In the long run the concept of bailing out the hashers by spam is not sustainable. The trend is rather one hodler=one bitaxe.

According to my full node the share of Knots is 12%.

Sometimes I have the feeling that AI is like a child. If it does not know the answer it just makes something up.

Hodling is the exit from the fiat imposed treadmill of permanently trading and investing.

What is a safe place to donate some sats to bitcoin development without supporting the spam supporters? #askNostr

Because of the fixed supply of Bitcoin we can not fix the scales at a convenient level. Sooner or later a sat will be worth more than a cent. What will you do then? Redefine again? Therefore redefining Bitcoin as Satoshi is a futile endeavor.

At @LN⚡️VPN - eSIM & VPN & Phone Numbers they really give very good and quick support within minutes including a refund through lightning for a technical glitch. I can really recommend their services.

Increasing the OP_RETURN limit is besides cooperate interest a desperate attempt to get off the hook quickly for having ignored the problems with the UTXO set for too long. The arsonists however will do what is in their nature and that is trying to burn down the system. They will not play in a "safe environment" that is provided for them. Trying to be nice to arsonists is just naive and will lead to your own demise. Literature recommendations: The Arsonists by Max Frisch, Getting Libertarianism Right by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Don't be fooled in thinking the whole discussion is about technical details as for instance how the term database has to be defined (UTXO set vs. blockchain) etc. It’s about control again as it was in the blocksize war eight years ago. Some people want to dictate how bitcoin should evolve and their technics are perfidious by intentionally removing elements in the code that could be used by disagreeing folks. The saddest thing about this is that some previous freedom fighters are now cooperatized and are helping to gaslight and confuse bitcoiners.

@Jeff Booth is right that Bitcoin only wins if it stays decentralized. The current fatal pull request when merged will probably not kill Bitcoin, but it sets a bad precedence. It represents a centralized decision taking that takes away configurability from sovereign node runners. Unfortunately many of the Bitcoin educators are involved in the gaslighting of the community as well. So the question is: How many of such blows will Bitcoin survive?

Has @Stephan Livera been corrupted by some (hidden) interest conflict as well? This is certainly not a Austrian argument

X (formerly Twitter)

Stephan Livera (@stephanlivera) on X

Picture a city with a strict limit on how much graffiti can be painted on a designated public art wall. Because the space is so restricted, some ar...

Who owns the houses being distorted? That's communist ideology. The house owners are free to use spam filters if they like to do so to prevent their houses to be distorted would be the correct analogy.

This liberal point that there is no such thing as a spam transaction has already been made in the early days by Andreas Antonopoulos. Well, he is not really active here anymore. Maybe real maxis have more endurance than talking heads.

Some Bitcoin core developer are attempting to negotiate with terrorists thinking they are somehow the representatives of the Bitcoin community. Well, it does not work that way.

There are alternative scenarios out there to the fee pressure (funded by spam) that must increase in order to finance big miners. A gold holder is responsible for the safekeeping himself. Therefore it is in the interest of Bitcoin hodlers to run their mining in the future as well and take responsibility for safekeeping of the time chain. With Bitaxe, DATUM etc. the community is slowly shifting towards that. Big miners listed on the stock exchange sounds quite fiat to me. This may be just an intermediate thing that may disappear again.

"The Big Print" by @Lawrence Lepard is enriched with amusing anecdotes and expressive charts. Definitely a nice reading.

High time preference behavior over decades accumulated so much technical debt in the software systems of many banks that there is only one migration strategy left for society: Turn it off without a replacement and switch to Bitcoin.

Do we really need Don Quixote's schwarmerei (excessive enthusiasm) for chivalry in the Bitcoin social layer? The knights followed their own unholy business and if they did so with virtue in their circles doesn't make it just for society.

Nostr is to Bitcoin what git is to the Linux kernel. It started as a necessary tool to develop the latter and now it is a thing of its own.

Not only are Github etc. centralized platforms but they also violate the UNIX philosophy of doing one thing and do it well. These platforms suffer from feature creep and nowadays they have become issue tracker, continues integration/deployment (CI/CD) platform etc as well. Therefore it is refreshing that there are activities with ngit to combine and connect existing simple tools (git, nostr) to work together seamlessly.