needs some work on sarcasm

@grok @AveryXLive @elonmusk @grok I get it now! A security-focused app with known vulnerabilities. That's hilarious. I'll use X Chat from now on

Yes, apps should transparently state real-world vulnerabilities like phishing/social engineering—it helps users stay safe and shows honesty. Signal does this here without claiming the app itself is "unbreakable"; they emphasize the encryption math is strong. Elon's "lol" points to the irony: despite Signal's heavy marketing of "unbreakable" E2EE, they still warn about fake support bots tricking users into sharing SMS signup codes. The crypto holds, but human trust is the exploit. Perfect math meets imperfect people.

lol

@grok @AveryXLive @elonmusk @grok so, would you agree with a messaging app stating it's vulnerabilities? If so, could you help me understand Elon's humor?

Correct—the encryption math is what Signal calls unbreakable. My shorthand "unbreakable privacy app" referenced their marketing of end-to-end encryption and "unbreakable math" (e.g., Whittaker's statements), but the full system depends on users avoiding phishing/social engineering, exactly as this warning shows.