😂😂🤣 View quoted note →

No one.

We had to fire the centrally controlled miners. The POW is now Blake2b, my dear Satoshi 🤙 View quoted note →

Centralizing a coin makes it a shitcoin. View quoted note →

😂😂🤣 View quoted note →

Adding Use Cases Is Bad For Bitcoin NGU

Hopefully @N will be tracked down too and receive justice. For his enablers, there is Karma. View quoted note →

XBT Blake2b Bitcoin Freedom Money resolved it.

XBT Blake2b is Bitcoin Freedom Money Thank you Satoshi! View quoted note →

Another BTC loss due to vulnerability this time in Electrum RBF : (( https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1xjfa5i/lost_70k_usd_085btc_due_to_electrum_rbf_security/

That is the trademark of coretard @N View quoted note →

Good news to the Binance users.

This is called strong Bitcoin Maximalism 🤘 This called a great cypherpunk, freedom loving XBT Bitcoin Culture and Values ❤ This is called protection of XBT Blake2b Bitcoin Freedom Money 💪

Mining and buying XBT Blake2b Bitcoin Freedom Money feels great again ❤

Yes, we love filtering out spam on XBT Blake2b Bitcoin Freedom Money ❤ Spam belongs on SHA256 Corecoin where cypherskunks, spammers, scammers and grifters love it and support it. View quoted note →

By @JoshuaFortezza The Honest Nodes of Nakamoto Consensus: Abstaining from Permission and Privilege Honest Nodes What are the "honest nodes" of Bitcoin? Satoshi's whitepaper doesn't directly or explicitly define what honest nodes are. But a careful reading of the paper, opens our minds to a clear picture of what they are, and thus what Bitcoin in fact is; both by what Nakamoto consensus DOES allow, as much as what it DOES NOT allow. Honest nodes are not honest because of any special virtue or external enforcement. They are honest, and remain honest because, at an individual level, users will not accept a situation in which one or more third parties hold permission control over coin transactions or privilege control over coin issuance. The moment a cooperating group can impose either, the users who value the system as peer-to-peer money without a trusted third party, cease to treat that chain as satisfying this underlying premise of Satoshi's whitepaper. The security condition is stated explicitly: The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes. If or when a majority of hash is concentrated the system is no longer secure, meaning that the ability to impose permissions upon transactions or impose privileges upon coin issuance becomes a viable threat in the same way that your fiat bank can decide when and where you can spend your government currency, or when and where they decide to issue more currency for the next best intentioned welfare or warfare program. This is the conditional premise upon which Bitcoin was designed. The whitepaper opens by rejecting the model in which financial institutions serve as trusted third parties: Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. The Bitcoin design discards the classic remedy of a central mint: A common solution is to introduce a trusted central authority, or mint, that checks every transaction for double spending. After each transaction, the coin must be returned to the mint to issue a new coin, and only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be double-spent. The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank. What Bitcoin requires instead or in lieu of the mint is: An electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. There is “no central authority to issue” coins. New coins enter only through the proof-of-work incentive paid to the nodes that create blocks: Analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. Once a predetermined number have entered, the system can become “completely inflation free.” Rules of any kind - transaction validity or issuance schedule - are enforced by the same mechanism, by "honest nodes" which: vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them.” BIP-110 The return of honest nodes to Bitcoin. Proof-of-work is “essentially one-CPU-one-vote.” The longest chain with the greatest proof-of-work effort is the one that prevails. This design is a self-imposed abstention of privilege by the users themselves. By keeping hash power distributed across many independent nodes where each user controls his own hashing work, block templates, etc., these users ensure that no cooperating group can seize permission control over coin transactions or privilege control over coin issuance. What BIP-110 has helped illuminate is the false narrative that non-mining full nodes, however numerous, do not supply a security resource; they can observe and refuse to relay, but they do not produce the competing proof-of-work that determines the longest chain. The genesis block makes the motive concrete. Its timestamp embeds the headline “Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.” The whitepaper supplies the technical argument for removing the trusted third party and the central issuer; the headline supplies the contemporary reason the abstention matters. An honest node, under this reading, is therefore a participant that controls some portion of hash power through its own node and thereby contributes to a majority of CPU power distributed across as many independent nodes as possible. Concentration of that majority into a few nodes places those nodes outside the paper’s security condition. They become the cooperating group the paper treats as fatal, whether or not they have yet altered rules. The SHA-256d chain reached that state. A small number of pool-operating nodes controlled the bulk of hash. When BIP-110 proposed temporary limits on arbitrary data, those nodes declined to signal. At block 961,632 the majority-hash nodes produced the longest chain under the prior rules; the enforcing minority followed a two-block chain that stalled. Non-mining node support could not override them. The security condition was already unmet. The Blake2b chain is the restoration of Nakamoto consensus, of honest node law and order. At block 961,640 the minority branch permanently switched proof-of-work from SHA-256d to Blake2b and adopted version-2 headers, removing the concentrated SHA-256d hash from the ability to extend the chain. At the same height it activated the temporary reduced-data rules together with a temporary block limit of roughly 300 kB. Later it extended coinbase maturity to 45 days for a defined window of rewards. Each of these design decisions followed the same premise. The reduced-data rules limit threat vectors (including certain forms of arbitrary data) by which external pressure can raise the cost of running a node and shrink the set of people willing to hash under their own control. The smaller block size keeps the long-term resource cost of a full validating and hashing node low enough that many independent participants can continue. The longer coinbase maturity raises the cost of purely extractive, high time preference mercenary mining. Together these maintenance updates re-establish the honest node hashing majority spread across enough independent nodes that no small cooperating group can readily impose permissions over transactions or privileges over issuance. Bitcoin was created to nullify the problems of permissions and privileges that arise once a trusted third party or central issuer exists. The whitepaper states the mechanism; the genesis headline states the motive. The Blake2b chain is the continuation of the bootstrapping and maintenance of Bitcoin. Once the SHA-256d distribution had placed the original chain outside the condition the whitepaper required (decentralized hash power), honest nodes returned with a proof of work fork, keeping the decisive resource - hash power under the control of a widely distributed network of "honest nodes" - too broad for any cooperating group to seize control of the invaluable monetary system. Eventually the users of the SHA-256d chain will get rugged and in that moment they will realize the problem Bitcoin solved for, and more importantly how it solved for that problem, with HONEST NODES. Today the honest nodes thrive on Blake2b, what you might know as XBT. Tomorrow the honest nodes may fork again. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that the system can survive into perpetuity in this way, so long as humankind has a low enough time preference to want a better future for their children. Bitcoin on SHA-256d is a dead man walking. Bitcoin on Blake2b is alive and well. Become an Honest Node. Study Bitcoin. God Bless. View quoted note →

I love how beautiful the UASFs work on XBT Blake2b Bitcoin Freedom Money. Its because Bitcoin Nodes matter only on XBT Blake2b Bitcoin Freedom Money.

hexagon, octagon, money gone View quoted note →

View quoted note →