Geek's avatar
Geek
1dullgeek@nostrplebs.com
npub1k8ly...d3qu
Christian, Geek, #GoPackGo, #Bitcoin, Pilot Anarcho Christian? Maybe Happily Married 30+years
Geek's avatar
1dullgeek 3 weeks ago
This is an overly terse follow-up from my previous cut off boost. Whichever way BIP110 is eventually resolved, the risk of a minority forcing their opinion on Bitcoin doesn’t change. Consider: that risk exists today. It’s what BIP110 is trying to exploit. The opposition to BIP110 is to not change anything. If nothing changes then that risk still has to exist. Meanwhile I continue to run BIP110 because I think it does mitigate some risks to Bitcoin (although not that one). We can quibble about how big those risks are. I said earlier that this is a function of Nakamoto consensus. It’s actually a function of complex systems. Taleb wrote about this in his book Skin in the Game. Here's the relevant chapter discussing it: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
Fountain: Podcasts & Music
This Week in Bitcoin • 94: Cope, Narratives, and Dark Pools • Listen on Fountain
Bitcoiners find evidence of market manipulation, and Wall Street calls it liquidity. This week: dark pools, Jane Street, AI capital rotation, and w...
 View quoted note →
Geek's avatar
1dullgeek 0 months ago
I am running BIP110. And you made an argument against it that made me reconsider. The argument was that BIP110 changes Bitcoin because it allows a minority to force their opinion on the majority. After thinking about it, I do not come to the same conclusion. I don’t think that BIP110 changes anything with respect to this risk. And opposing BIP110 doesn't mitigate that risk. This is a feature of Nakamoto consensus that exists today and will continue to exist regardless of which way BIP110 is resolved. If this risk didn’t already exist today, BIP110 couldn’t leverage it. There are two ways (that I’m aware of) to reject BIP110: 1. Almost all miners refuse to mine BIP110 blocks 2. Those opposing BIP110 exercise a URSF: user rejected soft fork. This effectively splits the chain. If BIP110 is rejected, those will remain the only ways to reject a different minority driven soft fork in Bitcoin. Heck if BIP110 becomes the only type of blocks that miners mine, those will also remain the only ways to reject a different minority driven soft fork in Bitcoin. So opposing BIP110 doesn't mitigate the risk that a minority can control the direction in Bitcoin. That will continue to exist regardless of which side wins. So I’m going to continue to run BIP110 because I think it does mitigate some significant risks for Bitcoin. But I’m willing to have my mind changed. BTW Intransigent minorities are a feature of complex systems not just Bitcoin. Taleb wrote about them in his book Skin in the Game. Here's the relevant chapter discussing it: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15
Fountain: Podcasts & Music
This Week in Bitcoin • 93: Manufactured Bitcoin Crisis • Listen on Fountain
AI is getting the blame for deflation, but other forces may be driving it. What happens to Bitcoin in a world of falling prices? Then: BIP-110 and ...
 View quoted note →
Geek's avatar
1dullgeek 3 months ago
I'm posting this below the 2000 sat limit because I don't need you to read it on the pod but I know you read all of these and wanted to give a different perspective As a pilot, there are some outcomes that are so catastrophic that we build in lots and lots of mitigations so that we don’t EVER encounter them. An example is fuel. Running out of fuel increases the likelihood of a crash to nearly 100%. Meanwhile the actual incidence of fuel related crashes in commercial aviation is very close to 0. The fact that the incidence is close to 0 doesn’t mean we can safely remove fuel reserve requirements, or proper fuel planning processes. This is how I see the SPAM debate. There are some outcomes (e.g. illegal data in the chain) that are so bad that, even if we haven’t seen it yet, we have to build as many mitigations as possible. If the US government can prosecute the samourai developers despite Section 230, it’s hard to imagine that node operators that knowingly host illegal data would also be immune from prosecution as a way to attack Bitcoin. So we have to build in multiple layers of mitigation to prevent that catastrophe. With Core deciding to open up OP_RETURN to 100k bytes, they’ve taken away one of those mitigations. For me personally, best case scenario: OP_RETURN goes back to 83 bytes and the inscriptions bug gets fixed. Barring that, what is the next best mitigation in order to prevent the catastrophic result of illegal data on the chain? Certainly a soft fork is a far worse option. But it might be the next best option. Still I’d much rather that core come to their senses. If not, that more people run knots - or some other bitcoins that allows for filtering OP_RETURN. Only after both of those fail, would I like to see a soft fork. Because we can’t tolerate the catastrophic result of illegal data on chain.
Fountain: Podcasts & Music
This Week in Bitcoin • 82: The Missing Variable • Listen on Fountain
Once you see the missing variable, Bitcoin’s pullback clicks into place. The four-year cycle is cracking, and the filter-fork battle isn’t cool...
 View quoted note →
Geek's avatar
1dullgeek 3 months ago
As a pilot, there are some outcomes that are so catastrophic that we build in lots and lots of mitigations so that we don’t EVER encounter them. An example is fuel. Running out of fuel increases the likelihood of a crash to nearly 100%. Meanwhile the actual incidence of fuel related crashes in commercial aviation is very close to 0. The fact that the incidence is close to 0 doesn’t mean we can safely remove fuel reserve requirements, or proper fuel planning processes. This is how I see the SPAM debate. There are some outcomes (e.g. illegal data in the chain) that are so bad that, even if we haven’t seen it yet, we have to build as many mitigations as possible. If the US government can prosecute the samourai developers despite Section 230, it’s hard to imagine that node operators that knowingly host illegal data would also be immune from prosecution. So we have to build in multiple layers of mitigation to prevent that catastrophe. With Core deciding to open up OP_RETURN to 100k bytes, they’ve taken away one of those mitigations. For me personally, best case scenario: OP_RETURN goes back to 83 bytes and the inscriptions bug gets fixed. Barring that, what is the next best mitigation in order to prevent the catastrophic result of illegal data on the chain? Certainly a soft fork is a far worse option. But it might be the next best option. Still I’d much rather that core come to their senses. If not, that more people run knots - or some other bitcoins that allows for filtering OP_RETURN. Only after both of those fail, would I like to see a soft fork. Because we can’t tolerate the catastrophic result of illegal data on chain.
Geek's avatar
1dullgeek 4 months ago
Re: a soft fork, I have posted a question on Matthew Kratter's videos: if we only have 20% of node runners switching to knots why do you think we have sufficient consensus to force the miners to mine the soft fork blocks?
Fountain: Podcasts & Music
This Week in Bitcoin • 80: Shutdown Shock • Listen on Fountain
The U.S. shutdown has sidelined a trillion dollars, starving markets and Bitcoin alike. Whales are having their IPO moment, treasury stacks are shr...
 View quoted note →
Geek's avatar
1dullgeek 4 months ago
Re video, it's great when there are visuals that help convey information. But as soon as people do that the audio version suffers and I tend to switch to the video version only. Is there some way to stream sats while watching the link to the video feed?
Fountain: Podcasts & Music
This Week in Bitcoin • 78: The Great Rotation • Listen on Fountain
The Binance era fades, the ETFs rise, and Bitcoin quietly migrates into the core of the financial system. The rotation has begun. Episode Links ...
 View quoted note →
Geek's avatar
1dullgeek 5 months ago
Really great episode. I kindly request more like this, where the topic is about how one might help convince my skeptical church leadership to save on Bitcoin. This is particularly relevant to me as I've been saving my tithe in Bitcoin on their behalf for a few years now. (With their blessing.) But I don't want to give it to them yet because their policy is to immediately turn it into USD. So any advice or discussion on how to get them to change their mind/policy is very much appreciated.
Fountain: Podcasts & Music
Thank God for Bitcoin • TGFB Pod Episode 68 - Pastor Ben Hailey • Listen on Fountain
Pastor Ben Hailey shares his journey of faith, his experiences with Bitcoin, and the intersection of faith and financial stewardship. He discusses ...
 View quoted note →
↑