reply on: The filter stupidity gets even more stupider \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

102 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec \ parent \ on: The filter stupidity gets even more stupider bitcoin

Sure there has been talk of that. But it's a contentious hardfork to do so. So I propose to burn all satoshi coins on BCH because they love hardforking.

169 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 9 Dec

also, why would satoshi's coins be any different than anyone else's? They're satoshi's coins, not yours or mine, and therefore, the only person who should decide what to do with them is satoshi.

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec

I'm of the opinion that they're exactly the same. Your coins, my coins, satoshi's coins, scammer's coins, thieves' coins, even Saylor's coins.

But if in the end Satoshi's coins will be frozen, let's just freeze Saylor's and Blackrock's too. Would be much funnier.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 9 Dec

One of the conversations around this brought up the coins being stolen as the hypothetical scenario.

I still thought it was better to let the hacker have them.

171 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec

Can't make a meme out of Vitalik "stopping all trading" and then do the same.

Edit: this meme:

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Murch 9 Dec

It’s not clear to me why making Satoshi’s coins unspendable would be a hard fork. That seems like an obvious soft fork to me.

102 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec

What if satoshi wants to spend their coins?

Not your keys, not your coins means that you don't get to make decisions over coins that you don't have the keys for. If you do have the keys, OP_RETURN is a great unspendable output, I hear.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 9 Dec

You mean, Satoshi would propose a hard fork to reenable spending? Making them unspendable is a soft fork.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9 Dec

No, a portion of Bitcoiners would. It will be toxic.