The primary reason why #Bitcoin price is going lower is that it has much more WS capital that it absorbed. And, as TradFi market goes bust, the first place where the WS fuckwits can get liquidity to cushion their overleveraged positions is by selling bitcoins for fiat.
The crooked WS money inflows that bitcoiners cheered are now giving them a headache. On top of all this, they do this shit while buying zcash — the cherry on the pudding.
Fuck WS bullshit inflows, I'd rather Bitcoin go to 10k just to have these bastards jump the ship. But, yet again, anyone can buy and use Bitcoin without needling anyone's permission, that's the beauty of it.
Replies (11)
How much of it, do you think, has to with the fact that Bitcoin‘s uniqueness from shitcoins (immutability) has been put in question by simply being changed by its Core Devs?
I don't think the filter fiasco has anything to do with immutability. Bitcoin is the most secure, decentralized and censorship resistant thing we currently have.
What makes a shitcoin a shitcoin? Answer that and you'll have your answer.
The CoreDevs change Bitcoin‘s monetary properties. Can’t they change consensus rules? Tell me how Bitcoin is secure from Developers changing code, and I’ll spread the word…
You can run whatever implementation you want, that's how. Oh wait, we want to "forbid" people running v30? That's beyond anyone's reach, and, ironically, reverts this convo to the first sentence.
Shitcoins are centralized, premined, pump and dump schemes. It's either malintent or plain ignorance to be equating Bitcoin to those kind of things because of a mempool policy change.
There aren’t enough nodes…I always felt good since I thought nodes decide.
They decide what they want to update and download and what not….
….turns out, the nodes are very passive, complacent, naive and also susceptible to a Sybil attack. Especially due to the low number. V30 only needs to spawn up couple of tausend nodes.
IMHO, it’s also not about the severity of the change, it’s that the development process is the preferred perimeter to attack (and I’m repeating someone else’s thoughts here):
- Cheaper than legislation: Defaults and "safety" framing do the enforcement work.
- Plausible deniability: "We're just improving performance".
- Asymmetric impact: hits sovereign users hardest; institutional wrappers unaffected.
Development-Process Capture = Perimeter Control
You don't have to "hack" Bitcoin's consensus rules to influence how the network behaves.
You can steer what gets relayed, mined, or socially accepted by quietly shaping the development process — who gets funded, who reviews changes, which features become defaults, how releases are timed, and how communication is framed.
If you expect for governments to come out and try to ban Bitcoin, don't because that's not how the system works.
Systems don't rely on bans; they use knobs — adjustable defaults, standards, and processes that subtly guide behavior.
The Bitcoin development process is a dense cluster of such knobs.
Open source ≠ immune
Control flows through funding, maintainers, policy defaults, and release cadence.
There are probably less than a 100 people in the world who have game theory studied:
- the development process control surfaces — where steering actually happens
- what capture looks like
- how capture changes outcomes
- why the development process is the preferred perimeter to attack
…it’s the only thing that can kill Bitcoin. Do now what? BIP444. Hard fork? Not good for adoption. Not good for THE monetary network of humanity.
A lot of text with no meat.
Give me one attack vector that will provably negate my ability to have my transactions included in the block or have my node provide a false utxo set? The code is available for public review, go out there and introduce undeniably positive changes to the network surely you will have your commit merged.
Bitcoin's strength is in its unstructured simplicity. The foundation is solid. There's not much one can do except actively take part in its development, be on top of the dev discussions and factually provide technical input. If you do that, there's little chance that your input will be dismissed or silenced.
While it is a good thing to be alert to potential dangers, being frantic to the extent of delusion is counterproductive.
I think the attack has already happened just as described. That’s the beef.
I have followed every mail and every post on Bitcoin dev discussions and I didn't find anything to imply that core devs/maintainers are being malicious. The loudest crowd is mostly strawmannning.
Everyone is entitled to formulate their own opinion, as Schopenhauer put it: Desipere est jus gentium.
I prefer to deal with reality, fact.
Ps. I too have read the exchanges and have come with the opposite conclusion. It’s malicious. And the result is quite real, v30.
Ok, I respect that. Thanks for the exchange.
Amen.
