raw milk latte Costa Rican coffee paid with Bitcoin in the middle of the jungle hits different

The backside of the new BULLBITCOIN t-shirt collection designed by @M A D E X unprecedented level of brand distinction I swear we are a financial technology company not a cyberpunk motorcycle gang limited quantities only here

Bull Bitcoin Store

Bull Bitcoin Merchandise Store

Limited Supply // Unique Block Numbers

when I come into the Bitcoin Jungle office and I know that @Tico 🇨🇷 held a Bitcoin class the day before 🧡

officially a NodeRunner @Noderunners Radio

@Harambe's last Bitcoin

follow @BULLBITCOIN.COM !

how did I get 12000 followers? I assume of bunch of that is bots?

say that someone wants to nuke a Twitter account but wants to have a professional-grade archive of the tweets which include media and is nearly organized, going back 10+ years with tens of thousands of tweets. is there a service to do this? willing to pay a few hundred bucks

🇨🇷📢 Anuncio importante para Ticos y Ticas de la comunidad Bitcoin de Costa Rica. Es un placer y un honor presentarles la versión más nueva de la mejor experiencia de pagos Bitcoin del mundo: la integración BULL BITCOIN en la billetera de Bitcoin Jungle, disponible para todos en Costa Rica, nacionales o extranjeros, sin necesidad de cuenta bancaria. Convierta instantáneamente Bitcoin a Colones y envíe un pago vía SINPE a cualquier persona y empresa en Costa Rica usando solo su número de teléfono. Con esta nueva versión de Bull Bitcoin, desarrollada exclusivamente para Costa Rica, los usuarios ahora también pueden administrar múltiples beneficiarios, ver comprobantes SINPE en la aplicación y consultar su historial de transacciones. Por supuesto, también puedes comprar Bitcoin con SINPE Móvil y transferencias bancarias en CRC o USD. En este video, me verás enviando 2000 colones a una organización benéfica local en Uvita en solo unos segundos, directamente desde una billetera Lightning Network. Imagínese: un pago proveniente de cualquier parte del planeta directamente a la cuenta bancaria local de una empresa costarricense con solo unos pocos clics... esto abre un conjunto completamente nuevo de oportunidades para ayudar a las personas más trabajadoras del planeta a recibir pagos. fácilmente. de forma segura y con tarifas mínimas. Nuestras tarifas totales para convertir Bitcoin a Colones se mantienen por ahora en menos del 1%, que es el mínimo requerido para que no perdamos dinero al ofrecer este servicio. Estamos trabajando duro para reducir nuestros costos y hacer que este servicio sea sostenible en los años venideros. Estoy muy agradecida de que Costa Rica me haya recibido y haré todo lo que pueda para aportar mis habilidades y capital a este hermoso país. Pura vida!

*The Rare Sat Lie* Let's start with some facts. You cannot own a satoshi (sat). You can only own a utxo, who's value is measured in sats. Just like you cannot own a "kilogram" but you can own something which weights a kilogram. The idea that a sat can be rare is a lie, since sats don't exist. A utxo also cannot be sold, because as soon as it is spent, a completely new utxo is created, and the creation of this new utxo makes the previous utxo (which you wanted to sell) spent. To act of spending "an unspent transaction output" (UTXO) transforms it into something fundamentally different, a "spent transaction output" (STXO) and creates a new UTXO. The idea that a utxo can be sold is a lie, since even utxos cannot be sold. The idea that a rare sat from a "special" utxo can be bought is thus a double lie. *Rare Sat Sophistry* The conmen, the useful idiots and the otherwise honest but contrarian pundits will rationalize the spreading of the "Rare Sat Lie" with sophistry and appeals to libertarian morality such as "it's a free market, people can believe whatever they want and waste their money however they wish". Of course, this line of reasoning is meant to create strawmen arguments so that every person that is righteously indignated at the spreading of these lies can be painted as being opposed to the concept of individual freedon itself, which immediately places the TruthSeeker's outrage outside of the Overton Window (and subject to ridicule). Let us dispell the strawman argument. The "market" (a small niche of degenerate gamblers) can want whatever it wants, yes. But it till cannot change the reality that individual satoshis (sats) do not exist as "things" or virtual objects. This reality is not subjective. The sophists will also rationalize that "it cannot be stopped" and thus all you can do is "cry harder" (ironic eh?) and that any and all attempts to combat the lies are futile (at best) or stupid. It may be true all the truthseeker can do is cry and shout, but it is also true that to combat the spreading of such lies is a virtuous and noble pursuit. And it is also true that the direct result of the shouting can be to save a victim from otherwise being conned. Which is, we would all agree I hope, a moral good, if not a moral imperative. People are free to spread the lie that such things ("rare" "sats") are real, and fraudulently sell utxos of low value presented as "rare" "sats" for utxos of higher value, but to do so by exploiting the ignorance of people and confusion around the complex technology of Bitcoin is evil according to nearly almost moral code that ancient and modern civilizations have produced. I am the last person that would deny someone the right to be evil. But I believe if you see a fraud and you don't call out the fraud then you too are a fraud. So, the strawman is really just straw. *The Rare Sat Con* Beyond it being morally bad to spread lies generally, the spreading of the lie also occurs within the context of textbook confidence trick. Confidence tricks involve : - the mark: the victims whose money is to be acquired fraudulently - the roper: reels in the mark via exposure and marketing, peaking the curiosity of the mark (i.e. a conference or media organization) - the inside man: provides a venue for the con to take place, or supplies goods and services used in the context of the scam (a mining pool or a marketplace) - the conman: gains the confidence of the mark extracts the money (the seller of a rare sat) - the convincer: an acolyte of the conman which gives a taste of the profits to the mark either by investing in the mark, or showing off his profits to the mark (a fellow rare sat trader) The conman and the convincer can interchange roles. For example, conmen and convincers can publicly con each other repeatedly and alternatively, with gains and losses which compensate, with the tacit understanding that the goal is really to gain the confidence of a mark from which both convincer and conman can extract money from. Everyone except benefits in this zero sum game, except obviously the mark. In the end, the mark was never forced to give up his money. He willingly parted ways with his funds, deceived by the confidence trick. Selling "rare sats" for utxos of higher sat value is without doubt a confidence trick. I will let it up to your imagination who you think plays which role in the rare sat con.

The blocksize war wasn't so much about the blocksize (or, even, scaling Bitcoin). It was really about who controls the consensus rules and how we upgrade the protocol. For context, a bunch of startups raised tons of money between 2013 and 2016 based on ridiculous user sign-up projections and then we had a long and painful bear market and they were looking for scapegoats (the developpers that were "throttling the network") to justify the lack of growth. I am thinking here specifically of Coinbase, Bitpay and Blockchain.info. The vibe I got is that they thought of Bitcoin itself as a corporation, that they were the equivalent of Bitcoin's board of directors because they represented the interest of VC investors, and thus they were entitled to decision making power over the network. I don't doubt that a few people were genuine about scaling p2p e-cash (e.g. Roger Ver) but I suspect what really motivated them is that they believed control of the Bitcoin network would be an asset to their business interests, and lack of control was being used as an excuse to why their interests weren't being satisfied. There was also a bunch of developers that I believe may have been afraid of losing their relevance (Gavin and Garzik specifically). Regardless of their intentions or psychology, it seemed clear to me that the consortium of vc-backed startups (particularly Bitpay, Coinbase, blockchain(.)info and Roger) had picked a team of developers they thought they could control and wanted to appoint them as a technical management team whicn would execute their strategy, and these guys were willing to step up for that role. I was physically in the room when the CEO of Blockchain.info (with the very obvious support of Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong) announced that Bitcoin Core devs were being fired and would be replaced. This was after a couple days of failed discussions with other industry people. This was the moment when I realized what was really going on. And finally, you had a Bitcoin mining giant (Bitmain) controlling both asic production and mining pools with a vested interest in promoting the idea that Bitcoin was a democracy and the way to vote was to buy hashing power. The main ideology being pushed here was that a formal governance mechanism of the protocol needed to be established and that hashrate was the only objective measure of who makes decisions. The underlying big blocker ideology was that the chaos of spontaneous consensus of nodes is unpredictable, flimsy, bad for business. The absence of a formal governance process was seen as the root cause of the issue. These companies really believed they could control the protocol, and controlling development of the protocol was seen as a very valuable asset to your company. I imagine they thought of themselves as the founders of a new consortium that would solidify itself into a permanent institution. The business interests would pay developers and set the goals, and the mining interests would ratify their decisions with hash power voting. That was their plan. This became blatantly obvious when Bitmain used its refusal to activate segwit as leverage to get what it wanted (a blocksize increase and recognition of its hashpower as a vote mecanism) even though Bitmain iself acknowledged it was not really opposed segwit. It was classic traditional politics: I'll give you segwit if you give me something in return. This is the language the VC suits, investors and tech startup people understand and they were very happy to "negotiate" and find "consensus". This eventually materialized into the New York Agreement, negotiated literally as a backroom deal during theConsensuss shitcoin conference. I was there and I refused to attend. This (private) meeting consecrated the alliance of startups/investors and bitcoin mining interests in their appointment of a technical management committee. If you think this sounds like Jekyll Island, you're not alone. They packaged segwit with a blocksize increase (Segwit2x) and decided to force a hard fork as a condition to "allow" us to have Segwit. We know the rest of the story: we ended up activating anyway via UASF (or more precisely, the miners activated Segwit after they New York Agreement signatories became scared UASF would lead to a chain split which they were going to lose). And the blocksize increase was also abandoned shortly after when they realized their hard fork would cause a chain split and that they would not be able to claim that their new shitcoin is the real bitcoin. All these people were subsequently were very pissed off they couldn't control the network, which they thought they were entitled to. Some ragequit, others created a bunch of shitcoins out of spite, Roger went on to spearhead BCH as the real Bitcoin, all these fools realized they might as well make some money off of it, everyone went all-in on the shitcoin casinos after that. The "small blockers" eventually went on to evolve into the Bitcoin Maximalists and cypherpunks that today tell you to run your own node and own your own keys.

would anybody in the class like to explain what the author means by this?

what it's like ordering raw milk and grassfed beef and get it delivered in the jungle in Costa Rica

Bull Bitcoin International halving parties GOA MONTREAL UVITA WATERLOO

shill me your favorite people I should follow and I will follow them. can be yourself, unless you are lame and cringe.

I'M BACK BITCHES

Is there a Nostr equivalent of cleartext PGP signatures? This is something I'd need to switch over from PGP for Bull Bitcoin's signed and timestamped invoice protocol

I don't often eat pork but when I do Pork fat fried in pork fat Seed oil free Fiat free

Some shower thoughts, thinking about what to build on Nostr as someone who runs a centralized OTC app. When selling Bitcoin on a P2P marketplace, the seller is at high risk of these kinds of scams especially of the buyer is using a non-cash payment (paypal, bank transfer, fiat payment apps). Sellers often get super rekt by the scams mentionned above. P2P or OTC bitcoin sellers will either charges a big premium as insurance, or does their own KYC (often either ultra invasive or hopelessly inadequate). Fraudulent buyers hurt the UX of P2P marketplaces, and ironically the fraud detection tools of centralized exchanges, whether KYC or pattern analysis, would be the solution. As a seller of Bitcoin, the only thing you really need to know about the buyer is "will this guy fuck me over and will the fiat be clawed back". As a buyer, you only want to give the minimum information possible, but enough that the seller will trust you and not charge you exhorbitant fees and put you through outrageous verification processes to make sure you're not a scammer. Bull Bitcoin's low-hanging fruit value proposition for Nostr: we have sophisticated fraud detection and KYC tools with varying degrees of due dilligence. Most of our tools are minimally privacy intrusive. The end result is that we have can have an extremely high degree of certainty that a given user "is not scammer", and a high degree of certainty that a user is "likely not a scammer". Our users already obtain a kind of "trust score" internally, which basically means they are not likely to do a chargeback, are not frausters stealing someone's bank account or a con artist performing some man-in-the-middle scam. So it seems like doing NIP-05 verifications, or some variation, giving broad labels (risk score very low, risk score low) based on internal that we have would be useful for people that want to show good reputation on Nostr-based marketplaces. And we could do this well. Bull Bitcoin users that are whitelisted by us could then "port" the reputation they have with us to a P2P exchange. Then again, I really don't want to be "the KYC guy" on Nostr. I hate the fact that KYC is one of our expertise (even if a lot of what we do is minimally invasive). I also don't want to be liable for "endorsing" people that aren't scamming Bull Bitcoin, but that may scam others. I wanna do something fun on Nostr, not replicate something that sucks from legacy Fiat-Bitcoin world. But there is demand for it and we're good at it. Final thought: just because you can, and just because people want, doesn't mean you should.