bobsbtc

JUST IN: More than 20,000,000 Bitcoin have now been mined. Mining the final 1 million will take another 114 years.

JUST IN: 85% chance Bitcoin falls below $60,000

Mechanic: Thanks for the kind words about Nunchuk. We appreciate you recognizing us as a pioneer in the space. We also appreciate you admitting that the original premise is ridiculous. The question was not just poorly phrased, but absolutely loaded. I wrote "multisig is a bug" because that is the logical conclusion of what the OP insinuated. It was an error which the BIP author, a technical person, didn’t bother to correct, but instead doubled down on. Let’s be clear: Multisig HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with BIP-110. Multisig or multisig fragments by themselves do not contain OP_IFs. It is the Miniscript compilers that generate OP_IFs. Bringing up multisig is irrelevant and does nothing but sow FUD and confusion. I want to take this opportunity to talk about how Bitcoin standards are actually made. We know the process because we went through it with BIP-129, and participated in others. Bitcoin is unlike other technologies. It is radically decentralized. There is no central committee making decisions like there is for web browsers or GSM/CDMA standards. This means a proposal can only become an industry standard through its own strength. You must convince others to adopt it by demonstrating that it is sound, exhaustive, and safe. You need neutral language, precise logic, and time in the market (extremely low time preference). How do you think multisig became the standard it is today? A few years ago, almost no hardware vendors even bothered to support it (think early versions of Ledger/Trezor). It took years of incremental effort by many people, convincing stakeholders one at a time. Throughout that process, BIP authors must stay unbiased. You must be considerate of all stakeholders. You must stick to facts. You must maintain a cooperative spirit. The author has to be the GLUE that unifies vastly different players to accept a common standard. That is the challenge of making changes in a system this decentralized. Now, look at this conversation. Does this feel like fact-gathering or cooperation? Or does it feel like a witch hunt? Before finding out the facts, or even learning how Bitcoin wallets work, the goal was to accuse and strong-arm us into making changes for a draft that is less than 3 months old. Does this look like the type of sound engineering Bitcoin needs, or more like “move fast, break things” BS of fiat software? There is a ridiculous hidden assumption here that the proposal is already final and should be accepted as truth, even though it’s still in the draft stage and lacks substantial peer review. The OP wanted to "cancel" us before even understanding the inner workings of wallets. It feels less like engineering and more like cancel culture. These tactics might generate engagement on X, but as a means of creating a Bitcoin standard? They have zero chance of success. I can tell you that right now, given our experience in creating a BIP. Just my 2 cents on the vibes around this conversation. Please change the rules of engagement if you want any chance of success.

💥BREAKING: 🇳🇱 36% unrealized gains tax just passed in the Dutch House of Representatives.