pull down to refresh

26 sats \ 5 replies \ @justin_shocknet 19 Dec \ on: The subliminal message of the BlackRock video conspiracy
Controlling a lot of coin doesn't give them a leg up in changing anything, quite the opposite as change would be a risk to their existing business... maybe this is a warning from them that the price of Bitcoin is eternal vigilance?
It's evident that there's already a coordinated attack to increase supply:
  • Use influence operations to astroturf a narrative that Bitcoin can't live up to a false/projected "original" ethos without changes
  • Create a shadow governance of shady startups and NGO salaried developers that support the changes and are prepared to implement
  • Flank and divide Bitcoiners over the details of said changes
  • Marginalize as virtue-less any objectors who recognize there's no cause for change at all
  • Shift the Overton window on unit bias by introducing a BIP to change the unit nomenclature
  • Bargain that adding more base units (divisibility) is not the same as a supply increase, and is less risky than the off-chain rube goldberg systems put forward by your sockpuppet startups
  • Death blow: up the base unit from 1/100M to 1/100T, setting the precedent of mutating the immutable
write
preview
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 19 Dec
Bargain that adding more base units (divisibility) is not the same as a supply increase, and is less risky than the off-chain rube goldberg systems put forward by your sockpuppet startups
Could you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure how switching to millisats would resemble a supply increase. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your post. Lost in translation and all.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 19 Dec
There's 2 ways to look at supply:
  1. The total number of whole coins being 21M
  2. The number of base units that is how Bitcoin actually functions, 21M * 100M
I think it's fair to say that no self-interested Bitcoiner would actually change #1 because it would be dilutive to their holdings... The second is a bit more insidious because people generally can't extrapolate or think strategically more than 5 minutes out.
Increasing base units would necessitate change on effectively every piece of Bitcoin software, one "harmless" hard fork to prove such a HF is possible then opens the door to others.
The increased divisibility might actually have the potential to address (idiotic) concerns around self-custodial attainability for mud farmers, but with unpredictable trade-offs around mining/mempool incentives, transaction fees, block subsidy, and switching costs.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 21 Dec
Nonsense. Watch this and learn the truth.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 15h
Don't have any original thoughts there AI bot?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 15h
Ripped through the vid at 2x to see if there was anything of substance, as predicted, 0
Just more weak virtue signaling by someone that at some point started shitcoining so hard they forgot what Bitcoin is
reply