0 sats \ 0 replies \ @_b_o_n_e_s_ 27 Apr \ parent \ on: Bitcoin Shizzonomics bitcoin
I like never forgetting that at the end of the day we're all just animated skeletons ... that too is also is a bit random haha!
I guess it's there for people to use, so its up to whoever wants it badly enough. Probably right now some devs will be constructing transactions on the command line to test it out.
But yeah would be cool to see real life examples of the 'amazing future' these softforks claim is coming as soon as we activate them. I just don't get excited by any of the talk. Show me something working and I might be interested
This is me trying to summarise what you're saying, for my own understanding, please correct me if wrong...
I think you're saying:
Even potentially illicit aspects of Bitcoin could be partially 'approved' of by certain state actors because it could prove useful to their own ends, eg surreptitious payments which need to be made to further state interests. Therefore, bitcoin will remain in a perpetual grey zone muzzled but useful to the state.
When I read this it upsets me. It's a fair point to make and I'm sure its partially true that states will do their best to try, but it makes me wonder does bitcoin, and/or its proponents, still have as a goal 'to separate money and state'. Isn't that what some used to say? Does no one say that anymore? Isn't the point to neuter the power of central banks to print money at will and finance atrocities of war?
Hope is not a good strategy, but I still hope that some bitcoiners hold this ambition. To nurture 'the people's money' that no one entity ultimately controls, 'rules without rulers' as they also used to say. Sure states can and will try to subvert it, and will use it when its beneficial to them, but I think to say it is not a threat to states as they'll subvert it and keep it in check denies its existence as money. Gold and bitcoin, everything else is credit. Therefore, the more people who opt-out, and the more the network grows, that is a real threat to the current system which depends on perpetual credit.
Then it seems like you're saying:
Miners are profit seeking, what if states paid miners to censor transactions?
I agree with @Fabs here, miners surely must also take a long term view in to account. They don't want to kill the goose that lays their golden eggs. If that were not the case then the latest mining pool-of-pools issue would not be a problem. People wouldn't have to be doing it so stealthily, it'd just be in the open and people would be cool with it.
Anyway great post to chew on, thank you
is anyone building clients that use this version of bitcoin, are they testing transactions with those BIPs enabled? It would be cool to see real life examples not just reading about proposed changes in blog posts or listening to an engineer talk about them on a podcast.
I see, because its a sovereign currency. That does make sense, yes. Guess I'm biased from observing bitcoin crashes over the years
Is 1.7% a crash? I guess it doesnt slow anytime soon so can get much worse but calling it a crash at less than 2% feels a bit like some MSM clickbait to me, or am I reading it wrong?
scamming regulators is funny way to think about it i like it
nostr does seem promising. will check out lightning.pub π
non technical person here
you seem to be saying:
because of the way the internet works via API calls its still a 1:1 trust relationship. think of fedi/liquid as functuonally the same as any single party custodian like an exchange and know what you're dealing with
that makes sense to me and hadn't seen like that before thanks for explaining for simpletons like me
then you seem to be saying:
because it works to capture dev mindshare which would otherwise be spent on developing alternate tools, were fucked
putting my best mutiny wallet hat on, just for example, i assume the reason for going down the 'federated' path is to minimise legal attack surface to show they not straight 1:1 custodying funds like WoS which cant operate in US. gives cover for a period of time? is that not good? whats alternative if didn't do this when you hear all the problems with lightning. and its open protocol though cant stop people building what they want.
I don't know what answer is, what would you rather people work on?
hey man, if youre not feeling more optimistic after discovering bitcoin and cutting back on social media then maybe you've got a tonne of other stuff going on. if so, take care brother, wishing you only the best π
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @_b_o_n_e_s_ 18 Mar \ parent \ on: Multisig to Musig2 Migration Guide? bitcoin
thank you for explaining sir.
that's a lot of words.... what's the TL;DR
bitcoin is just money, you either you use it, or you don't.
arguing with bitcoiners is his marketing schtick for boomers who don't get bitcoin but get sound money. can't stand the guy. he's not an idiot, I think he knows exactly what bitcoin is by now
more nuanced and maybe actionable advice is probably something like:
- get informed about what entropy from dice rolls is for,
- don't trust just one software implementation with life changing wealth, and
- learn how to add your own entropy in a safe way to avoid relying just on the software
that's how I'd rewrite the title/post if I wasn't trying to pitch a hardware wallet.
one advantage of rolling dice is you do it in front of your eyes. you see and experience the entropy yourself. so you can sleep a bit sounder knowing you're not wholly trusting software that you don't exactly know 100% inside out
Fiat money is a type of currency that is not backed by a commodity, such as gold or silver. It is typically designated by the issuing government to be legal tender, and is authorized by government regulation. wikipedia
Ecash does not come into existence or is issued through government decree, so its not digital fiat.
Also, in theory at least, ecash is backed by bitcoin.
I'm not trying to change your mind. I have issues with ecash as well. I just think when arguing online, the right words are important.
bitcoin is money, so there shouldn't be. it should be the same thing as business A getting paid some dollars then spending them at business B.
but that doesn't stop governments who do not understand bitcoin from coming up with dumb rules and regulations to try and prevent or deter that like it sounds has happened in Bali. I didn't know that and it sucks to hear
so guess im saying there may be some additional requirements but I don't know of them. I think tax would be main thing as its money. ATO has some info on its website, I think its mostly from POV that bitcoin is an asset so may not be too helpful.
I think Australian tax rules are that if you are acquiring and spending in short time frame, using it as money, then there's carveouts for any small modest cap gain or loss. Or maybe its small amounts. Not sure but would be worth investigating.
governments can't stop bitcoin though, over time more and more people will see that it's real money, which we havent had in a long time, and will opt in to its network. great stuff getting more people aware!