48,674 sats stacked
stacking since: #1661longest cowboy streak: 5
A poor man's logseq from protocol labs (filecoin)
I plan to integrate logseq with nostr, lightning and rgb
Just got my first nomen name. I love it. Going to use it with dnstr
He said that would work if bitcoin dies first. And if bitcoin does it doesnt matter how you change it.
IMHO he's challenging people to solve the problem so bitcoin doesnt die. Which I think is good.
We can add stratumv2, reorg alerts, and several deterrents to miners in case they get bribed to attack the chain.
It's just adversarial thinking. Think about the idea, not the person.
Actually I think a peaceful resolution is the most likley path.
The BIP has had wide review, and there is not community appetite for it at this time. There are some holes in it imho, they could tweak the proposal and come up with something better. But it might have to be a new group that pushes it.
Rightly or wrongly, 80% of the btc community is against it. There's just no way you can reverse that anytime soon. Even if you got 80% to switch, and I dont think anyone can do that, you still have enough to block it. Bear in mind you only need 6% consensus to veto all new side chains. There's a million ways to stop it, if it is the will of the community.
They wont get MASF, and even if they did, what then? You're really going to take on a $500 Bn eco system that doesnt want something with a bunch of nervious miners that dont really want to get involved in a war. Saylor on the mining committee has come out against.
Any hard fork would be crushed in a heartbeat. The trolling will die down, it will get blocked or diluted.
The BIP has been educational and asked some interesting questions. I even added a constructive proposal that might fix Paul's broken game theory. We will get stratumv2 in time, and many flavours of side chains I'm sure, and also strategies to help with the security budget.
Playing with the dials here is fun, and shows that between now and 2032 there is work to be done in hardening the tail emssion. It's good for everyone because higher security leads to higher price, and a longer life for bitcoin. Something that everyone wants.
It would be great if it did that. But it doesnt, at least, not in its current form.
The weakness of the system is that the whole monetary base is predicated upon lending your coins to miners. Those miners may not give those coins back. In fact, in any game theory simulation, the miners should wipe out the lenders, because they are making bad choices.
This kind of weak security cannot compete with alts, let alone gold.
If we can find a way to remove the potential, or even inevitable, security holes, the concept could be a good one. But more thought is required.
Pull request for drive chains, possibly the biggest change in bitcoin's history.
IMHO two issues remain:
  1. From a user POV the game theory starts off stable then quickly becomes unstable when you plug in real world values. Therefore, there is a chance that participants will lose the coins they lend to the miners, due to the much weaker security of drivechains.
  2. While DC has the good idea of trying to deter reorgs due to tail emissions and preventing a the need for the fork. It comes at the cost of any of the 256 coins blowing up and then spreading up to the main chain, which would require a fork too, to put right. So instead of one vector for a fork, there would be 256.
Consequently, I dont think drivechains are ready to merge. Some changes to the concept to improve the security, and to limit the risk of a fork could see it, or something like it, become part of the bitcoin eco system, in the future.
It would be nice if nostr could do that like PGP
But PGP failed for over a decade precisely because this created a difficult user experience
And after that it got killed by a massive attack
Nostr at least has a chance of working, because it is simple
I agree with ossification. But the open question is how to get there.
Looks great, you might want to go with the tag u for url/uri as it'll get indexed, we went with that after discussion for nip-98