Dan Held

@jacobin @ZohranKMamdani Insane.

"Socialists not only understand economics just as well as capitalists... but can solve their years of mismanagement through an embrace of our principles." — @ZohranKMamdani

@KurtSteele84 @cremieuxrecueil Congrats you’re the meme!

@cremieuxrecueil @danheld I’ve had pitbulls my whole life and have never been bitten. None of my dogs would ever bite me. I could literally beat them and they wouldn’t even consider it. You’re an idiot. Stick to things you are educated about.

People who own pit bulls for their adult life will usually suffer a serious bite. Almost no one who owns golden retrievers for the same amount of time will be bitten. The choice is clear.

@BullishBitcorn @Bankless According to your pleb logic it should be 1 BTC supply

@danheld @Bankless The number is very relevant. Let’s say there are 100,000 Maseratis on earth, then for the sake of your argument, there were 10,000,000 Maseratis on earth. Do you really believe that in both cases, the car would cost the same? The hard cap is harder, when it’s smaller

Satoshi may have made one of $BTC ’s biggest UX mistakes, @danheld argues. “Why 21,000,000 versus 21,000,000,000?” “I think he was quite bearish.” “He didn't know if it was gonna work.” “But I think he was a little too bearish, and that unit bias problem, I do think is an issue.” “Everyone thinks Bitcoin's too expensive.” “I think Satoshi did make a mistake on that where he put the decimal.”

@dcsilver @Bankless Exactly right

@Bankless @danheld Said Differently: Satoshi may have underestimated human psychology, but he definitely didn't underestimate math. The decimal placement affects perception, not scarcity.

@BullishBitcorn @Bankless The number is irrelevant. The fact that it’s fixed is relevant

@danheld @Bankless I’m glad he choose 21 million. Harder money is a lot more valuable than the rest of the shit coins

@cwilbzz You’re free to ignore reality and be a retarded pleb 👏

The gaslighting that "only consensus can fight spam," like there's currently no agency for node runners, irritates me. The reason I run Knots (the pre-RDTS version, as I just can't get on board with 110) is that when it comes to spam, I believe Bitcoin node policy is the network's Second Amendment. Does the Second Amendment technically stop tyranny? No. Does it even stop tyranny against me personally? Also no, not completely. But do we fare better than those that don't? I would unequivocally say yes, because we can collectively defend ourselves as individuals when shit hits the fan. Same with node policy and spam. Does it stop it completely? No it doesn't, there are ways around it. But the point is the same as the Second Amendment as a functioning network: on a policy level, I choose what parameters my node enforces within consensus. If enough of us band together and it becomes a meaningful part of the network, you can't convince me that it doesn't have influence. The social effects of defiance are what make node policy matter, much more than any technical feasibility or enforcement. So yes, it's true that even if 99% of nodes reject a consensus-valid transaction, a dedicated person could just go directly to a miner. But I think that's a good thing. It's transparent and something the community can shout about. And you can't tell me a miner won't think twice about including it, knowing so many are opposed to that type of transaction. Acting like node runners don't have this power and that it doesn't matter is the weakest argument from the "only consensus can fight spam" bros.

@aaronburnett Not a credible threat

On one hand China copying SpaceX landing playbook is bad for SpaceX and on the other hand SpaceX pursuing the same orbital data center market as China is also dumb idea for SpaceX. Hard to keep track if i should consider china as credible competitor or not.

@albitcoiner Blocked for intentional ignorance ✌️ If you want to ignore how computer science works then there’s no basis in furthering the conversation

@danheld Information theory doesn’t make fees the definition of validity. You still haven’t answered any point. Ever hear of staying on topic? Obviously not.

Fees are the filter. Welcome to basic Bitcoin education.

@peterrhague @ShangguanJiewen And they’re quite bad at innovating vs copying

@ShangguanJiewen "Close" is doing some work here. This puts them about a decade behind SpaceX, and they will need to work extremely hard to close that gap.

China is close to erasing the only technological lead the USA has left. China successfully recovered an orbital-class reusable first-stage booster at sea for the first time. Recovery method: First stage performed a controlled descent and was captured using a "wire" catch system on a specialized floating recovery platform named Linghangzhe (Enlish "Pathfinder") in the South China Sea. Long March 10B (CZ-10B) Launch site: Wenchang Commercial Space Launch Site Hainan, China.

@BitcoinMonk21 @CunyRenaud Nope.

@CunyRenaud @danheld Bitcoin is censorship.

@albitcoiner Lord grant me the arrogance of an 80IQ pleb who got into bitcoin a year ago 👏

@danheld Fees prioritize transactions that are valid under the protocol rules. Consensus decides what is valid. Congrats, you skipped the chapter after basic Bitcoin education.

@albitcoiner Ever hear of information theory? Obviously not

@danheld Fees prioritize valid transactions. They don’t define validity. That’s the BIP-110 debate. Go study basic protocol design.

@skeptic1 Sorry you don’t understand how Bitcoin works?

@danheld So you create a problem and then introduce a filter to clean it. Thats not fundamental thinking.

@RhettEnriquez Huh? I don’t work there anymore. Also im opposed to BIP-110 because it doesn’t solve anything and opens up horrible political attack vectors

@danheld I wonder what incentives you have to oppose BIP 110

@albitcoiner Congrats you have no idea how blockchains and Bitcoin work 👏

@danheld By that logic, paying a parking meter gives you the right to dump a sofa in the space. Fees buy access to valid blockspace, not permission to use Bitcoin for spam. Welcome to basic protocol design.

@dougdevine @Bankless Uh nope, doesnt change hard cap mechanics, just solves the unit bias problem.

@Bankless @danheld What a douchebag Satoshi was! He could've cut the pizza into way more slices, thereby allowing more people to eat.

@CoSatoshi821 Pleb slop

The fee market alone will not prevent attacks that could potentially damage Bitcoin's reputation for generations, potentially permanently, especially when we currently have very little adoption as MoE on the base layer.

@Richard_ISC @Bankless Huh? It’s still a hard cap.

@Bankless @danheld Stuck in their fiat mindset

@BullishBitcorn @Bankless No one is saying it should be inflated… A hard cap is a hard cap. He could have chosen 21B or 21M

@Bankless @danheld 21 mil makes it way more scarce =way more valuable. What’s with all these people trying to inflate bitcoin all the sudden, it’s stupid. Must be people who waited too long to get in. If there were 21 billion, it wouldn’t be worth $600. Scarcity is the brilliance of Bitcoin