It is not a question of being for or against BIP‑110. It is a personal risk assessment if you want to risk your stack of sats and your stake in bitcoin. You can live well with less spam, but less so with a forked network. Bitcoin is not a democracy. We are not voting here with other people’s money; it is your own.

The danger of the hype-industrial complex feeding perpetual change into bitcoin is real. We need maintainers with a low time preference and not a lot of careerist junior developers using bitcoin as a "career springboard".

Although written in 1985 in "The Sachertorte algorithm and other antidotes to computer" by John Shore, the following sentence "The computer is important not because it allows us to do less, but because it helps us to do more." is still valid today. "Artificial Intelligence" is a powerful tool helping us to do more and not to replace humans. Reject any neo-Malthusian and neo-Luddite ideology.

As recent event shows us, bitcoin developer do not necessarily have to be bitcoiners themselves. Some are just collecting a CV item that they can put into their résumé and a lazy HR agent will not and can not verify whether that work was wanted or was sustainable for the user base. View quoted note →

Will the "neutral majority" aka the users that have not yet updated to v30 or changed to Knots really risk increased price volatility for a long time or a fork because of spam which many of them dislike, too? Therefore it seems safer for them to ally with the anti-spam side. Playbook à la "The Intolerant Minority" from "Skin in the Game" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Even if it takes several years, bitcoin maximalists will probably sit out the current crisis, whereas all those venture‑capital‑financed shitcoin companies will run out of money because they do not deliver anything useful.

The question of what happens to interest rates in a hyperbitcoinized world is an intriguing one. As bitcoin has a terminal money growth of zero and can basically be stored for zero cost in your head makes this question a novel one. We have never encountered an inherently deflationary monetary system like this before, so there is no precedent for comparison. It will reshape both investing and the corporate landscape. Applying historical and conventional wisdom to such a world does not seem adequate. My guess is that real interest rates will rise, since lenders must be compensated for risk and for the natural appreciation of money that occurs simply by holding it. This could benefit small businesses that invest predominantly their own capital. Today a lot of investing is done because the money is loosing too much purchasing power if it is not invested. That behavior would diminish, which may not be a bad thing. In the future, you might even be able to purchase a house outright with cash again.

To strengthen your readiness for self‑defense, you should periodically reread this book: "The art of War" by Sun Tzu.

To "impose severe physical costs on adversaries" taken from "Softwar" by Jason P. Lowery is really a nice expression to explain the importance of "proof of work": We best defend our money by making it costly for the inflationist to produce more of it in a shorter time as planned and impossible to produce more of it than originally designed.

@knutsvanholm The subscription model means that one has to trust someone to deliver in the future. There are scalability and trust issues involved here. Money and microtransactions solves this problem.

Found some new inputs about privacy in "Das Privacy Handbuch" by Timo Volkov from @npub1evnv...jxzx. Sad is the part about privacy in cars. Yeah, we really need something like a open source car ;-)

"Virtus Digitalis" by @StoaNakamoto is certainly the Best book - pun intended - about bitcoin and stoicism. A lot of dots have been connected in this book: Bitcoin, stoicism, low time preference and decentralized structures really match perfectly. So, remember if the price crashes the next time, be stoic and calm as you can not control when other people panic.

In reference to "It is easier to port a shell than a shell script" one may also conclude that it's easier to change a runtime system than to get millions of programmers to change their programming paradigm and tooling. Therefore virtual threads in Java will prevail over reactive programming using RxJava, Spring WebFlux etc.

Enjoyed reading "Bitcoin ist Freiheit" by @Samuel Kullmann. Liked the analogy between bitcoin transaction hardening like cement over time and the comparison between Bitcoin’s "security budget" and that of the Swiss army. Spoiler alert: the former is now way higher.

Published a tutorial how to setup a private nostr home relay:

Stacker News

Tutorial to Setup a Private Home Relay \ stacker news

Introduction This tutorial describes how you can create your private backup relay for your nostr notes and how you can configure Amethyst to always...

Added a tutorial here

Stacker News

Bitclock \ stacker news

Introduction This tutorial describes how you can create your own version of a Blockclock showing the statistics of your own node and services inclu...

View quoted note →

Finished reading "Praxeology" by @knutsvanholm that Knut kindly signed for me in Lugano. It's a book about the foundations of bitcoin as Austrian economics, natural law etc. but without mentioned bitcoin directly. For the latter you can only find hints as the twenty-one chapters, the orange disk on the cover picture etc. You have to do the work yourself and you will find the orange future on your own.

Created my own version of a Bitcoin block clock showing the stats of my own node and services including forwarded lightning payments, found mining shares by the Bitaxe etc.

"The Man Without Qualities" written by Robert Musil describes a society in which people possess expertise only in their square millimeter of knowledge. That is exactly what we see with some bitcoin core developer and their groupies. There we encounter single‑track minds that refuse to abstract beyond their narrow expertise and to view the bigger picture. Their argumentation only reflects their square millimeter of knowledge and any other input from outside that area is vehemently rejected.

Not fixing the bugs that are enabling the abuse of the Bitcoin time chain and rewriting the documentation is the dangerous precedent here. Framing it the other way around is just Orwellian newspeak. Hackers do not have rights to abuse the system that have to be protected by the community.