The bar the beat is, can the au government seize the keys? Today, yes, they can take the keys and your sats. The au eo6102 scenario was my biggest concern, but it has not grown large enough, yet.

Anything is better than this. If they are able the maintain the same UX, and remain compliant with whatever regulations get raised, lets go.

Does the Spark protocol prevent eo6102 attacks by states against lightning wallet providers? The wallet provider is not able to modify or push a malicious version -- assume phone vendors block any new malicious version on their marketplaces under this scenario.

Realistically, Satoshi predicted a cap of 1 BTC = $100,000,000. It’s in the units. 2.1 quadrillion 2009 dollars. But we will go beyond this, however you and the world will have switched to Satoshi accounting by then.

0.1 will buy you multiple houses, 10M sat, compatible to having $10M 2025 dollars.

Forever and always?

The festival was held in many cities and towns. The attacks happened in multiple places. There were 13 in Paris. Total across France is near 150 now.

Supposedly this was a thing on Tiktok. Someone was encouraging people to syringe attack people. And some people did it? WTF!

There were 145 people jabbed all over the French Territories, it was not just at a single festival.

Yeah, like Bitcoin Cash or SV. Nothing stops a person from running these forks, except maybe intelligence.

If you want to fork off the network with Knots, you can. The Knots fork people can cry about 'true bitcoin' on some new subreddit.

This sounds like bcasher talk.

If you don't know or were not around during the block size wars, you might be looking for easy answers to difficult technical problems.

If you want everything to be on-chain, BCash or Bitcoin SV might be more your style. It has not worked out well for those fork chains.

Very high risk. Capabilities increase month by month. Big big changes coming for many things.

Heh, the paradox of authority. It’s not about him as an authority, but someone with experience and wisdom to know better.

It absolutely does have a “monopoly” of what Bitcoin is. It’s not even a monopoly — it just is. Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin. Knots isn’t Bitcoin, it’s a Bitcoin flavored troll client.

No we really do need to scare people away from bad clients, or at least warn them of the risks. We have the benefit of hindsight. I saw the same with Bcash.

I posted in another comment.

“I don’t believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.” — Satoshi Nakamoto

Yes, all true. I don’t think this fundamentally changes that Bitcoin Core, the codebase today, is the codebase started by Satoshi and the one implementation of Bitcoin. If one wants to run a Bitcoin node, one runs the Satoshi client.

100% this. Client diversity absolutely harms Bitcoin. For some reason, nobody remembers that Satoshi warned against this very scenario very early on.

I’ve heard people say “Satoshi was wrong about client diversity”, but they were usually ethereum people. So far, in this post, not even that!

It’s not strengthening the network, it’s delegation of thought to the lunatic fringe.

Oh no. The menace is the alternative clients. Knots is a false path created by a sick man.

You know Satoshi called alternative clients a “menace”. I am quoting also.

How soon we forget.

No. This is ethereum talking points. That brain dead shitcoin believes that client diversity is a strength. I know that Satoshi warned us of this.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin Core. Everything else is a simulation.

lol, fiat statist. I’m quoting Satoshi by the way. He said “menace”. I guess Satoshi was a fiat statist then.

If it causes your client to fork the network, it would be a menace to you. But generally, no?

If you are skilled enough to modify, patch and compile your own client (core), [which I do of course], this doesn’t really apply. Depends what one is doing…