People can not like Bitcoin or disagree with its value proposition. But calling it a “pet rock” just demonstrates how deeply unserious you are.

Question: When upgrading to the newest version of Wasabi wallet, do you have to reimport your hardware wallet somehow? I upgraded recently but not seeing the Bitcoin in the new Wasabi wallet interface.

Verifying one account doesn’t prevent you from having limitless pseudonymous accounts. The government policy does. View quoted note →

Millisats (and smaller) solves the deflation problem inherent in Bitcoin (assuming for the sake of argument there is a problem at all). Gold cannot divide the way Bitcoin does—at a certain size, it’s authenticity cannot be easily confirmed. Bitcoin fixes this View quoted note →

Some folks keep talking about how groundbreaking it is that judges in some of the SEC cases are saying crypto tokens aren’t securities “standing alone.” In my view, that’s a total nothingburger. Here’s why 👇🏻 The SEC’s theory against the altcoins they’ve pursued has been, since 2017, that they constituted “investment contracts,” which the SEC has jurisdiction over thanks to several statutes passed by Congress, including this one: 15 USC § 77b) An “investment contract” is defined by the courts (specifically, the Supreme Court in Howey). You probably know the now familiar 4-part test. But the preamble to that test is just as important. Before getting to the 4 factors, Howey also notes that “an investment contract” is first and foremost a “contract, transaction, or scheme…” Each of these categories implies some sort of volition on the part of the issuer and an investor. Thus, it would seem that no instrument, when considered in isolation, satisfies the definition of an “investment contract” standing alone. And the mere creation of a token (be it XRP, Luna, or any other), without more, is OF COURSE not an unregistered securities “offering.” It must first be offered and accepted by an investor to bring the transaction within the ambit of SEC authority. And it is the manner of that offering coupled with the surrounding facts and circumstances that turns any asset into a security under the investment contract theory that the SEC has put forth. So if someone tells you how HUGE a deal it is that Judge Torres or some other judge said that XRP or any other token is “not a security” by itself, just know that they’re overplaying their hand. Indeed, courts have been saying this since early 2020. Take the Telegram Blockchain case: “[T]he security in this case is not simply the Gram [token], which is little more than alphanumeric cryptographic sequence… the Court finds that the appropriate point at which to evaluate this scheme to sell and distribute Grams is at the point at which the scheme's participants had a meeting of the minds, i.e. at the time of the 2018 Sales…” SEC v. Telegram Grp. Inc., 448 F. Supp. 3d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) See? Nothingburger (Zap and/or share if you found this useful!)

🚨 Today a different SDNY District Court Judge emphatically rejected Judge Torres' Howey analysis in the recent Ripple case. Recall that Torres held that sales of XRP to institutional investors could be unregistered securities while similar "programmatic" sales to retail were perfectly acceptable. Unlike Torres, this District Court (which is considering the SEC's action against Do Kwon and Terra Luna) flatly declared that Howey "makes no such distinction between purchasers." This is the first court to have occasion to analyze a token offering since Judge Torres put forward her novel (and in my view, incorrect) view on the distinction between institutional and programmatic sales. And it was not a favorable early reception.

Not gonna lie I don’t know what the “broadcast” button means on here but I keep hitting it cuz it sounds like it’ll get my posts out to more people

Elon’s payment model vs. the Nostr-Native Bitcoin implementation | The end of clickbait? | What’s the best way to incentivize quality content creation on the internet? I have some thoughts: Let’s say I make a great legal analysis post on twitter on something very topical. The other day I made two tweets (one being a thread) that garnered over half a million views. Pretty good! But what was my reward for that and—more importantly—how am I incentivized to continue? Well, my post was punchy, topical, and a little controversial. So it went “viral” (for me). I gained a lot of new followers that will hopefully stick around. And i got a nudge into the realm of being able to make money based on the content I produce here—15 million impressions gets you in the door nowadays But I’ll tell you something I’m struggling with. This model incentivizes clickbait, dramatic, and stubbornly opinionated (read: poor quality) content. Because if I get you to merely click on and view the content, then I’ve won. And so has Elon. But the public discourse on whatever topic I’m promoting probably lost. I see this with top “influencers” all the time. The content is largely thoughtless, recycled, unoriginal, and needlessly combative. It’s the worst kind of debate. If you already agree with what’s being said, you love it and share it. If you disagree, you yell at it and passively attack it (i.e. “check out how dumb this idiot is. Let’s attack them, HomeTeam”). Either way, though, the impressions grow. And so does the creator’s wallet and so does Elon’s. How do we stop this? Enter the nostr model created by @jb55. Nostr is a lot like Twitter, except it‘s decentralized and, accordingly, a little clunky (for now). But more importantly, in being decentralized it didn’t sell out and create some scam token to bootstrap the network effects. It’s doing the hard work of organic growth. And it is Bitcoin native, which permits micropayments for quality content. Not just provactive content. This creates an amazing incentive structure for creators and public discourse more broadly. They are rewarded not just for having outrageous and objectionable content, but for producing something people actually find interesting. How? Because the user controls what creators they reward with micropayments on Bitcoin’s ligtning network, and what content they merely share, and what content is obviously trash. And unlike Twitter, the trash isn’t rewarded. Take my small example below. I made a legal analysis post. It got a small amount of traction on nostr and some anons rewarded me with a few micropyaments. Thanks Anons! That’s tangible value in my pocket for my content. And it didn’t have to go viral for me to experience the reward. World changing in and of itself? No. But it could be. Imagine a world where good content is elevated to the top of discussion on its merit, rather than trashy content because it’s outrageous and objectionable? And further, imagine content creators are rewarded for the good content, and punished for the bad (via no payments from the users) Perhaps it could could lead to the long overdue destruction of clickbait. Perhaps it would improve internet (and real world) discourse. And perhaps it will minimize the influence of our clearly unqualified gatekeepers in determining what is elevated to the top of public discussion. Who knows. But I’m glad it exists, and I hope it succeeds. Tired of clickbait and trash influencers? Maybe, just maybe, Bitcoin Fixes This.

Is Sam Altman's Worldcoin an unregistered securities offering in the United States? Probably. Why? 1) I think it clearly satisfies the Howey test for an investment contract. a) Investment of money ✅(yes, providing biometric data as a means for paying for an investment counts). b) common enterprise ✅✅ (hello, Worldcoin, Inc.) c) investor led to expect profits ✅ (obviously, why else would one part with their personal biometric data)? d) from the efforts of others ✅(again, obviously. Who is putting those orbs in all those cities around the world?) 2) It is not saved by any purported consumptive use or "utility" even if at some point such utility is established -- growing caselaw (including recent XRP decision) reveals that utility simply doesn't magically unmake a securities offering. (See, e.g. last years LBRY case) 3) It's pretty significant that Worldcoin kept for itself a significant allocation of the token for itself. Judge's have traditionally found this problematic in securities cases (I wonder if leadership had to give up their eyeballs?) The timing of launching it in the immediate aftermath of the partial victory for Ripple in the XRP decision is curious. But even under that decision's logic (which I don't think ultimately holds up), Worldcoin seems like a prime candidate for the SEC to target. Just another reason why I love Bitcoin. It’s anti-fragile due to its inherent properties, yes. But it was also designed and distributed in a methodical way to avoid legal scrutiny for as long as possible—until it has grown to something they simply cannot stop. Worldcoin will go the way of Libra

From the lost Bird App

SEC to Appeal XRP Decision A recent filing in an action the SEC brought against Do Kwon following the infamous Terra Luna collapse offers a glimpse into the agency's litigation strategy for XRP. And the appeal looks like it could be strong. The SEC told the Do Kwon court it “should not follow” Judge Torres’ decision in SEC v. Ripple. This is perfectly plausible because district court decisions, while important, are NOT binding on other courts. The best argument I saw in the filing was that Judge Torres inappropriately **added** requirements to the Howey test including requiring a “direct sale” of the token, a sale that included individual promises to buyers, and that those buyers knew their money was going directly to fund Ripple. These are NOT part of the Howey test, but for some reason Judge Torres incorporated them anyway. And this is where the SEC stands the best chance to prevail on appeal. Not only is the “direct sale” distinction one that historically never mattered, but it also turns the Securities Act and the purpose of the SEC on its head. Recall, these statutes were passed in the 1930s in response to retail (and the whole world) getting rugged by supposedly sophisticated institutional investors. But what does Judge Torres do? She gives the protection (to the extent you view the SEC that way) not to retail but to institutional investors! That makes very little sense and the SEC has now signaled it will take this development up on appeal in the 2nd Circuit. Will keep updating legal developments here in Bitcoin and occasionally the broader crypto space as they happen. Share this and/or send a Zap if you found this post interesting!

Allllllll I’m saying is this analysis went viral on twitter so I’m gonna need 10 sats from one of y’all otherwise I can’t claim Nostr brought me more value than Twitter! View quoted note →

ANALYSIS: I've reviewed the district court ruling on XRP and it rests on very shaky ground. Expect an appeal. AND Ethereum Foundation remains at risk even if its upheld because of important distinctions in the methods used by Ripple to sell the "pre-mine" First, the District Court found that Ripple's sale of XRP to institutional investors DID amount to an unlawful security sale. Ripple received nearly a billion dollars from these sales, which they will presumably be required to return/disgorge. Plus penalties/fines. BUT, the Court also found that, in the context of the "programmatic sale" of XRP to random people, that xrp DID NOT constitute an investment contract under Howey. And thus it was not a security. But I think the Court's reasoning is weak. I'll explain why... Howey of course requires three things: A scheme where one [(1)] invests his money [(2)] in a common enterprise and [(3)] is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.” The Court here took issue with prong three. Why? Here's what the Court said said when it DID find an investment contract (i.e. XRP as a Security) with respect to the Institutional Investors: “From Ripple's communications, marketing campaign, and the nature of the Institutional Sales, reasonable investors would understand that Ripple would use the capital received from its Institutional Sales to improve the market for XP and develop uses for the XRP Ledger, thereby increasing the value of XRP.” This sounds a lot like what the "programmatic" buyers would have expected as well. So why the difference? The Court found significant that the buyers couldn't know who was selling them the XRP. Thus, they couldn't have any expectation it was going to fund the enterprise But why should this matter under Howey? The Q is not whether it's going to fund the common enterprise, but whether they can *expect* profits *from the efforts* of a 3rd party. And if the institutional investors expected profits from the sale, why not the blind bid/ask ppl? The Court (IMO, incorrectly) relied on the fact buyers didnt know if the XRP came from Ripple. But that doesn't matter under Howey, only whether they expected profit based on the efforts of Ripple, which I think one could clearly say buyers expected (how else does XRP moon?) And the court expressly acknowledges in a footnote that it does not reach the question of whether secondary sales constitute securities (i.e. P2P thru an exchange). So the holding is not just wrong in that misapplied Howey, but also rather limited even if it correctly applied it. FINALLY: This does NOT clear the path for Ethereum Foundation even if it is upheld. Remember those institutional buyers that the Court found purchased unregistered securities? The pre-sale of Eth was ALOT like that. Why? 1) Everyone knew they were buying from Ethereum Foundation (which the Ripple Court found significant) but also, 2) The Eth purchased during the pre-sale was subject to lockup period, which was significant in finding the Institutional Investors bought XRP as a security Don't want to diminish that this is definitely a win for Ripple. But it may be a short-lived victory. I think the Judge got the law wrong. But even if she didn't, many projects (including Ethereum) remain exposed. And the Court left open many other vexing securities questions. It's also worth noting that the Judge *rejected* key arguments from Ripple like the "essential elements" defense (which was a novel theory by their lawyers) and the "consumptive use" defense (i.e. our token has utility therefore it's not a security). /end

Gonna zap some sats to a few people who want ‘em to see whether LN fixes this so called network congestion on Bitcoin. Raise your hand if you’d like a few sats

⬇️ In case you don’t know how this ends (Alternate Ending) ⬇️

⬇️ In case you don’t know how this ends ⬇️

We Bitcoiners love the Matrix. Probably because the revolutionary act of trading fiat or labor for Bitcoin feels like (and is often compared to) “taking the red pill.” In other words, being “unplugged.” But consider this: In first Matrix movie, being unplugged was a revolutionary act. It meant one could get out of a ubiquitous system of control, and be truly free from the shackles of that system. It was of, course dangerous, but at least for most the danger was worth it to “be free.” It’s not until the second movie when we realize the revolution is just another tightly supervised system of control. In fact, what being “unplugged” did was give the system the ability to identify that small (but escalating) minority of people who would reject it. And rather than allow that minority to grow within the system and eventually destroy it, they just let them leave. Yeah, machines fought them on the outside and on the inside, but it was all part of the plan. And the function of “the one” was not to set people free. But to rebuild once the planned destruction of the city the housed the “revolutionaries” was destroyed again and again. It’s interesting to think about in the context of Bitcoin. Because I think we all feel like we’re being unplugged and opting out of the system. But what if the system is merely creating a honeypot of the financial assets of all those who might reject it, so that when the time comes, they can send it to zero (thus neutralizing/hobbling the biggest “problems” of their planned future society). Not saying it is what will happen (or even suggesting that it can). But it’s kind of crazy how we all love the Matrix, and we all feel in some way like buying Bitcoin is “getting out,” but we forget what “getting out” meant in the Matrix. Thoughts? (And no I didn’t watch the fourth one because everyone said it was horrible)

One more try without the typo: how do you post pics to Nostr?

How do you lost pictures to Nostr?

Sorry to say but the Second Amendment is not the constitutional provision that will prevent the government from regulating Bitcoin. Might have to write this one up long form.