The real problem with big blockers & shitcoiners is that they don't understand enough about money & economics to have any awareness of the actual problem that #bitcoin was created to solve.

“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”

This isn't about fucking coffee payments. It's about ending monetary slavery. We will eventually get the coffee payments too, but not if we let a bunch of wildly ignorant people fuck up base layer security.


Absolutely right!


#Bitcoin is literally a tank for fighting a global war against mass murdering pedophile slave masters & we have people trying to attach a million cappuccino machines to the damn thing.

Leave the cappuccino machines in places where cappuccino belongs & let the tank protect those places.

nostr:nevent1qqsv2cqdas5604zxm0azq0uaea7x52ytzxury4d28adxpa4f0r8j4vspr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgswex0dc4t8uq5pt7c4qgpgtch6swgfx88d7kwg844m930kac2npwgrqsqqqqqpe37x3t


The timechain as a value cache is more concerned with storage integrity than IO throughput over time

nostr:nevent1qqsv2cqdas5604zxm0azq0uaea7x52ytzxury4d28adxpa4f0r8j4vsppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgswex0dc4t8uq5pt7c4qgpgtch6swgfx88d7kwg844m930kac2npwgrqsqqqqqpp97nwp


It says "p2p digital currency" in the headline of the whitepaper, ROFL


Onward 🫡


Thank you


Were running out of physical money were the banks omg. I got an idea lets make play money & say we still have it & were not going bankrupt they just can't see it till they exchange it for cash 😁


If it can't by food from your local farmer (colloquially expressed as "a" coffee) how is it supposed to defeat them?

You need to take different angles into account and one is to sustain yourself while fighting.

Now we live in a world where we can have both at the same time. Thanks to Monero AND Bitcoin. It's not big blockers or Monero guys refusing this point of view. It's Bitcoiners who are not in for the right reasons. They don't want freedom. They want to become the new rulers.


*buy


Yes, and that's still what it is when I send LN or Ark or Fedimint or Liquid transactions.

You cannot scale a braodcast network to everyone in the world. Suggesting otherwise just makes you not a serious person.


Neither of those is Bitcoin. The only one that comes close is noncustodial LN and we know it has plenty of downsides.

Scaling always happened vertically (as Bitcoiners intended) and horizontally as Bitcoiners still dismiss despite it being what is taking place in the real world.

But don't understand me wrong. It's great to have BTC limited as it is. But it doesn't mean other projects should follow Bitcoin's design decisions. The coin to rule them on is nice fan fiction.


We will eventually have a trustless way to share UTXOs and Liquid or Fedimints or Arks (or whatever comes next to improve upon them) will be the way most people interact. Lightning is also likely to be more for settlement between institutions. More horizontal scaling may come in the form of cross input signature aggregation or something like that.

Increasing the blocksize doesn't solve the problem. It's only a linear improvement in capacity & it is a compounding increase in the cost of node operation. You cannot sacrifice network infrastructure to gain functionality.


Certainly. Increasing the blocksize alone doesn't solve anything. But this is not the same discussion as 10 years ago. So now we have everything from scaling vertically to scaling horizontally on other chains with increased block size.


We have proof from ETH that increasing the blocksize kills decentralization completely.

We also have proof from BCH (+ Bitcoin Dark, BSV, etc) that using hard forks introduces fundamental vulnerabilities that fuck up the network & lead to more forks & division.

You just refuse to see what is right in front of you because you want your bags to pump & either don't want to admit you were wrong or you're a newb that was "educated" by people who don't want to admit they were wrong.


I've been in Bitcoin for long enough that I luckily don't need anyone to pump my bags. Especially not BlackRock.

But the safety of me and my family in this society depends on others to re-gain or keep their freedom and privacy.

And in a limited supply system price is an indicator for freedom available to all of us. But it's the other way around more freedom will be represented by a higher price. A higher price not necessarily means more freedom, especially if measured in USD.


1. Bitcoin can buy coffee but that's never the function of a base layer serving 8 billion people.

When you buy a coffee with a credit card you are using a L2-L3 payment without final settlement. If Monero served 8 bn people then its base layer could not be used for buying a coffee. Since almost nobody uses Monero, you can absolutely buy a coffee on its base layer. If a form money becomes widely used then it won't make economic sense to buy a coffee on its base layer.

2. Scaling Bitcoin to meet the needs of 8 billion people will primarily happen on L2-L3 since the base layer must be secure, decentralized and allow noderunners to run local nodes. Ignoring this fact is an appeal to magical thinking. We can't achieve bandwidth for 8 bn people on a secure base layer.

3. Bitcoin is rules without rulers. If you want decentralization, property rights and liberty for all, Bitcoin game theory can achieve that while Monero doesn't have that sort of impact on politics.

Monero might be useful as dark money at some point but it is not a store of value that can enact a positive pressure on nations/jurisdictions to increase individual liberties. The game theory of Bitcoin will pressure nations to either lose capital in capital flight, or, improve individual liberties in order to keep capital (Bitcoin). Liberty arbitrage requires a global store of value.

I wrote a piece on the game theory of why taint will not work against Bitcoin and it also lays out how liberty arbitrage works. This is dependent on Bitcoin being a global store of value.

nostr:nevent1qqsyp39g9ykyclhvg2xxq3m5e6speyjdumzwk2llp2q3r630jkxrj5spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuvrcxajju7re0gpzqg75jw2xzfv9wpk89yy2tcusf723wl4qs7cr9hdle55xyvzv0kvrqvzqqqqqqygngr7g


I would argue that both have roughly the same impact on politics. Yin and yang.

Otherwise Monero wouldn't have been delisted under government pressure and attacked for over half a decade.

I guess we are also preparing for different things.

Monero does not need to prepare for things that Bitcoin is already good at. Bitcoin won't go away. It  also does not need to prepare for 8B user tomorrow.

From a privacy perspective it's good to use something non permanent like LN or ecash on top of Monero. But I am fine to exchange my Monero on the spot for whatever cryptocurrwncy or method a merchant accepts.

There is a need for private digital cash  that is none custodial and there is a need for private wealth (offshore banks).

Bitcoin is good to become digital gold and a reserve asset.


I agree that the establishment attacks on Monero are despicable. Dark money must be allowed in a free society and if it is not we are  heading toward tyranny. A black market is a free market and I support that.

Monero has a different function than Bitcoin and cannot have the same impact on politics.

Capital leaving a jurisdiction because the jurisdiction is authoritarian will have an impact on politics.

This is the domain of Bitcoin game theory. Jurisdictions that respect individual liberties will attract capital (Bitcoin) and outcompete authoritarian jurisdictions. Monero cannot achieve this as dark money.

Bitcoin over LN, Liquid and other L2-L3 solutions will be the everyday 'e-cash' formats. L1 will be for store of value only. In a free market competition the user can achieve a desired balance between speed, cost and security.

Bitcoin and Monero aids different liberty mechanisms. I am personally not into Monero, but dark money might be useful at some point, so I am not ruling out the possibility that Monero will have a liberty impact. It is just that its liberty function can be achieved equally well by a Monero competitor.


Bitcoin has first mover advantage. So has Monero. It's unlikely any competition will take the provacu kings crown. It's constantly increasing market share.

Appreciating both aspects dark and light gives us more strategic leverage to tackle governments.


Agreed.

Cash is dark money and it is important that people have access to dark money in the digital age. History has demonstrated to us what crimes surveillance regimes can commit when they go unchecked. Under authoritarian systems, dark money will always be vital. It is my hope that Bitcoin can compete with Monero on L2-L3's in regards to dark money. The base layer obviously cannot be both a store of value and dark money at the same time. As such Bitcoin and Monero occupy different niches.


The real problem with big blockers & shitcoiners is that they don't understand enough about money & economics to have any awareness of the actual problem that #bitcoin was created to solve.

“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”

This isn't about fucking coffee payments. It's about ending monetary slavery. We will eventually get the coffee payments too, but not if we let a bunch of wildly ignorant people fuck up base layer security.


🤘Hell Yeah🤘


This whole time I thought it was trying to solve the problem of intermediaries hence "Peer2Peer Electronic Cash"

Must have been mistaken. Maybe that's why all maxi "solutions" are custodial and permissioned.

Hopefully yall get around to it sometime in the next millenium or two


If you thought that you wouldn't advocate things that turn the entire base network into a centralized intermediary.

Real problem solving does take time. "Make 'em bigger" doesn't actually solve anything.


Bitcoin can be used privately in a self custodial manner.
Just cause people don't do it doesn't mean you can't.


As I am not a maxi I advocate for small blocks on BTC and for big blocks everywhere else.

Your point of view is just so dense because you see everything through the one coin to rile them all.

Once you widen your perspective you'll see that BTC is perfect as it is. And the world is corresponding to Bitcoin. And bigger dynamic blocks on Monero or bcash are perfectly fine as well. They actually don't need to have small blocks, as BTC has that covered already.

The market always creates choices for traders. And currency competition (not monopoly) is the goal if you follow the Austrian school of thought.


Money tends toward one because it is a language & an economic protocol. Saying we need monetary competition is kinda like saying we need competition for rules of the road. We need competition to decide if driving on the right or left is better, we need competition to decide if red should mean stop or go. Consensus around the rules of the road are what allow people to get where they need to go. Money is what enables value comparison & competition. If we had endless competition about internet protocols then nothing would work. The monetary competition is going to eventually come to an end & I think Bitcoin is going to win it because development took network security & robustness more seriously.


I see where you are coming from, but I can not see this represented in reality. At least not where markets play a role.

You are stating your assumption as a fact when it is in reality just your belief.

And it's an interesting one as maximalism builds on that belief.

I and many others have different believes which ironically renders your belief invalid. But you don't care. Maximalism must prevail.

Look around. There is competition in everything. Nature is built on competition. Markets are built on competition. Temporary social consensus (man made and because of that impermanent) doesn't change that.

Anyways nice to understand that Bitcoin maximalism is not rooted in the Austrian school.


The dollar has been dominant even with countries violently trying to impose their own currency monopolies, the internet is built on a common protocol stack, english is the dominant language to an ever growing degree, all life is built from RNA & DNA, I think nature supports what I am saying quite well.


It supports different perspectives.

And a dominant currency is not the same as one currency.


I mean, I think people should be free to create & buy any sort of collectible bullshit they want, but I think everything outside of bitcoin will eventually be seen as just that.


A Transparent public blockchain can never be private. Maybe you meant anonymously (pseudonymous really)? That's not the same thing and not practical to always do anyway


Many are here to be their own bank.  Hopefully LSPs in Lightning can scale to include anyone, I have read up on some improvements on LSP pools. We'll see how the economy evolves.


Fedimints networked by Lightning are literally a path to being your own bank for your friends & family members so that they aren't stuck with untrusted custodians. Arks may solve the problem in a more trustless way. Maybe channel factories or LN pools & hedghog channels will give Lightning better scaling capabilities too.


Interesting take, I guess technically youre right by definition, but I think you know what I meant.

I can safely and privately use Bitcoin, to where no one other than me knows about it

If you'd rather use the word pseudonymous I can live with that.

But at the end of the day my statement remains.

It is not hard to use Bitcoin in a privacy focusing manner.

Just takes a bit of learning. Like anything in this world.

You never just start with the knowledge. You gotta learn.


Privacy is hidden content/actions, anonymity is hidden identity

I think both are pretty important because missing privacy leaks data that can be used to unravel your anonymity/psuedonymity over time (what addresses you interact with, amounts, timing, etc)

It's harder than ever now since Samourai and Wasabi are out of the game. And it's impractical to coinjoin every transaction anyway especially as fees climb.

If you don't coinjoin every transaction, aside from third parties, your counter parties will be able to see balances and see past history + follow you going forward. I'm sure people most wouldn't be comfortable with that even if you know the person.