Conza

A lesson I learned long ago: "Employ your time in improving yourself by other men’s writings so that you shall come easily by what others have labored hard for." — Socrates📖

@BITCOINALLCAPS @ap_hanley Yes - *taps the sign* Specifically chapter 4 - regarding brain wallet sweeping scenario, quantum to a tee. x.com/Conza/status/2…

@ap_hanley @Conza You can't prove either case though, you can only assume what the behavior of that coin movement was after the fact via heuristics, which can be flawed. Was it satoshi - his family moving the coins, or a QC ? You don't know, and none of us will either.

This is your reminder that the most prolific Bitcoin Core dev is in favor of freezing Satoshi's keys because of QuAnTuM 👻

@ap_hanley @BITCOINALLCAPS No x.com/Conza/status/2…

@BITCOINALLCAPS @Conza if you end up in a situation where it's choosing between freezing coins or losing them to a quantum attacker, it's an obvious choice to freeze every other aspect of the discussion follows on from this basic fact

@GhostofWhitman @DudeJLebowski Sorry, so what's your principled objection? You want it to stop spam? Except you don't think there is any? 😂 Again: no principled objection. Do better.

@GhostofWhitman @DudeJLebowski I'm sorry, do you have special needs? You don't think non monetary data on a monetary network is unjustifiable? Reduces the quality of that network? You think Satoshi dice and other retarded shit should never have been "forced" to leave? It's not trying to. 🤡. See: Mitigate

"BIP 110 is censorship, but here's a BIP that would literally confiscate millions of BTC." 🤪

@GhostofWhitman @DudeJLebowski Nope. You'll need to state (find) a principled objection.

@DudeJLebowski Both are retarded

@AntePurgatorio @DudeJLebowski 😂

@DudeJLebowski Make sure to use the version that deletes your wallet for extra quantum resistance.

[1] Impact on bitcoin (rivalrous digital commodity) — “the asset” Recognisability: Wrecked. Every bitcoin would now carry the knowledge that it could be targeted by future consensus votes (may not stop at 'fark Conza' but also 'fark Marcellus' next?). Durability: Compromised. The monetary unit’s integrity is no longer guaranteed by users/node runners/code that Bitcoin is money (and having the private keys means effective control/possession). Once the monetary unit can be altered retroactively (against Bitcoin's monetary properties), its durability as a rivalrous digital commodity on an open source monetary network is dampened. Doesn't matter if almost the entire world wants to pretend minimum wage laws don't destroy jobs etc. they can vote all they want with 'consensus'; still won't change the universal laws of economics. Portability: Directly damaged. And the willingness to accept or hold them long-term drops because portability now comes with political risk (am I pissing off @LynAldenContact?). Fungibility / Homogeneity: Broken. Coins become non-homogeneous: some are “Conza clean,” others are “confiscated from Conza under special circumstances.” This is the exact opposite of the homogeneity required for sound money. Hoardability / Storability: reduced. The entire point of saving Bitcoin (money) is the credible promise that no one can seize it (effective control w/ the private keys). Confiscating based on economically illiterate reasons (e.g. opposite of inflation bug fix) would likely see long-term demand as a store of value collapse. Medium of Exchange: good/best MoE needs to be able to hold(improve) value (purchasing power), and the better the Sov, the better it is as a MoE (than it otherwise would be). Exchanges don't happen instantly, but over time. Low storage and transportation costs: Unaffected technically, but the economic cost of “storage” rises because holders must now monitor governance risks against monetary use on Bitcoin. Easy handling: Undermined. Handling becomes psychologically and economically harder when every transaction carries the meta-risk of future monetary rule changes (in negative direction). Impact on Bitcoin (open-source monetary network) — “the network” Issuance / mining: implication is that if such a radical monetary change can happen, then zero reason to not accept that the 21-million schedule also becomes conditional. We already have bCore devs pushing to change it. If consensus can remove UTXO's “because Conza sucks,” what's the principled objection that would stop later adjusting issuance, or redirect subsidies under any future pretext. Supply predictability (fixed) — the hardest monetary property — can essentially be gone. Autonomy of transacting: Destroyed for targeted addresses. “Your keys, your coins” becomes “your keys, your coins — unless the economically illiterate network votes otherwise.” Settlement finality: Obviously, undermined. Monetary settlement is no longer final. Finality now has an asterisk: “final unless we economically illiterate neophytes change the rules.”

🤣. Love the hypothetical. Flawed premise though: how do they know my UTXOs? I'm not out there like a retard broadcasting them as "muh diCKbutT.jpG aRt" collection, negatively impacting fungibility. But sure, accepting that for the sake of argument, they've got them and have consensus to fork (based on "fark that guy [and his economic literacy])". "Philosophically, do you see anything wrong with this proposal?" Absolutely. It objectively reduces Bitcoin's quality as money [1 - extensive additional commentary in following reply]. The signal it sends. And unlike the CAT, a slippery slope is *actually present* (when its objectively *not* based on maintaining/improving Bitcoin's monetary properties, but 'fark Conza consensus'). "In case you do, why doesn't the same objection(s) apply to The Cat?" Non-monetary vs. monetary: The creator of ordinals admits they have nothing to do with Bitcoin the asset itself, ergo don't belong on the open source MONETARY network. Categorical clear cut distinction. Ask someone to share their art collection; "sure". Ask someone to share how much Bitcoin they have? "Dafuq?" — they explicitly concede/demonstrate they know there's a difference. Contradictory counter arguments: * Note that *everyone* objecting to The CAT (on the basis of "confiscation"), consequently must also reject the effort to fix the 2010 inflation bug then (i.e. 184 billion Bitcoin). * Folks had obviously zero problems with "confiscating" via soft fork those 'valid transactions'... given it violated fixed supply (21 million). This is a result of the obvious negative inflation considerations. The key point: you can only know that more 'nominal units' are a bad thing from accepting (AUSTRIAN) economics[!]. * If they (rightfully) concede this; then we have the entire field of economic knowledge that indicates what IS money, and what ARE sound monetary properties and thus whether certain changes IMPROVE or REDUCE their quality. Thus, without any need for "morality" or "subjectivity" we can scientifically (logically) deduce what makes Bitcoin a better money (or worse). Spam (non-monetary data) makes it objectively worse. * Yet every clown out there just drops the convo and gets high on cope & cognitive dissonance at the mere thought of having to concede the above (and thus their own 'principled objection' is in rank contradiction to it and needs updating (accepting Bitcoin is money only, and actually understand what that means, given the field of knowledge that deals exclusively with it, as is thus the most apt [not sole]). * Bug exploited vs. completely justified monetary transactions: A bug is being exploited; there was no BIP, there was no consensus. bCore have accepted there was a bug, but updated with documentation instead. There's no bug being exploited by myself having UTXO's... * Almost all coretards objecting to the CAT, likely agree with Sipa on confiscating Satoshi's coins: Just to highlight how insanely contradictory the anti-CAT/pro-quantum-threat-"steal"-actual-monetary-coins are... (Keynesian @pwuille). It's not like "rug Conza, fark that guy!"... it's literally rug Satoshi! They can't even define inflation (increase in the money supply) right. The total stock of money supply wouldn't increase, it's already there. Would the sudden influx of coins available for sale impact price? Nothing a priori about it being a sudden influx; perhaps white hat quantum guys secure it and use to fund development? Confiscating Satoshi’s coins, even under a quantum pretext, would degrade the majority of the properties listed. It would convert Bitcoin from the first truly rule-based, seizure-resistant digital commodity into a politically governed asset whose rules can be bent “for the greater good.” That is the exact opposite of what makes Bitcoin superior money. The precedent would be far more damaging than any hypothetical quantum risk it claims to solve. Fixing taproot on the other hand, maintaining Bitcoin's monetary properties and overtly stated purpose as a peer to peer electronic cash system would do the opposite. It would re-highlight that Bitcoin is money only, and that you should OP_GFY if you don't act/consider it as such.

@BobMurphyEcon Still waiting for an answer: x.com/i/status/20445…

it was literally george’s job to argue with rothbardians on X

@GeorgeSelgin You never answered this though: x.com/i/status/13848… 🦗's

A quick announcement: as part of my general retirement strategy, I’m taking an indefinite break from X, to free up more time for other stuff. Thanks to all my correspondents here, and to my followers especially. May your further exchanges here be fruitful.

@GeorgeSelgin Thanks for confirming @evoskuil's attempt to frame Bitcoin as "market fiat" was re-tard-ed.

@BitPaine Farked in the head economically illiterate moron x.com/i/status/20011…

The cleanest way to “freeze” quantum-insecure coins is just to sunset *all P2PK UTXOs at a defined block height.* Give Satoshi and anyone else, say, 3-5 years to move them. If they haven’t moved to quantum resilient addresses by then, they are assumed to have been lost or forfeited by their owners. Nothing wrong with sunsetting old network components that present vulnerabilities. This gets rid of the “confiscation” language. It’s a technical bug fix/security upgrade.

Honestly, if you are opining on e.g.: "Quantum", The Cat, & the concepts: "confiscation", "theft", "censorship", "freeze" etc. are being used AND you have not read @KonradSGraf's exceptional small monograph on this foundational topic — you're the equivalent of a socialist who hasn't read @mises Socialism, or a Bitcoiner who hasn't read the White paper... Buy the book, or free pdf available as well below. No excuses. Tag the ignorant actors you know, so they can level up accordingly.

@moonbootspleb @TronMonGone @balkanhodl @ocean_mining 😂 insane(ly economically illiterate). So get more data? I mean how obvious does it need to be? Lol

@Conza @TronMonGone @balkanhodl @ocean_mining Not enough data. Fiat mind.

This is cool to see. This Ocean miner dipped a toe with 56 PETAHASH for a business quarter before coming to the conclusion that @ocean_mining is paying more than the FPPS pools. At the start of the 2nd quarter, they upped it to 860 PH on Ocean. That's 10X the original hashrate for the first quarter. This happened just in time for some insane luck which resulted in this miner picking up 2.94 BTC in the last week. Since they're running Datum, it's only a matter of time before this beast of a miner get's to stamp their name on the blockchain forever. Ocean's just paying more AND it's the only pool that's transparent regarding distribution. We'll probably see more of this kind of action.

@1914ad @barackomaba @pwuille & @bitcoincoreorg x.com/i/status/20010…

“BIP-110 is cEnSoRsHip” - the same evil villain crypto VC seeking to profit from confiscation of 34% of Bitcoin via BIP-361

@btc_jefferson @1914ad @barackomaba @pwuille @bitcoincoreorg @pwuille & @bitcoincoreorg x.com/i/status/20010…

@btc_jefferson @1914ad @barackomaba Literally Sipa / @pwuille and thus can easily assume entire @bitcoincoreorg economically illiterate Keynesian dev syndromers

@GrassFedBitcoin @BitcoinBombadil @pwuille & @bitcoincoreorg x.com/i/status/20010…

Disgraceful. Forcing Satoshi to choose between proving he is alive before he may want to or lose access... That's a ploy to get him to betray his identity. Because of what? Fear a thief may cause a dip in price? Eject these fools.