Listened to Michael Saylor on the
@Stephan Livera podcast. It's 3 months old, but sheds some light on the ARK funding story.
TL;DW: Saylor strongly believes in *OSSIFICATION NOW*. From that POV, protocol development is a liability.
Some quotes (and thoughts)👇
"You only get to play God once. And Satoshi played God. And you can say 'well Satoshi got to do it, why can't I?' Well the answer is Satoshi did it, the reason we're talking about Satoshi is 'cause the other 100,000 would-be Satoshis failed. If you read the history of the world, work your way through 10,000 pages of Western history, there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of episodes of 'alpha male thinks he was put on this earth, you know, to change everything', full of hubris [...] he's gotta do more, change more, etcetera.'" (53:34)
"Bitcoin Core developers, or protocol developers, they want to fix something, or they want to make a contribution, because it's in their DNA, but developers are just the lawyers of cyberspace. When a lawyer shows up at the capital, they gotta make a law to save you from yourself, and the more laws they make, the more they cripple the economy, until eventually there's so many laws that the entire civilization collapses under its own weight." (58:06)
"The world is full of people that need something to do. I would say, the real key to wisdom, channel your energy constructively. If you're gonna do something, improve Lightning, build an application, persuade someone to adopt Bitcoin as a reserve asset, educate someone… these are all constructive things. Destructive, dilutive, distractive things are: fight with random people 'cause they want to fight with you, attack the core network and make it confusing and introduce anxiety, and confusion and fear, uncertainty and doubt into the base layer. Right? And then attempt to imprint your ego, you know, on the base protocol, you know? Like, 'I gotta introduce this so my name will go down in history forever'." (2:38:55)
My view: it's understandable to want Bitcoin to behave like the granite under Manhattan (his analogy); a solid bedrock that never changes. Especially if you truly believe Bitcoin will take over the world as SoV-only and "there is no second best". But IMO this is wishful thinking. While I agree it's near-impossible for an alt to overtake Bitcoin, I do think adoption could stall.
Luckily, Bitcoin isn't really a natural element. It's spontaneous order, more like language. Hard to change and no one can dictate changes, but if market wants it to change, it can.
Furthermore, despite Stephan asking a few questions in that direction, Saylor mostly failed to distinguish between protocol upgrades and general software maintenance.
Arguing against any hard/soft forks is one thing, but Bitcoin Core 26.0 can obviously not last for centuries...
Having said that, Saylor is of course free to not upgrade anymore and stick to Bitcoin Core 26.0 for as long as he lives.
Replies (67)
From the quotes he puts everything into the context of „Geltungsdrang“. Tell more about him than about the world I think.
There will always be maintenance, dev work needed in core.
🎯 “Having said that, Saylor is of course free to not upgrade anymore and stick to Bitcoin Core 26.0 for as long as he lives.”
He doesn’t even run a node I bet!
Thanks for this post (and using normal capitalization).
Open source is essential as is a strong Bitcoin core developers. That doesn’t mean there should be a lot of changes.
Good find! Thanks for the post.
There is so much Dan sense in this note.
View quoted note →Saylor is a buffoon
Saylor isn't a buffoon, he's a spook serving as the frontman for a highly orchestrated, long term social attack on Bitcoin that has multiple potential layers of success ranging from total irrelevance of BTC (best outcome for spooks) down to Bitcoin dominance but with high levels of influence maintained by the State (worst outcome for spooks that can still be considered success).
Good Morning. See all you freaks tomorrow for RHR 🫡. Enjoy that beach!
Aaron van Wirdum
Listened to Michael Saylor on the
@Stephan Livera podcast. It's 3 months old, but sheds some light on the ARK funding story.
TL;DW: Saylor strongly believes in *OSSIFICATION NOW*. From that POV, protocol development is a liability.
Some quotes (and thoughts)👇
"You only get to play God once. And Satoshi played God. And you can say 'well Satoshi got to do it, why can't I?' Well the answer is Satoshi did it, the reason we're talking about Satoshi is 'cause the other 100,000 would-be Satoshis failed. If you read the history of the world, work your way through 10,000 pages of Western history, there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of episodes of 'alpha male thinks he was put on this earth, you know, to change everything', full of hubris [...] he's gotta do more, change more, etcetera.'" (53:34)
"Bitcoin Core developers, or protocol developers, they want to fix something, or they want to make a contribution, because it's in their DNA, but developers are just the lawyers of cyberspace. When a lawyer shows up at the capital, they gotta make a law to save you from yourself, and the more laws they make, the more they cripple the economy, until eventually there's so many laws that the entire civilization collapses under its own weight." (58:06)
"The world is full of people that need something to do. I would say, the real key to wisdom, channel your energy constructively. If you're gonna do something, improve Lightning, build an application, persuade someone to adopt Bitcoin as a reserve asset, educate someone… these are all constructive things. Destructive, dilutive, distractive things are: fight with random people 'cause they want to fight with you, attack the core network and make it confusing and introduce anxiety, and confusion and fear, uncertainty and doubt into the base layer. Right? And then attempt to imprint your ego, you know, on the base protocol, you know? Like, 'I gotta introduce this so my name will go down in history forever'." (2:38:55)
My view: it's understandable to want Bitcoin to behave like the granite under Manhattan (his analogy); a solid bedrock that never changes. Especially if you truly believe Bitcoin will take over the world as SoV-only and "there is no second best". But IMO this is wishful thinking. While I agree it's near-impossible for an alt to overtake Bitcoin, I do think adoption could stall.
Luckily, Bitcoin isn't really a natural element. It's spontaneous order, more like language. Hard to change and no one can dictate changes, but if market wants it to change, it can.
Furthermore, despite Stephan asking a few questions in that direction, Saylor mostly failed to distinguish between protocol upgrades and general software maintenance.
Arguing against any hard/soft forks is one thing, but Bitcoin Core 26.0 can obviously not last for centuries...
Having said that, Saylor is of course free to not upgrade anymore and stick to Bitcoin Core 26.0 for as long as he lives.
Are Aristotles properties of sound money cast in stone ? I suggest that they are. Its like a math definition, its ossified. The only changes I would support are to make bitcoin conform more to sound money than it might not already be. The rest can go into the layers.
Great post. Reading the genesis book currently it is awesome 🫡
Thank you!
🤝
Aaron van Wirdum
Listened to Michael Saylor on the
@Stephan Livera podcast. It's 3 months old, but sheds some light on the ARK funding story.
TL;DW: Saylor strongly believes in *OSSIFICATION NOW*. From that POV, protocol development is a liability.
Some quotes (and thoughts)👇
"You only get to play God once. And Satoshi played God. And you can say 'well Satoshi got to do it, why can't I?' Well the answer is Satoshi did it, the reason we're talking about Satoshi is 'cause the other 100,000 would-be Satoshis failed. If you read the history of the world, work your way through 10,000 pages of Western history, there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of episodes of 'alpha male thinks he was put on this earth, you know, to change everything', full of hubris [...] he's gotta do more, change more, etcetera.'" (53:34)
"Bitcoin Core developers, or protocol developers, they want to fix something, or they want to make a contribution, because it's in their DNA, but developers are just the lawyers of cyberspace. When a lawyer shows up at the capital, they gotta make a law to save you from yourself, and the more laws they make, the more they cripple the economy, until eventually there's so many laws that the entire civilization collapses under its own weight." (58:06)
"The world is full of people that need something to do. I would say, the real key to wisdom, channel your energy constructively. If you're gonna do something, improve Lightning, build an application, persuade someone to adopt Bitcoin as a reserve asset, educate someone… these are all constructive things. Destructive, dilutive, distractive things are: fight with random people 'cause they want to fight with you, attack the core network and make it confusing and introduce anxiety, and confusion and fear, uncertainty and doubt into the base layer. Right? And then attempt to imprint your ego, you know, on the base protocol, you know? Like, 'I gotta introduce this so my name will go down in history forever'." (2:38:55)
My view: it's understandable to want Bitcoin to behave like the granite under Manhattan (his analogy); a solid bedrock that never changes. Especially if you truly believe Bitcoin will take over the world as SoV-only and "there is no second best". But IMO this is wishful thinking. While I agree it's near-impossible for an alt to overtake Bitcoin, I do think adoption could stall.
Luckily, Bitcoin isn't really a natural element. It's spontaneous order, more like language. Hard to change and no one can dictate changes, but if market wants it to change, it can.
Furthermore, despite Stephan asking a few questions in that direction, Saylor mostly failed to distinguish between protocol upgrades and general software maintenance.
Arguing against any hard/soft forks is one thing, but Bitcoin Core 26.0 can obviously not last for centuries...
Having said that, Saylor is of course free to not upgrade anymore and stick to Bitcoin Core 26.0 for as long as he lives.
What is a 'protocol upgrade'?
What does 'general software maintenance' mean, and why is this needed?
What is the difference?
Can someone use a metaphor or use child language to explain this to me and any other feeling ignorant on this subject?
And please assume that all I know about computers is how to turn them on & off.
#asknostr #bitcoin #protocol #OG #developers #devs #generalsoftwaremaintenance #bitcoinsoftware #core #node
Given your pro Bitcoin upgrades stance, are you for upgrading #Bitcoin's spam filters then ?
The core of the argument. would like an answer here aswell. Instead of the surface getting scratched and then hiding behind a no true Scotsman argument.
Well this is part of the question.
That said, the protocol in this context is how computers "speak Bitcoin' with each other. This inciudes Bitcoin's consensus rules, most notably: what makes a Bitcoin block valid. But there are other important protocol rules as well, like how transactions are sent over the network.
Basic maintance I would define as making sure the software keeps running. So this can include bug fixes, making sure the code remains compatible with other programs, etc.
This stuff isn't always black-and-white though, and to me it remains rather unclear where Saylor actually wants to draw the line in this regard. (I'd say the general sentiment of the interview however pretty strongly suggests a "just don't touch it" attitude.)
I'm only in favour of upgrades that make bitcoin more valuable.
I think he missed a small point - core devs are mostly there to resist the change .. they really do .. not the other way around .. without them, (lot more ) changes be mandated by new millionaires and billionaires.. and Mr. Saylor may not be able to stop them ..you got to have someone immutable to blame ..
That said , he makes sense .. bitcoin does exactly what it needs to do - change the world :-) it doesn't need any change .. is that what ossification mean ?
Only way to resist change is to know the history .. that's why we don't touch the fire ..cuz we know the burns :-)
And who knows history better than the core devs !
I actually see it as a win win .. core devs always resist change .. now holdlers too wanna resist change .. Bitcoin code is becoming as immutable as the ledger itself ..
Not sure what the issue here is .. as far as funding is concerned, that's a trivial things.. Satoshi has billions of dollars to fund anything if he wants to .. open source development isn't contingent upon money .. they do it because that is what they do ..its their Karma ..
Okay, I was writing and listening and did best to edit my words to make sense.
It is still not clear to me on what changing things in the software is. This is running a node? Building a faster chip for node tech? And does this matter?
And does it matter that I do understand, seeing most the worlds population only uses all the different tech without understanding it?
That said, I’d like to grasp it somewhat so I can put my trust into the trustless.
Saylors now talking on "playing god and making decisions that effect hundreds of millions"
( I'm not quoting
@Michael Saylor direct words, but saying it as “I” understand his words)
I'm just past the hour now of the video and he's still making sense to me. Saying something like "a plane flies, that's the protocol, but now someone wants to introduce a new furniture for in the plane that makes the plain crash. Don't just do things because you believe it's a good idea, be patient, think and think again"
I will need such metaphors to understand answers to my prior question.
I think he and Craig would agree. I listened this while back and I feel that in this talk with Craig, some people are sounding rushed, moving with some panic vibe. Are these the developers?
And now listening saylor,
"we need to built somethings that will last a millennia, if we choose to touch the core think that far ahead. New people will arrive (or still need to be born) to work on it. Reflect on ones ego in wanting to "help", before you go change stuff. Go improve lightning layer 2,3,4,5, leave layer 1 alone"
He still makes sense to me, because my understanding was that bitcoin was untouchable if enough people used it and hash rate grows, but now I get I'm wrong? Why carry on investing in it instead of gold?
But then I hear anyone can built on it, so how can we stop whomever in the world wishes too?
So long people don't vote, update their software/node? If it's good it will happen. So am I just following a drama of nothing on nostr? Iran, Korea, Russia, India etc also have computer geniuses right.. I’m only in the English bubble here.
I would like to run a node but don't understand github and all the files, looked at tutorials. Its unsure to me I might f up my pc. And probably need a new one seeing this one is old old. I’ll wait till the tech geniuses build an easier to use one, or point me out to one that already exists.
There are many of me that know nothing of the tech. So those who do, we need to trust you don't do stupid things. Be mindful, move without fear. Patience!
Thanks for the effort🙏 . Anyone else willing to explain to me and other tech dinos my prior questions, feel welcome to try.
@ODELL @Michael Saylor @jack @jack mallers @npub1exce...n72a @Lyn Alden
#bitcoin #asknostr # layer1 #techdino #drama #ego #fear #patience
Going to listen to this too I'm light of what's going on. Looks like this will be the main conflict of this epoch.
What was the main conflict last time? All the casinos going bust with FTX as a finale? Was there something else I'm forgetting?
#bitcoin
Aaron van Wirdum
Listened to Michael Saylor on the
@Stephan Livera podcast. It's 3 months old, but sheds some light on the ARK funding story.
TL;DW: Saylor strongly believes in *OSSIFICATION NOW*. From that POV, protocol development is a liability.
Some quotes (and thoughts)👇
"You only get to play God once. And Satoshi played God. And you can say 'well Satoshi got to do it, why can't I?' Well the answer is Satoshi did it, the reason we're talking about Satoshi is 'cause the other 100,000 would-be Satoshis failed. If you read the history of the world, work your way through 10,000 pages of Western history, there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of episodes of 'alpha male thinks he was put on this earth, you know, to change everything', full of hubris [...] he's gotta do more, change more, etcetera.'" (53:34)
"Bitcoin Core developers, or protocol developers, they want to fix something, or they want to make a contribution, because it's in their DNA, but developers are just the lawyers of cyberspace. When a lawyer shows up at the capital, they gotta make a law to save you from yourself, and the more laws they make, the more they cripple the economy, until eventually there's so many laws that the entire civilization collapses under its own weight." (58:06)
"The world is full of people that need something to do. I would say, the real key to wisdom, channel your energy constructively. If you're gonna do something, improve Lightning, build an application, persuade someone to adopt Bitcoin as a reserve asset, educate someone… these are all constructive things. Destructive, dilutive, distractive things are: fight with random people 'cause they want to fight with you, attack the core network and make it confusing and introduce anxiety, and confusion and fear, uncertainty and doubt into the base layer. Right? And then attempt to imprint your ego, you know, on the base protocol, you know? Like, 'I gotta introduce this so my name will go down in history forever'." (2:38:55)
My view: it's understandable to want Bitcoin to behave like the granite under Manhattan (his analogy); a solid bedrock that never changes. Especially if you truly believe Bitcoin will take over the world as SoV-only and "there is no second best". But IMO this is wishful thinking. While I agree it's near-impossible for an alt to overtake Bitcoin, I do think adoption could stall.
Luckily, Bitcoin isn't really a natural element. It's spontaneous order, more like language. Hard to change and no one can dictate changes, but if market wants it to change, it can.
Furthermore, despite Stephan asking a few questions in that direction, Saylor mostly failed to distinguish between protocol upgrades and general software maintenance.
Arguing against any hard/soft forks is one thing, but Bitcoin Core 26.0 can obviously not last for centuries...
Having said that, Saylor is of course free to not upgrade anymore and stick to Bitcoin Core 26.0 for as long as he lives.
Isnt it ironic, don't you think:
Saylor talking about "Alpha male [...] full of hybris [...] Wanting to do more" when he literally hasn't stopped issuing stocks and loaning to stack SATs.
A little too ironic I really do think
How does „If you're gonna do something, improve Lightning“ fit with Odell‘s claims?
💯
He doesn't get to dictate ossification, not even if he's right, no matter how much money he's leveraged and borrowed.
In terms of fiat? Or as a whole as a network ? I’m more interested in network resilience over the long term.
By that logic he should be running the 0.1 satoshi client, if he runs a node at all?
He is also free to use his political influence. Orange pillers are big mad because they think politics don’t matter, so they lash out. Not material tho.
I don't disagree with anything he said about ossification, but that's not the issue. 70%+ of the development is maintaining bitcoin core.
If he wants to prevent others from contributing to open sats because he thinks they will change bitcoin, fine--But he should start his own foundation that only donates sats to developers who maintain bitcoin core.
The fact that he does not see why this is in his own self-interest baffles me.
I don’t care what he thinks.
He is a billionaire who tried to use leverage to force the entire bitcoin community and ecosystem into his plans.
He buys bitcoin & stores bitcoin, do you seriously think he uses other people's nodes? 🙄
Prick should have bought BSV then. Just another degenerate gambler, probably one day we'll all be buying up his sats cheap...
I want very little change and development but also extremely aware I am benefiting from protocol changes made before I even arrived. A delicate balance we will rightly argue over for eternity.
Bitcoin doesn’t care what Saylor thinks.
Microstrategy pays a company to custody the 🌽
I didn't say Microstrategy. He has his own stash. If you can prove that he doesn't personally self-custody any bitcoin at all or own any wallets then I might believe he doesn't run a node.
Do you really think Saylor is arguing for no software maintenance?
Why do you believe he’s not in favor of software maintenance? I think part of the “problem” that people have with him is that he wanted the funding to have “strings attached”.
TL;DR : “Satoshi is God” and don’t make anymore changes because “God did it that way”
Often times people who justify their actions to “God said so” tend to have some undiscovered stories. Just saying
Meh 🤷 I didn't know he had his own stash
I have not problem with strings attached funding.
I don't believe he is in favor of software maintanace because I have not seen any evidence that he has financially contributed to "strings attached" funding.
I will be happy to be proven otherwise.
Odell is right.
My bet is that the issue isn’t software development. I’ve been in software development for decades but still not as long as Saylor. Software maintenance is so absolutely crucial and fundamental to everything.
This caught my eye, but I would appreciate a deeper discussion by the parties into the key issues.
View quoted note →If ur a software as a service provider, you make $$$ from your licensees and customers via “maintenance” after the initial sale and install is done, so they like that. Maintenance is recurring (MRR/ARR) whereby upgrades, not so much.
he’s not serious. there’s not much more to it than that.
He bought around 10,000 btc before Microstrategy started buying it. He said a while ago that he personally owns about 18,000 btc.
BITCOIN DOESN’T CARE WHAT ODELL THINKS!!!
You would think a CEO of a software development company that's been around since the 90's would be more likely to recognize this than some pleb who read Working In Public.
He isn't, stop simping. He's making accusations without evidence & from what others who have more info on the situation (Samson Mow) Odell's claims are overblown.
There are no software as a service providers here. The devs don’t make money or charge people for using the software.
The meaning of software maintenance is different in this context. It means the work that you have to do to keep the software running on newer operating systems.
For example, let’s say that Apple upgrades their MacOS operating system. There may be changes that the devs must make to the core software to keep it running on the newer Macs.
Saylor is not arguing that devs stop software maintenance. If software maintenance stopped, bitcoin would die within 10 years.
Saylor seems to be arguing that new features should be added to L2s to avoid breaking the core L1 network.
Oh Thanks for showing me this post from Odell. I had to look it up on Primal. I disagree with statement too.
Yes, it seems to me that Saylor must know that software maintenance is crucial and if devs stopped doing maintenance, then bitcoin would die within 10 years.
I think he must be arguing for no new features that could break the core system, and instead push all new features into the L2s.
I would like to hear the discussion to understand his full perspective.
Thanks for the transcript. Cyber hornets heading Saylor's way in 3...2...1
Saylor said he is creating a significant bitcoin software development arm within MicroStrategy. His company has already been in the SaaS business. It would be within his wheelhouse to provide bitcoin related SaaS to big banks and financial firms.
Are you saying that you believe Saylor wants to stop work on bitcoin core so that he can sell an alternative core software created by him?
I’ll say this with what is known thus far, I believe Saylor cock blocking FOSS devs working on Bitcoin from getting $$$ is a strategic business move typically used against competition. Imagine yourself to be Saylor… why would you have a back channel conversation with a huge prospective donor to dissuade them from donating to an organization that supports a particular, niche, small subset of software developers?
Stop projecting. Simp is an accusation simps make.
Time will tell who is right. You will see.
hang on a second. are we saying that funding open source is in some way being anti ossification? i dont think that holds.
Me too. Saylor and Odell should have a debate.
Maybe there are other reasons he doesn't want open sats to get ARK money.
Saylor doesn't like bitcoin payments.
Nostr and ecash make the lightning network a viable alternative to eBay, PayPal, and Apple Pay.
Mutiny uses nostr to make a Bitcoiner version of Venmo.
I can't imagine the status quo will be happy about this.
Opensats funds nostr development. The suits won't like nostr.
Nostr has the potential to change the world.
The USG doesn't like privacy.
Ecash is privacy.
Billionaire's probably don't want to shake the boat.
Nostr shakes the boat.
Saylor has the freedom of speech just like the rest of us on nostr. He's free to tell Ark whatever he wants. It's just not what I want.
Regardless, I hope Saylor and MicroStrategy fund bitcoin developers, but now that I think of it, it can't come with strings attached. It would increase the risk of a hardfork and might be construed as a bribe. That wouldn't be good for anyone.
“Read this article” it holds the whole truth hahah
How many vaccines did you get?
Did you listen to RHR? Matt totally left out accusing Saylor of saying he'd "crush" any of the ETF's. He did acknlowedge that he "could have handled it better" so obviously he knows he's in the wrong on this saga. But you can be his fanboy if you want.
🤙💜
![[ARCHIVED] Jay's avatar](https://i.nostr.build/9NquibWjyPXiz2Q4.png)
