Nonexistent Me

a righteous crash out

@flaming_hodl I was a maxi since before the term was coined, I'm definitely no suit, and with a handful of followers and often not being on here for months at a time I'm hardly an influencer! Also, I think BIP-110 is regarded. Please do keep making those imaginary lines in your head though!

This BIP-110 fight is Maxis Vs suits and influencers. Very clear lines have developed.

The Bitcoin Softfork That Tried to Police “Junk Data” — And Why It’s Already Failing bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-… via @bitcoinmagazine @reardencode

@cguida6 @bramk @LukeDashjr @ts_hodl But like I said, it's their business to pursue now should they not want to be on the list. ICYMI Trey did also respond to my post.

@cguida6 @bramk @LukeDashjr @ts_hodl I don't think they should be in a list titled that way. Them saying that their customers won't be affected if 110 is successful may make them "110 ready" but in a list about node preferences that label implies support for 110.

Need to get something off my chest about something that happened a couple weeks back with the original version of this bip110 merchant list The list caused a bit of a stir due to having incorrect information and was quickly updated to remove the questionable entries, and after just two days there was only fully verifiable information on the list and I fully vouch for the current version The old, wrong version of the list was up for only a day or two, so i doubt much damage was caused, but the way the situation resolved doesn't sit right with me because bitcoiners are obligated to call out lies and bullshit when we see it, especially when it comes from us or people who are "on our side" Accordingly, I am calling out myself and one other member of the "monetary maximalists" group for dishonesty during this brief episode Originally there were a bunch of entries that said "planned". I was unsure what these meant, but I was assured that they were based on solid information After becoming impatient and posting a screenshot of the list on my account, it slowly became clear that the "planned" section of the list had been more or less completely fabricated by one of the group members He later apologized for making "errors" on the list, but the "errors" were so egregious that they could only have been complete fabrications At first I tried to defend the list because I didn't want to have to delete a bunch of companies which would have made it look like bip110 was losing support, when really the support the entries represented were never real in the first place I ended up leaving the list up much longer than was appropriate, and should have removed the "planned" entries as soon as their reliability was called into question This whole thing is silly because the list of actual, verified entries is something we should be proud of. There are tons of pleb merchants supporting and running bip110, and the list keeps expanding every day. We don't need to lie in order to win, and honestly, if we did, then I wouldn't want us to win. The other side is the side that relies on gaslighting and bullshit. Bip110 will win because the truth is on our side So I wanted to make this post to apologize to the bitcoiners who saw the old list before I deleted it, and especially any companies who felt like their views were misrepresented. For not vetting the list more closely before posting the screenshot, I'm sorry. For leaving the "planned" entries up after they had been proven untrustworthy, I'm sorry. And to the person who made up the entries, you know who you are. I was hoping that you'd come forward and admit what you did, but since you haven't yet, I'm doing it for you. We will not win if we see dishonest behavior on our own side and don't call it out. Such behavior from the other side is why bitcoin is in this mess right now Thanks to the anti-bip110ers who called out the list and helped me see it was not what it claimed to be, and thanks especially to the pro-bip110ers who urged me to take the screenshot down. In the end, I think it all worked out for the best, but I wanted to make this public statement to force myself to commit to a higher standard moving forward Bip110 (and ultimately, bitcoin itself) is winning because we hold ourselves to higher standards

@cguida6 @bramk @LukeDashjr @ts_hodl Anyway, that's Trey's/Unchained's business to pursue or not. It just seemed a bit dishonest to list them on the basis of the tweets you linked to.

@cguida6 @bramk @LukeDashjr @ts_hodl x.com/nonexistent_ia…

@cguida6 @bramk @LukeDashjr @ts_hodl Sure. Chris and Luke are right and the rest of the dev community is just too dumb to understand. Got it. Anyway, care to respond to the previous comment as to why you're listing companies as supporting BIP-110 that haven't actually stated their preferences?

@nonexistent_iam @bramk @LukeDashjr @ts_hodl Because they're too thick (or corrupt) to understand that the ability to hack images onto nodes whose purpose is to operate a payment network, without their consent, is a vulnerability that is being actively exploited

@taters_bitcoin If only it worked! 🤷‍♂️

@nonexistent_iam Weak nonsense. This has been debated to death. Among its many problems is that the fee market prices inclusion, not perpetuity. The bigger issue is that: BITCOIN IS MONEY, NOT DATA STORAGE. The protocol should align with what Bitcoin is -hence #BIP110.

If you’re not with us, you have to be ACTIVELY against us -otherwise you’re ACCIDENTALLY with us. URSF or STFU! #BIP110

@bramk @LukeDashjr @cguida6 @ts_hodl I can't respond to Luke, he only unblocked me long enough to post. I'll respond here instead. My point was only that a list titled "A comprehensive list of Bitcoin companies and their node software preferences" shouldn't contain companies that haven't expressed a preference.

@bramk @LukeDashjr @cguida6 @ts_hodl Also, obviously most of the dev community don't actually agree with him that it's a bug fix.

@taters_bitcoin That's why we say "the fees are the filter". Limited blockspace + fee market means when there's enough demand for financial transactions most of the jpegs & tokens will be priced out. So it's not worth making protocol changes that are risky and easily circumvented to fight it. 🙏

@taters_bitcoin FWIW while I probably wouldn't use the term "attack", I do think it's a hack or exploit. I just don't think it's a big issue long term & certainly not existential like some in the 110 camp are saying. It's more of an annoyance. Bitcoin was designed to be spam resistant/limiting.

@taters_bitcoin Ok bro, thanks for updating me on what I think and what my correct designation is. I shall henceforth be known as the spammer who doesn't spam.

@nonexistent_iam But, you don't see SPAM as an attack. So you are a spammer.

@taters_bitcoin I've never spammed in my life 🤷‍♂️

@nonexistent_iam #BIP110 is an immune response to you spammers.

@BitcoinJed1 @csuwildcat I'll take a Xitter poll over the actual reality reflected on the network, or, for that matter, prediction markets, any day. /s

@csuwildcat Bro, it's like 70% of people. Run a poll. Just do it.

If all you do is run a node no one relies on for any for-value purpose (exchanges, miners, wallets, service providers, merchant payments, etc.), it isn't a node with any systemic, economic weight to swing network consensus. You can't sybil your way to controlling Bitcoin, kiddos.

We've now reached the stage where, even after he's blocked most of Bitcoin Xitter, @LukeDashjr 's posts have more hidden replies than visible ones.

@MichaelDunwort1 @GhostofMapl I'm not totally sure what you're asking beyond what I answered. My biggest wish for Bitcoin is that it remains resilient to attack and keeps doing what it does as a permissionless censorship resistant store of wealth/payments network. Tick tock, next block. 🙏

@nonexistent_iam @GhostofMapl Yeah more focused on Bitcoin sorry is what I meant. Your Bitcoin wish! Mining hardware is solid wish! More asking to try see where you think the opportunities are etc… I agree mining hardware and the related supply chain is a solid wish! 🧞‍♂️

Your leader has spoken