Yope

1/ #bitcoin $BTC historical Elliott Wave count and extrapolation exercise. Back around July this year, @AkumaldoCrypto discovered a quite pervasive fib extension of 3rd and 5th waves that seem to occur historically: 2.618. I decided to play with that a little. Read more below...

@_Adrian @1914ad @adam3us @saylor Merits are hard to find on some core decisions. But you are talking just one of many compounding omissions. The datacarriersize bypass bug that was "fixed" by changing the documentation is where things started to go wrong. Read hodlonaut's article series.

Yea this kind of framing doesn't go far with me. BTC is a technology, not an ideology and this strikes me as an ideological, rather than technical stance. We cant keep shifting the convo from whether using consensus rules to limit data is a bad anti-BTC idea, to “Core is the bad guy who started it". Core v30 (whether I agree with it or not) changed default policy, not consensus rules, and it did so through the normal development process with configurability preserved. Labeling it “unilateral” is a narrative serving move IMO. Something should be implemented on its merits. Period.

One of the ways I think of Bitcoin | BIP-110 boils down to this: We get spam in our email inboxes every day. I think most would like to avoid it. But we make the decision on how to mark | filter that spam into trash. This isn't done by a unilateral rule change that decides what to filter, without our input. One path represents individual choice; the other represents implementing censorship via code. As @adam3us noted, the Internet (and Bitcoin) are supposed to be ungovernable systems. We can’t (effectively) stop spam via intrusive protocol changes, but that’s why mechanisms like fees exist.

@w_s_bitcoin @ocean_mining @wk057 That's playing probabilistic games with customer funds. Better relinquish responsibility and let them choose. Hate bip110 or not, you have to admit that ocean is pretty based. It's the only true mining pool (as opposed to hashing pool) with non-trivial hash rate share.

@soloyopee @ocean_mining @wk057 Loss of funds for those signaling are higher.

Looks like @ocean_mining is preparing for a chain split. I’d like to learn more about how this is going to work @wk057.

@w_s_bitcoin @ocean_mining @wk057 If chances of fund loss are non-zero, they should protect their herd... err customers (mostly hasher sheep). It's childish not to.

@soloyopee @ocean_mining @wk057 It’s not worth their time when there’s only a few miners signaling.

@thetrocro "Office Document", "Desktop", "Folder"... Sometimes these stick so much that they end up holding us back.

We need existing terms because they allow us to think about the new thing. See: “AI will soon be smarter than we are, so expect…” But since “smart” is a word only ever used for things like us, our generalizations about smartness are not to be trusted. But… how else are we to think about something new?

When you see intractable debates about whether some new thing is or isn’t x… good sign for the tech. See: Bitcoin and “money” AI and “intelligence,” Agents and “life” New wine doesn’t fit into the old wine skins. The language needs to be invented or adapted.

@ToneVays A trend is what breaks decentralization. If there's a trend towards less archive nodes and more pruned nodes, that's dangerous. If mining also gets sufficiently centralized (and that's a real possibility), IBD could get effectively sybil attacked.

The Power of Nodes Explained! There are two reasons to run a Node: 1. Validating Your Transaction - This is a critical and important function that every bitcoiner needs to do in order to add privacy and security. - This process does not require you to store the Entire Blockchain History, it's a Full Node either way (aka Pruned) - For those that view their Node as a voting machine on Consensus Rules, this part is for you. The voting machine ONLY matters while it's validating transactions sent to you. (The more economic value flows through it, the stronger the vote). This means that if you are running a Knots Node that has NOT received any Sats in 2026, it has only provided "virtue signaling" while its economic weight to Consensus Rules is equivalent to the Stapler on your desk. (actually, the stapler has probably been more useful) * Why? Because Miners will follow Node Consensus based on which Node Operators will purchase their mined bitcoins (on a 100 block delay) & which Nodes Operators are more likely to spend Sats paying them a transaction fee. Since the blocks are pretty empty, spenders are not as important as purchasers, but in the future this might change. So a world where there are 100,000 Nodes with little buying/spending power is not the Consensus Miners will follow if just 1,000 counter Nodes are more likely to generate the majority of economic activity. Miners are NOT brainless hammers, they know it's FREE to spin up a Node & 'virtue signal'. 2. Provide Historical Data to New Node Runners (aka Archive Listening Node) - This is the voluntary part of running a Node and requires you to maintain the full history of every transaction. - For those old enough, think of this like the mp3's you used to download on Napster, while it's true bitcoin will not function without a sufficient number of these Nodes spread around the world with good internet connection, bitcoin does not get EXTRA decentralized as this number increases (maybe marginally). You were able to download that song if 100 people were sharing it equally as well as 100,000 people sharing it. But if only 1-2 people share it, there is a problem. - Anyone trying to convince you that you MUST run one of these nodes to keep the network secure and decentralized either does not know how bitcoin works or is bullshitting you for their agenda of "spam is making your node too expensive". Every miner pretty much runs one of these Nodes and there has been plenty of them since bitcoin's infancy. - Most people screaming for this probably don't even know that to be a Listening Node you need port 8333 open to make it visible for access to the data. Additional Notes: - Lightweight Nodes like SPV rely on Full Nodes and do NOT relay any blocks, If you are using an SPV make sure it's pinging a 'trusted' node (ideally your own)

@1440000bytes 0.1% is still a rather low fee, isn't it?

Paying 40k routing fees for LN transaction is insane. I have never paid this fee for any on-chain transaction.

@whale_watcherz @KodyRayz @LukeDashjr @josephfounder Still very different to Bcash. Bcash was on the side that core is today, rejecting a tightening of rules. If BIP110 comes out ahead just once (maybe through luck), core needs to hardfork like bcash did or they get wiped out. That's why a split will only last for a few blocks.

@soloyopee @KodyRayz @LukeDashjr @josephfounder x.com/ocean_mining/s…

Removing rules is a hardfork. That includes scheduled rules like subsidy halvings, and yes, even BIP110. Rejecting BIP110 is a contentious hardfork attempt. And unlike softforks, hardforks need consensus to succeed. There is no consensus on rejecting BIP110.

@LeeringObserver @FreeSpeechBTC21 Can you point out some historical errors?

@soloyopee @FreeSpeechBTC21 It's full of historical errors and mental mastubation.

"You don't know what you're talking about" isn't an argument. BIP-110 currently has near-zero miner signalling. The default (status quo) rules continue without it. Not activating a proposed soft fork isn't a hard fork, that's basic protocol mechanics. If you have actual data showing sufficient miner support or why rejecting an under-supported UASF suddenly becomes a hard fork, share it. Otherwise it's just noise.

@whale_watcherz @KodyRayz @LukeDashjr @josephfounder Bcash was a hardfork though. Do you know the difference? Besides, I think there aren't that many node runners that are even aware that knots exists, let alone bip110. The majority of non knots nodes are running obsolete and known-vulnerable versions of core. That says enough.

@KodyRayz @LukeDashjr @josephfounder >50% + a higher marketcap compared to Bitcoin Core, for at least a couple of days. We saw what Bcash tried to do on the first day of the fork.

@LeeringObserver @FreeSpeechBTC21 Did you read the quoted article?

@FreeSpeechBTC21 x.com/tonevays/statu… lol

@adam3us @ToneVays Will you also explain why you think that, or is cheap ad-hominem all you can be bothered with lately? Btw... The article is a great ego-test, and it shows.

@ToneVays it's stupider and weaker than BSV, if that's even possible. x.com/adam3us/status…

I actually "read this" and assumed it was a joke, but now I'm now sure 🤦... Holly shit, even the original talking points from Big Blockers were NOT this Retarded 🤯

@ToneVays Did you actually read it? The article isn't bad nor delusional at all. I can understand though, how it will inevitably trigger confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance on a lot of people who either don't bother to read it, or don't understand the FOSS development process.

@Ozone10Bi @MayaPar25 He missed the third possibility: spam becomes the main fee driver. Like he also missed the emergence of mining pools and so many other things. Satoshi was smart and had a genius idea, but let's please stop pretending he's infallible, okay?

@MayaPar25 Guys , Let’s study Satoshi ! 😉 VIP110 Virgin Bitcoin is not Bitcoin !

It’s a threshold for early activation, it activates on flag day regardless. Please at least read and understand the BIP before spreading nonsense.

@levelsio @RadioGenoa Looks like ants to me. Ants like fresh stuff and their saliva is a potent sterilizing agent. This cake may very well be refrigerated, but if ants can get to it, they will. Even if you have AC. This being McDonalds though, I'd rather worry those ants get diabetes.

@RadioGenoa No AC = rotting food

McDonald's in Germany.

@derekmross @ChrisGathe @mattkratter Lately I am getting deeply worried that the current crop of top bitcoin core developer/maintainers are alarmingly clueless about Austrian economics and theory of money.

@derekmross @ChrisGathe @mattkratter Good point. But IMHO, bitcoins monetary premium being eroded, brings it into the same direction of fiat. We must make sure alternative use-cases get discouraged as much as possible and I don't see core developers caring about this. The contrary seems more true.

BIP-110 supporters aren't bad people. They're our friends. They're incredibly passionate Bitcoiners that realize Bitcoin is money and hate spam. Unfortunately, their passion for Bitcoin as money and their hatred for spam has clouded their judgement and made them forget what makes Bitcoin beautiful.

@derekmross @lukedewolf @djsenior13 Ugh. This article takes some of Luke's comments out of context and misinterprets them due to lack of technical knowledge and severe confirmation bias. It's trash. Sorry. I like Lola, but her tinfoil hat got the best part of her on that one. Also, it was written pre bip110.

@lukedewolf @djsenior13 This was the new information that made me stop running Knots. I went back to Core after this. therage.co/leaked-luke-da…

@derekmross @ChrisGathe @mattkratter What larger battle? Have I missed something? Serious question...

@ChrisGathe @mattkratter perhaps it's bad actors putting bitcoiners against one another when we have larger battles to fight?