pull down to refresh
71 sats \ 14 replies \ @siggy47 20 Apr \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
Somebody's gotta land this thing.
‘Captain, how soon can you land?’
‘I can't tell.’
‘You can tell me. I'm a doctor.’
‘No. I mean I'm just not sure.’
‘Well, can't you take a guess?’
‘Well, not for another two hours.’
‘You can't take a guess for another two hours?’
reply
When I saw your post I started thinking somebody has to land this crazy rune thing.
reply
I don’t know anything about Runes if I’m honest. Should I look into them for the purpose of being better informed?
reply
Not really. Just ordinals/inscriptions like crap that are driving transaction fees through the roof. Hopefully the children will get bored soon and stop playing with their new toy.
reply
these are not just toys. Are a sophisticated attack to create congestion on the network and make it hardly usable.
Absolutely nobody is using those crap.
reply
A significant threat?
reply
I think we will have a fork soon.
Look at what is IMF working...
They are studying Bitcoin and that means they want to fork it into a "compliant BTC".
Damn it... seems that @podconf was right all along with "compliant tokens".
reply
I've had a theory that whenever a hard fork occurs, it is up to consumers to decide which side will succeed by selling one side and buying the other. But I had assumed that hard forks would only originate from private groups; I hadn't considered that nation-states (or a group of nation-states) might start a hard fork.
For "compliant Bitcoin" forks to work, two things would need to be setup prior to the fork:
- (1) national firewalls to block access to non-compliant BTC nodes, and
- (2) regulations to force centralized exchanges to ban the trading of non-compliant BTC.
Implementing those two requirements will be very difficult. Thankfully, most nation-states are not capable of such coordination. But the IMF has many smart people; the IMF might be able to get a few European countries to implement the two above requirements. But we shall see.
Without the above two requirements, consumers will be able to curb-stomp the "compliant BTC" fork by simply choosing what they think is the better option. And since a "compliant BTC" fork will obviously be worse than BTC, most people will assuredly sell the former and buy the latter. Those who do the opposite (every transaction has a seller and a buyer), will ultimately be poorer as a result. In other words, hard-forks transfer wealth from gullible people (those who like the inferior side of the fork) to the cognizant people (those who prefer the superior side of the fork).
In this way, "compliant BTC" forks are self-defeating, because they punish the compliant people and reward the non-compliant people.
This is a likely outcome, but it is not a guaranteed outcome. There is a possibility that some clever academic could discover a way to trick people into buying "compliant BTC" and selling BTC. I am not sure how such a trick could be arranged without outright defrauding people. Mass fraud would lead to runs on centralized exchanges, which are the primary (only?) vehicle for state-control of cryptocurrencies. But that would be good for Bitcoin, because shitcoins can't survive without centralized exchanges.
Combined with the UNs SDG10 for reduced cost remittances it seems they are engineering whys and wherefore…
check this out
https://twitter.com/natealexnft/status/1781502281180975597
Shitcoin-themed chicanery… they will get bored and we can all go back to normal then. Thanks for the synopsis.
reply