My old stomping grounds.

Good decisions are balanced by bad decisions.

Even though the Bip110 failed it doesn't mean it didn't have value. It brought awareness to the whole Bitcoin community as it relates to spam and how big finance has a growing influence over Bitcoin. For me personally, and I believe so many others, I learned a ton in the last 8 months or so. All about nodes, servers and signaling. I like the idea of restricting Bitcoin to a money focus and what goes on the chain. I used my nodes to raise my hand and I got a vote. I like that about Bitcoin. At least I get to voice my opinion. When did fiat ever give me that option? The big economic interests... big miners, treasury companies and Big ETFs all see Bitcoin differently than I as an individual. It's just the way things are. As we grow in Bitcoin over the next 30 years, there will be times when individuals group together and make a impact. For now we ride.

I’m starting to understand why so harsh.

It’s cut and split time again.

The evolution of all great ideas is built on the back of one constant. The Mistake.

I wasn’t here for the last big fight.

I'm hear for the show.

When your product security/compliance department is ran by the marketing department.

One thing the recent hardware wallet RNG discussion reminded me of comes from my previous career. I owned and operated casinos in Colorado. Before a slot machine could ever be placed on our casino floor, manufacturers couldn't simply claim their random number generators or payback percentages were accurate. Those claims had to be independently tested and certified by the Colorado Division of Gaming. There were many competing slot machine manufacturers, just as there are many competing hardware wallet manufacturers today. Before either the casino owner or the public was put at risk, the RNG had to be independently tested and verified. Bitcoin is obviously different. We don't want a government regulator certifying hardware wallets. But the underlying principle still applies: Critical security claims shouldn't rely solely on marketing. They should be backed by independent verification. (Think "The Gold Standard" of Bitcoin wallets) Perhaps this is an area where the proposed Bitcoin Consortium could provide real value by publishing transparent testing methodologies, commissioning independent security reviews, and issuing public reports on entropy generation and other security-critical functions. Trustworthy systems can't be left solely in the hands of a marketing department.