pull down to refresh
You can do it in a GitHub ticket; would def help with organization.
Thanks, I didn't find that link in a quick look around on the site... hadn't tried just looking on GitHub as this comment section was open in another tab.
probably some application of "intersectionality"
territory.watch exists to support territory founders.
I think it could also help newcomers who are trying to get an idea of the shape of the town... obviously one good way to do so is just chatting with people in comments, and reading "lit" posts, although this could be like an IR satellite image, if you'll forgive the anachronistic metaphor...
what's missing is an overview of all territories, either in the landing, or on a separate page... could you [or I] specify this idea in greater detail and Claude would add it?
The most recent total rewards pie has already been published:
https://stacker.news/rewards/2026-08-11
Looking at complaints in sibling comments, it's possible there was a problem yesterday... although it also is possible that your activities didn't earn you a share. I think that's less likely because I got the impression you're one of the heavier zappers.
if he's actually running Knots, shouldn't it be possible to reuse the same datadir after compiling to a regular node?
It's not like anyone's coins have moved, really. A two-block fork is effectively non-existent, unless they actually change PoW.
the traditional way to "fool" these is to use the binary encoding of a transcendental number, like Pi or Napier's Constant [aka "e"].
theoretically those aren't very high-entropy either, if you express them by the formula used to calculate their digits, although the complete lack of structure makes them evade the typical prediction algorithms.
The gap is now over 100 blocks; that means that miners of the first few non-BIP110 blocks are able to spend those blocks' rewards already.
I guess Ocean can't exactly look at the two blocks they mined on BIP110 and tell themselves that those nonces would've been good on the main chain, as the remainder of the block header would be mostly different; however, they can probably still consider all the energy spent in order to find those two blocks as wasted.
you mean the audience member who begins from 47:16 ?
the camera doesn't show the audience, and her voice isn't familiar enough to recognize confidently... Bitcoin is a slightly larger village than it was ten years ago!
part 2 of Chris Guida's talk
Okay. So, as we already said, Bitcoin must be preserved and improved
in three ways. Universal decentralized money. So, Bitcoin has three
sort of principles hat define its identity. We must preserve and
improve univers universality. We must preserve and improve
decentralization. We must preserve and improve Bitcoin's monetary
quality or moneyiness is another word that people like to use for
that. anything that helps uh that improves these qualities helps
Bitcoin win. Anything that harms one or more of them can be
considered an attack on Bitcoin. And if Bitcoin loses, humanity
loses. So, this is very very important um subject to I think I hope
to most Bitcoiners. Bitcoin must work for every human being, not just
banks, governments, funds, and wealthy investors. Ordinary people
must be able to spend, earn, withdraw, self-custody, and verify. this
this is something that we have to continue working towards because
it's it's something that Bitcoin does not scale to a global user base
and remain decentralized as it is now. but with improvements in
technology and Moore's law, we should expect this to happen in the
next, you know, few decades probably. So but all we have to do is
keep our eye on the on the goal, right? t the goal. The goal is
universality. custodial exposure and payment processing is not
enough. These are choke points where authorities can come in and uh
um take control of the system. the old financial system must not be
rebuilt on top of Bitcoin. Otherwise, we failed.
Bitcoin must remain decentralized. No developer group uh minor or
custodian or government can become Bitcoin's ruler. Influence is not
authority. Is much harder to control hundreds of thousands of small
node runners and pleb merchants than to control a handful of large
nodes. Decentralization is what makes Bitcoin neutral. A lot of
people say BIP 110 is you anti-neutrality or something like that. And
you know, our response is no, it's pro- neutrality because we're
trying to make sure that Bitcoin stays decentralized.
Decentralization is what makes Bitcoin neutral. Bitcoin's particular
consensus rules are actually not neutral. They are they are geared
towards Bitcoin being better money. decentralization prevents the the
money printer from returning in another form. ust said, we want
Bitcoin to be better money over time. Also, um, Bitcoin has not yet
outco competed the dollar. So, we know that generally speaking, the
US dollar is considered to be better money than Bitcoin. As
Bitcoiners, we know that this is not true. But the the rest of the
world does not believe us yet. So, we have to continue improving
Bitcoin's moneyiness. that's its unique purpose, universal
decentralized money. It's not a good database, uh, image host, token
platform, or permanent file server. Other systems can perform those
functions better. Bitcoin's consensus and policy rules should serve
its monetary mission. This is what I was saying. Bitcoin's bit
Bitcoin's rules are actually not neutral, right? Like like the the
enforcement of the rules is neutral because of Bitcoin's
centralization. But the rules of Bitcoin themselves are are not
neutral, right? They're pro- Bitcoin. They're pro- money. They're
pro- decentralization. They help Bitcoin improve and fulfill its its
function. Again, Bitcoin defeats fiat by becoming better money.
Bitcoin's principles should not be for sale. The only way we win is
if these three principles are not for sale, not for short-term fees,
speculative demand, institutional improve institutional approval, not
even for a much higher Bitcoin price. Of course, we know if we if we
succeed eventually, then eventually in the long term, Bitcoin's price
will be higher than it ever could be if if we uh if we sell out our
principles. so as we said, as I said earlier, NGU is great, but you
know, come for the NGU, stay for the actual monetary revolution. so
as a thought experiment, imagine, so imagine you're an infinite money
printer or you're you're you have an infinite money printer and
Bitcoin is coming after you and trying to out compete you. How how
how much you try to stop Bitcoin from doing that or to kill Bitcoin or
or or stop it in its tracks? Well, you can print a bunch of money,
right? You could print Bitcoin's entire market cap. You could say,
"Hey, Bitcoiners, I have $1 trillion or10 trillion." and I'll give
this to you if you make Bitcoin small and unscalable. So, what would
your response be if somebody offered you, you know, $10 trillion to
make Bitcoin small and unscalable? This guy, this guy says no. Yeah,
I agree with that guy. Yeah. No, we should say no. We should not
sell out our principles. We want Bitcoin to be to to be to overtake
the the money printer and replace it. if they offer us a trillion
dollars to make Bitcoin centralized, should we do that? No. If they
offer us a trillion dollars to make Bitcoin something that isn't
money, should we do that? No. Exactly. If we compromise any one of
these principles because someone offers us enough money, we have sold
out. We have sold out our principles. We have sold out Bitcoin and
we have sold out the future of humanity. We must not sell out.
Bitcoin does not fix itself. Consensus rules do not interpret,
enforce or repair themselves. Bitcoin survives because people
understand its purpose. Its principles are not protected by
mathematics alone. They survive because node owners value them and
enforce them. Culture is therefore part of Bitcoin's security model.
So another thought experiment, imagine there's an inflation bug in the
software that somebody accidentally introduces. Would we say that
inflation is legitimate now because consensus allows it? Would we call
the bug would we call fixing the bug censorship? No. I think the
answer to to those questions is obviously no. We would just fix it,
right? We would consider it a bug and we would say let's fix it. And
if core refused to fix it, node runners would route around core with a
UASF. The rules exist because we enforce them. The 21 million limit
is protected by node runners. If the culture stops caring, the rules
can decay with it. So again, if there's an inflation bug and the
culture says, "Oh, that looks fine." Then what happens? The bug
doesn't get fixed and now Bitcoin has arbitrary inflation and now
Bitcoin is terrible money. so again, culture is part of the security
model, right? We have to make sure that our cultural values are solid.
If the culture stops caring, the rules can decay with it. If
Bitcoiners forget that Bitcoin is money, inflation double spins can
eventually become acceptable. Bitcoin does not protect itself. When
Bitcoin breaks, it is up to us to fix it. Many developers
understandably treat Bitcoin as a profession. But for many node
runners, Bitcoin is a way of life. Running a node is closer to
censorship than censorship. Running a node is closer to citizenship
than consuming a product. For many of us, Bitcoin is preserving
Bitcoin is a duty to humanity. there's this notion that oh, you just
run a node because you're selfishly running a node. And that's kind
of true, but that isn't everything there is in life, right? We want to
feel like we're part of something bigger than us. Bitcoin is not
about us. Bitcoin is h uh our our descendants and the rest of the
world and the future of humanity. um we are providing a valuable
service for humanity by running a node and making Bitcoin function
properly. So how did core threat core 30 threaten this? Core30 um did
more than just change relay policy. It changed what Bitcoin
officially treats as legitimate. It moved large file data storage
toward normal supported use. Policy defaults send a cultural signal
which has a real effect on Bitcoin's actual purpose. Core developers
may say otherwise, but actions speak louder than words. There's three
categories of transactions. There's invalid transactions. There's
valid but abusive or unsupported transactions. And there's valid and
legitimate or supported transaction types. Invalid just means the
consensus rule say your block is invalid if it includes a transaction
like that. so you literally cannot include that transaction in a
block otherwise you're not in you're not participating in Bitcoin.
The second category is the domain of um standardness or default
policy. And the this is a um uh Satoshi deliberately left category
one uh very very broad because um if it's too narrow then we have to
hard fork to add to to loosen the rules and add more functionality.
So he left it very broad and then within that very very broad scope of
consensus um he disabled pretty much everything and that was uh is
standard um that became the standard rules. So that's that's category
two is where relay relay policy works. and that that dictates what
things are valid but we don't support or we consider to be an attack
or an abuse. And then category 3 is just valid and legitimate or
supported. These are payments, right? Because Bitcoin is money. It's
supposed to be used for payments. So payments go in in category 3.
Before core30, data spam was valid but abusive. So it was in category
- It's considered non-standard.
I'm not doing this for people who have that preference...
I'm also doing a slight cleanup of the raw caption dump, although putting more than minimal effort into it will rapidly make me just abandon it and go do something else.
I believe this is the second such effort I've done; the old macroprogramming rule is to wait until you have three separate samples of a pattern, before attempting to write an abstraction...
these take a while, as I've still not automated processing YouTube captions, because honestly, I just don't bother with most of these talks.
if you actually find this kind of comment helpful, zaps aside, please comment so that I have some inkling of whether it's useful; mere zaps for effort are nice, although probably not enough to motivate posting the entire transcript.
Hey guys, welcome to my talk, BIP 110, how Bitcoin wins. My name is Chris Guida. I am a Bitcoin medium of exchange researcher and BIP 110 reviewer and cheerleader. And here's where we are and when we are. Okay, so a little background on BIP 110. it was a proposal introduced by a developer named Nathan M in October of 2025. It is now a wildly popular UASF with about 15% of the network running it. it's about to activate its first stage um on August 8th in a couple of weeks and the second stage will be later in September. I've helped with reviewing, testing, and promoting it. And I'm extremely bullish on its activation. And that's why I'm here today to kind of explain to you guys why why I'm excited.
Okay. So, BIP 110 is how Bitcoin wins. So, what does it mean for Bitcoin to win? Uh, NGU, ETFs, bank custody, government reserves. Well, in my opinion, when Bitcoin wins, what that means is it's the end of the infinite money printer, also known as the separation of money and state. people like to say the separation of money and state um commonly in the Bitcoin community. I think this is a is an admirable goal, but I think we need to be more specific about what we mean by when we say that. What it means is the global reserve asset can no longer be created at will by connected elites. So, the problem is not that central bank money exists. The problem is that central bank money exists and it's the world reserve asset. It's the thing that everybody has their savings in. So, this is an especially pernitious form of central bank money. Bitcoin wins when people voluntarily choose it over fiat, right? Basically, we need to out compete the dollar. That's the goal. So that people choose to use Bitcoin instead of the dollar. it does this by maximizing along three axes: universal decentralized money
Okay, so a little background on the infinite money printer. Um, it robs from the rich to the sorry, it robs from the poor to feed the rich. Uh, it causes a lot of systemic injustice and most people understand that the re's systemic injustice, but a lot of people don't identify the source. Bitcoiners are way ahead of the curve on this. We understand that it's this in infinite money printer. Um, what does this how does this cause uh bad uh bad things to happen in the world? It rewards bad behavior while punishing good behavior. It finances war destruction and injustice. Uh it protects banks and corporations from the consequences of reckless behavior. Causes all sorts of malinvestment. Um it lets connected elites to create the the global reserve asset at will. So this is what we said before. Um and humanity is really headed over a cliff unless we fix the money. Um so just a little background on me. I I got kind of uh excited about Bitcoin once I saw the failures of some of these uh early attempts to these were all right after uh the 2008 financial crisis. Actually, Bitcoin sort of came out of the same uh financial crisis that there's a the famous thing in the Genesis block that says, you know, chancer on the brink of bailout for second bailout for banks. Um so that that that it points to Bitcoin's purpose um and also does a a proof of no premine. Um anyway, so all of these other movements came out of of that financial crisis. And I was really excited about that and got caught up in that energy that sort of like, you know, like let's let's have a revolution against against Wall Street, against the against the big banks, against the the money printer, like you know, everybody can see that the system is corrupt and that, you know, the mask has really come off. So we're going to win. But what happened? They depended on uh they depended on the goodwill of the fiat money system. They they depended on uh having a lot of funding. Um, and so when you depend on having a lot of funding, and your opponent can print money, you're at a disadvantage. Um, and so the money printer can fund institutions, hire their leaders, redirect their anger. Um, it can smear them in the media. It can make them look like they have no purpose, right? They have no principles. Like I would read uh um interviews of people from from Occupy Wall Street and they're like, "What's your movement about?" And they're like, "Well, we kind of don't know." you know, and it's just like, you know, I'm sure if you really talked to the Occupy Wall Street people, they would be like, "Yeah, they would have, you know, yeah, we we we think the system is corrupt and we're trying to to to reform it." So, but it didn't even need to do that. All it needed to do is print money and buy it, basically.
Bitcoin is different. it does not ask the system to reform itself. It creates an exit from the system. It operates without permission from the elites. It can finance the people and infrastructure replacing fiat because Bitcoin itself is money. We are not reforming the system, we are replacing it. And so that's why I would consider Bitcoin a a true revolution. and it will succeed where these other movements failed. And the UASF mechanism is Bitcoin's teeth. in 2017, when BIP 148 happened, I got really excited about Bitcoin because I was like, oh, it Bitcoin actually can ward off attacks from the money printer in a decentralized way. Uh, this is really cool. A lot of sort of decentralized or anarchctic systems struggle with collective defense and the UASF is how Bitcoin uh does collective defense uh without a central authority. Um and this was successful and and in my opinion that's actually why Bitcoin went up a lot in price in 2017. so yeah, basically you have some developers propose it, businesses choose what to accept, the users validate um you know that it forms into a movement and then it's really really hard to stop. yeah, these are the blocks that we will recognize as Bitcoin. Other blocks get rejected and it limits the danger even from a centralized mining industry. That's why it's still important even today. it shows that the nodes are in charge, not the miners. And this is this is just the system of Bitcoin and how it works. also we really don't want a centralized mining industry to be in control of Bitcoin's rules. That would be really bad. just a side note, filters and temporary UASFs are are kind of like an elements of an immune system. actually I really like Brandon Quiddam talking about how Bitcoin is sort of like a mycelium and it has a little bit of an immune system and there's these things called mushroom scientists which are sort of like the the filter or the you know the UASF developers who who uh who um manufacture these novel molecules in response to novel attacks and then those and then the the instructions for how to build those molecules propagate throughout the network and then the network defend itself defends itself against the new attack. mycelium operates chemically and Bitcoin operates with software. So, it's pretty much the same same mechanism.
it's based on a short story which is available online, probably as Fair Use for educational purpose:
https://fyp.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/chiang_story_of_your_life.pdf
I strongly recommend reading it, as it conveys much more interesting ideas than what was only hinted by the movie.
Although the move was quickly seconded by most of the bip110 crew
again, I urge you to read their congratulatory notes in a slightly more charitable light.
if some teenager posts photos of how they found an old unused firearm and have polished it and restored it to working order, and all the local gun nuts show up with enthusiastic praise for the well-regulated militia's newest member, do you immediately send an anonymous FBI tip about someone planning a school shooting?
looks like it has gone through!