TORONTO HODL 🍁

Imo, there's a lot of overlap between this 3rd faction and Knots. Maybe even 100% overlap.

@BTCBreadMan The cure for gambling addiction is gamblers eventually running out of money and casinos all closing down as a result. Stuff just fixes itself!

I watched. Giacomo holds two positions. That BIP-110 is bad and that even if it was good, it's set a negative precedent if it were to activate. The latter he elaborates on with something along the lines of "If BIP-110 activates, that'd mean *people* are in charge of Bitcoin and people are retarded - look at how they acted during COVID!" Yes, unfortunately it is that bad of an argument. Bitcoin is a dynamic system that can and must change at times in order to preserve itself. He does acknowledge this "homeostasis" argument but fails to apply context that can trivially demonstrate its harmlessness. i.e BIP-148 which had no consensus and as I keep saying, we did any way, after which Bitcoin was much better for having had it happen. At the end of the day, Bitcoin is controlled by node runners and you can be scared of populism/democratic uprisings among unwashed masses all you like, but there's no one more appropriate to have that level of influence. It's demonstrably not devs or miners. Many would like it to be - notice the ball-gargling going on with BIP-54. (Because nodes couldn't care less about it while a few devs liaise with a giant miner to get it pushed through. Murch describes this as "genuinely popular" which he contrasts with BIP-110's apparent unpopularity. The latter having only *checks notes* 7000 nodes.) If not nodes....then who? This isn't democracy which is essentially 99% of people pretending to decide what to do with 1% of people's resources getting betrayed and thus voting increasingly vindictively and causing the socialist death-spiral that just ends up gutting the middle class. This is Bitcoiners deciding what happens with *their network* and they have proven remarkably adept at maintaining it. Which isn't surprising - they have skin in the game. Not only that, but there is literally no other defence against 51% attacks (which are trivial in today's landscape), and corrupt/sloppy devs.

The Core industrial complex wants you to know that your node doesn’t matter. (Unless it’s a BIP-110 node, then it’s an attack on Bitcoin).

More people are running Knots than Core 30. More people are running BIP-110 than ran BIP-148. Are we there yet? No. Long way off. Why? Because very few would lose something as a result of segwit. It was just disliked for seemingly coming at the cost of a block size increase (which it also added as a compromise). With BIP-110 however droves of scammers are getting ejected from the space. They will fight tooth and nail to frustrate it and do not care how much disruption they cause in the process. This is why it made sense to act quickly two years ago and not allow the rot to set in. However failure on our side is not an option as this is the last chance to reclaim Bitcoin as money with its traditional *and necessary* hostility towards other uses cases that can only degrade its decentralization, corrupt its developers, turn its conferences and cultural events into the humiliating scam fests we spent years distancing ourselves from. Let's get moving.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw, on why Bitcoiners should be unreasonable and run BIP-110

Bitcoin Core = Pink Panther Sleeping Little Man = Bitcoin Plebs Dog = @LukeDashjr 😉

Going on vacation with my family. Will be offline for at least 1 week.

Thanks for replying. Countries first need a policy to stop illegal immigration. Then they need to enforce that position, even while enforcement will be far from perfect. That is very different from turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, or welcoming illegal immigration. The same is true for Bitcoin. The key question is, what is our position? From that position will flow a set of imperfect but effective enforcements that will deter and prevent much spam. But the key thing is to define the position we will strive to enforce: Are we for or against spam? The enforcement cannot and will not be 100%. The enforcement is there to act as a deterrent, like a speed limit. 95% of the time I could speed and not get caught. But, the 5% I would get caught deters me from speeding the rest of the time. The anti-spam position with enforcement is effective. No serious business is going to build on a protocol who has a position that is against their business. Even if they get away with it today, if the reference client and bitcoiners say "this violates our position" they forever live in fear of being rugged. This is merciful and good for everyone: - Spammers won't build on Bitcoin, because they know Bitcoiners can/will turn on them - Fewer plebs and normies get scammed by scammers building on Bitcoin (because Bitcoin is not a scam, so scammers misuse Bitcoin's reputation) - Spammers can't complain about a network that is hostile to them, because the hostility was known in advance Last point: At a human-level, it is cruel to tell illegal immigrants they can stream over the border, only to deport them a few years later. A clear and consistent position is merciful so people's lives are not devastated with shifting policies. Likewise, having a strong and consistently enforced border policy (what data is allowed on Bitcoin?) is not only right, but it is good for human flourishing, and for Bitcoin adoption at every level. Bitcoin is money. The best money we've ever had. We should enforce that position, so all monetary data flows freely, and some enforcement of spam deters a lot of spam. The last thing we should do is resign ourselves to spam.

@EnjoyingBitcoin The analogy doesn't fit because countries can for the most part stop immigrants if they want to. We can't stop data embedding on chain given the digital nature of things like steganography. Take a look at what @ProofOfCash is doing with how he's demonstrating encoding

BIP-110 is about re-establishing the definition of Bitcoin. Livera's argument goes something like this: "Illegal immigration has been going on for a long time. It is not going to kill a country. People can just ignore the small number of folks illegally coming across the border." No. Countries are primarily defined by their borders. Those lines determine what the country is and what it is not. To redraw them arbitrarily or to ignore them is to kill the country. In the same way, Bitcoin is defined by its borders. Is it money or all kinds of data? Bitcoin Core has redrawn the border, ideologically and technically. BIP-110 is putting the border back.

@bitnorbert @CoinCornerDanny @dathon_ohm Sorry, day job called. Looks like dathon ohm answered already.

@EnjoyingBitcoin @CoinCornerDanny @dathon_ohm You can't "right now"? Maybe later today?

BIP 110 guys, please convince me why someone should support it.

@stephanlivera "Bad argument, but I won't/can't rebut, so hopefully he just believes it when I say it's bad." - Livera

@EnjoyingBitcoin Argument by analogy is poor. And the analogy doesn't fit

@DavidD99261219 @CoinCornerDanny @ToneVays 💯

@EnjoyingBitcoin @CoinCornerDanny The more I listen to anti-BIP-110 arguments, the more happy I become about BIP-110. This is gonna be great! Thanks @ToneVays for doing your interviews!

@fernevak 💯

@EnjoyingBitcoin Solid argument. A border is a membrane. It is designed to filter and discriminate. That's how organisms persist over time. A functional membrane repels that which is contrary to the continuation of sovereignty and liberty.

@hodlonaut i maintain that bitcoiners showing that a bitcoin client who messes with the users is replaceable would be the single most bullish thing for bitcoin we've seen this decade

@theonevortex bocked me 🫡 The absurdity here is almost performance art. A decentralized network security model is explicitly built around independent nodes enforcing policy. That’s the whole point. That’s the backbone. And the new argument is: “Well yes, large miners can bypass the policy network entirely… but that’s just reality. So we should normalize it.” Normalize it? In a decentralized system? 🤣 So let me get this straight: Miners can bypass nodes. Therefore, bypassing nodes is just “leveling the playing field.” If miners can openly route around the policy layer whenever it’s profitable, then what exactly is the policy layer? A suggestion box? A vibes-based firewall? That’s not decentralization. That’s decentralization cosplay. Calling it “harm reduction” is the cherry on top. 🤡 BIP-110 For Bitcoin Decentralization Preservation 🌱

@pastorcoin Because you'll disappoint Dave Ramsey 😉🤣

I found 3 separate credit cards that offer 0% for 12 months. Why shouldn't I max one out and buy bitcoin and roll over the debt for 3 years?

@CoinCornerDanny Happy to answer, but can't right now. Maybe @dathon_ohm can weigh in?

@EnjoyingBitcoin How does it affect Lightning, DLCs, miniscript?

@bramk @PierrePoilievre @KenSimCity Re: Pierre, too soon, Bro. Too soon. Joking aside, Pierre does give me some hope for Canada. And you're right, Ken sounds like he's doing great.

@EnjoyingBitcoin Only if @PierrePoilievre won, but I heard @KenSimCity is doing a good job

Alright everyone, where should I move?

Bitcoin has slowly been redefined as Permissionless Data, drifting away from Permissionless Money. That shift started philosophically, and has now appeared in the code, with an official space for non-monetary data. BIP-110 restores the definition of Bitcoin to Permissionless Money by being hostile to arbitrary non-monetary data. Yes, as always, non-monetary data can still make it on-chain, but under BIP-110, this would be an abuse of Bitcoin, not a condoned feature. This hostility, while not perfect, discourages future non-monetary use cases, and clarifies Bitcoin's unique purpose: Money.