Geek

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

avatar
Geek
1dullgeek@nostrplebs.com
npub1k8ly...d3qu
Christian, Geek, #GoPackGo, #Bitcoin, Pilot Anarcho Christian? Maybe Happily Married 30+years

Notes (20)

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. https://fountain.fm/episode/LCHvtqGAP4hoU4nsJY12 nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzp9ejn6sg6jskmyrcd465cwmvmhkcucny6mwu4n7y6d9c6sc3ss289exu9h
2025-12-07 15:54:18 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
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.
2025-11-21 15:23:45 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
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? https://fountain.fm/episode/WOslYaeXHkGPni8BznUK nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzp2zlqylc5unn2p8n4k9y2mt870nv5hl2s2j6e5rup8ewu65205hxv9azaq
2025-11-06 12:15:12 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
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? https://fountain.fm/episode/NJ9Vr8mMPTAt9Q7GUgCb nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqyn2lnw2lxppve7z94rm58un5zr788afh4tzdff70qjua8c8anvdx9p4xe
2025-10-23 10:55:20 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
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. https://fountain.fm/episode/mJib1qwQMTyFnDzT8oew nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzq2vpq45s08uqsgwd02rsyhaphauhqk9uzekf6mpsztjha574clstfnm3vy
2025-09-27 12:05:16 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
Back to the grind. Stacking continues.
2025-09-23 12:02:55 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
I'm overwhelmed by how often people want to solve the pedestal problem before the monkey problem.
2025-09-04 14:04:14 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
I don't think keeping transactions with op_return > 80 bytes is censorship. In exactly the same way that I don't think letting minors create more than 21 million Bitcoin is censorship. Calling both of those censorship is demagoguery. https://fountain.fm/episode/vNS3UnEX1NMhmngvCl9m nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqy9g7uuaphsk56pw6dtct9jp0e5u08lpzru6dnjwuajfquvk8qe6pmnw46
2025-09-03 22:24:09 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
I think you misunderstood the fire movement. They're not trying to get a 25x return. They're trying to reduce their spending so that having a nest egg that is 25x their annual spending is easier. And then live a lifestyle that allows them to withdraw 1/25th (4%) every year. The growth they need to sustain that is to merely match inflation. They don't need 25x to do that. https://fountain.fm/episode/NYnqsqd7mDA2Irs4UdTp nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzpnp9dyjtwk3k464s0v6yj4fphg3dmgj26pcgm0rpgda3u7kycl959xmqx4
2025-08-07 17:42:15 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
Also, "Bitcoin is already an index of human incentive" is the most insightful thing I've heard in a while. I'm shamelessly stealing that. https://fountain.fm/episode/NYnqsqd7mDA2Irs4UdTp nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzpdq0twdv0qwsljsj978e8rk7000uva0ssvtufe8mpkl72kwmep2r0fv675
2025-08-07 12:21:59 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
As a PNRI, not all of us are stuck in the fiat mindset. I personally am as all in on Bitcoin as I can be until I actually retire. It's my long term savings. It's my checking. My paycheck goes directly into Bitcoin. We are not beholden to our generational ideas. And it is each of our responsibility to question our assumptions. Which has fed my orange pill. https://fountain.fm/episode/NYnqsqd7mDA2Irs4UdTp nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzp5hnhqgyunngaputgfshy0pefz4cgmfhdatdawfet6fm9z4kfs7sg0fr6w
2025-08-07 12:14:23 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →
Your episodes keep getting better and better. This is a topic that I wrestle with as a Christ follower and a Bitcoin maxi. You took it much deeper than my personal wrestling had gone. Thank you! https://fountain.fm/episode/Keyhfckw10zK0t8OR8mo nostr:nevent1qvzqqqpxquqzqztjsxk5d6jpsgqqq65xyc5qrxhzdmm5qysr8npc75r494hyvwxp2q53g7
2025-06-19 12:24:32 from 1 relay(s) View Thread →