Sound Money 🟠

Sound Money or bust. Bitcoin is the only exit from the fiat collapse. Austrian Economics, digital sovereignty, and the search for truth.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

Buterium

[BTCbello #BIP-110 @Bitbello]

New Corecoin/Bithereum logo. Yay or Nay?

[Luke Dashjr @LukeDashjr]

Facts:
1) Saturday, bad actors attempted a contentious hardfork with the purpose of forcing users to distribute CSAM. This spawned a new scamcoin with an airdrop (I call Bpedo).
2) Most formerly Bitcoin pools (a small handful of people) then began to attack the Bitcoin network to try to deceive the world into thinking Bpedo is "the real Bitcoin".
3) People who aren't using full nodes are easily fooled because they don't validate the blockchain. Upgrading to a full node (such as the latest release of Bitcoin Knots) will put you back on the Bitcoin network.
4) Community-led mitigations are in progress to overcome the ongoing attack on the Bitcoin network and restore it to full functionality. And update with these mitigations is expected by September 1st.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

Game theory exists and assumes that participants generally seek to act in accordance with their own interests. In this case, miners could reasonably be expected to care about the long-term security and value of the Bitcoin network and to support BIP110, because it is not in their interest for the network to split and for them to lose a significant portion of users and nodes. If they nevertheless consciously chose a path that increases the risk of a fork while ignoring around 20% of the nodes, it raises the question of whether other, larger interests or incentives were driving their behavior.

Bitcoin is in serious danger.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

The problem is that Bitcoin has not been used for what it was originally designed to be a P2P monetary system and an alternative to the dollar-based financial system.

Most people still don't understand what P2P money actually means. They don't use Bitcoin as independent money, they simply use it as an asset to trade for more dollars. They keep their coins on exchanges or in wallets, don't run their own nodes, and rarely transact directly with other users.

This has created the centralization we see today. When users don't run their own nodes and don't participate directly in the P2P network, exchanges, wallets, and miners gain more influence and can increasingly ignore the users who are supposed to enforce Bitcoin's rules.And once you have centralization, a small group of people can gain control over the system and influence its direction.Governments and banks don't want any alternative monetary system. They already have their own monetary system and have no interest in a competing P2P monetary network.And because the system has become centralized, they can now influence it and undermine its original purpose.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

@100xChaser @hodlonaut Bitcoin is a P2P monetary system. When miners attack the network, users can only do one thing change the PoW algorithm.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

I support the fork because I believe it is the right direction. But if the PoW algorithm is being changed, it should have been made ASIC-resistant, so that anyone could mine from home using an ordinary CPU. Otherwise, mining will once again become centralized in large mining farms. Satoshi clearly described the principle of “one CPU, one vote” in the Bitcoin whitepaper

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

I watched your live streams on YouTube, and you seemed like a smart guy. Come on, think about it for a moment. How are you going to stop Chinese guy Chun and the mining cartel if they decide to introduce tail emission and a demurrage fee?A few people can now make a deal quickly, while the P2P network doesn’t really matter anymore.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

It looks like you still don’t understand. Think about which Bitcoin has a greater chance of surviving and NGU in the long run a Bitcoin that becomes a database for storing images, NFTs, fiat tokens, and other scams, while becoming increasingly centralized because running a node becomes more difficult, or a truly decentralized peer-to-peer Bitcoin?

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

This guy still doesn’t understand what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network and digital money. Consensus is not decided by miners, exchanges, or wallets, but by users running full nodes who independently verify the protocol’s rules. Bitcoin does not recognize the authority of miners, exchanges, or wallets every full node independently validates protocol rules.Consensus is determined by full node operators, not by miners, exchanges, or wallets.

[Samson Mow @Excellion]

This was a good post @knutsvanholm and I'm glad you're not joining Luke's altcoin.

That said, reading your post, I'm worried that you haven't learned the right lessons from this ordeal.

It wasn't that miners ignored BIP-110 (as I told @lukedewolf) but it was almost everyone: miners, exchanges, wallets, economic actors, etc.

Yes, there are more nodes now, but it also doesn't matter whether those operators accept Bitcoin for their goods or services or not. It's about the mass of economic weight behind those nodes. You also need economic nodes willing to risk their BTC, which was largely absent.

Nodes cannot and should not be able to influence the network. Nodes can be a proxy for economic weight, but they also can be sybilled.

Proof of Work (hashrate) is what really matters because it cannot be faked, and yet even miners can falsely signal for something they do not intend to enforce. This is why thresholds for change must be so high (95%). I really hope you can understand this because it's important.

I also don't see you showing understanding that BIP-110 was in fact iatrogenic. There is nothing more harmful than well-meaning people trying to fix Bitcoin. It was the case in the Blocksize War and it is the case now.

I'm glad you will stick around and help people make the right choice between Bitcoin and Luke's altcoin, but at the same time you need to really understand these Bitcoin fundamentals so you can properly teach others.

🧡

[Matthew R. Kratter #BIP-110 @mattkratter]

Fighting The SHA-256 Oligopoly

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

This is way too accurate 😂

[The ₿itcoin Artist @worshipbitcoin]

GM☕

Good job stopping BIP-110 freedom fighters!

Here is your prize:

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

Bitcoin is not dead it’s running, and four blocks have been mined.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

Bitcoin is doomed to fail because most people don’t understand it, and because they don’t understand it, they don’t use it. Even those who do use it often don’t use it properly. Everyone should run their own node and be a peer on the network. It was supposed to be a P2P network where nodes enforce the rules, while miners simply follow those rules. Instead, exchanges, custodians, and mining have become increasingly centralized. Now miners can do whatever they want introduce a tail emission, demurrage fees, or change other monetary rules and there is no one left to stop them, unless BIP100 brings back the real Bitcoin decentralized P2P money.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

Nodes have the ultimate authority and enforce the rules. This Chinese guy should simply follow what the nodes decide, but he has seized power for himself. The only option is to change the PoW algorithm. His mining machines would become worthless if he refuses to submit to the node runners.That’s how it should work.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

@BitcoinMooky @Roughnecks110 That is the real Bitcoin decentralized P2P money.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

@crypto_padre @ScarcityMan You’re a crypto bro. You don’t understand Bitcoin.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

The supporters of BIP-110 are people with low time preference and strong ideological convictions people who want Bitcoin to succeed in the long run and fulfill its original goal of separating money from the state. while the opponents are mostly people with a high time preference who aren’t really interested in Bitcoin itself. They’re more interested in fiat, various scams, the crypto mindset, and similar things.They are fiat maximalists. They don’t care what happens to Bitcoin.

[Forrest @ForrestHODL]

This whole BIP 110 Sega has displayed some of the highest time preference behavior I've seen in Bitcoin in quite awhile.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

Absolutely. Well said

[Hardfork Mechanic @GrassFedBitcoin]

These views do not reflect the views of @ocean_mining and are mine exclusively:

Saturday 8/8 saw the rejection of BIP110 by the Bitcoin industry despite broad support among the community.

This shattered a long-standing belief that Bitcoin's anti-fragility and hard-monetary properties would continue thanks to its decentralized network of nodes who were run by people who understood Bitcoin and would fight to preserve it.

I have been confident in Bitcoin's future and championed it as a tool for freedom.

My reasons for doing so both required that it maintain and treat as a mission-critical priority the decentralization and ultimate authority of the network of nodes determining and enforcing its rules.

They are no longer relevant.

The degree to which this undermines Bitcoin's future cannot be overstated. Proof of Work is completely pointless if the criteria for what constitutes validity is decided by the ones doing the work.

Pools have said "Our blocks are still valid, even if they violate rules we were told to respect."

They did so within a small cartel of centralized pool operators clearly acting on behalf of industry players who operated behind closed doors ensuring that their public, breathtakingly arrogant, and nonsensically premature dismissal of BIP110 as a failure would not ultimately turn out any other way.

They were not bluffing, they knew.

By contrast, BIP110 supporters operated in public.

We used neutral metrics that everyone had access to, and made the basis of our confidence publicly known. Sincere attempts were made to gauge community sentiment and engagement was public on all venues where discussion was permitted.

Public engagement with influential Bitcoiners who opposed BIP110 demonstrated clearly that their opposition was not in good faith. This led to questions about their characters and intentions which were promptly corroborated by timely Epstein leaks. This meant that it was no longer frivolous dismissal of "the other side" out of pure tribal instinct as is standard within any conflict, and instead it would become laughably naive to continue assuming good faith on their part.

Regardless, the spectacular, resolute dismissal of BIP110 necessarily reveals an equivalent stark and chilling reality with regard to decision-making about Bitcoin's consensus rules.

No one, not even BIP110's most staunch critics can dismiss the implications of this.

When Bitcoin is under attack, spontaneous defense that can withstand whatever onslaught it faces will simply be dismissed as "not economic", "a Sybil attack", "non technical", "censorship" or some other attempt to discredit and undermine it by the attackers.

My expectation for the future is that for Bitcoin, reverse-Trojan horse theory continues to play out: The dollarization of the ecosystem will continue, and Bitcoin's ultimate goal - the separation of money and state, will be forgotten, while its captured players work towards the exact opposite end - its unification.

Bitcoin is not the first protocol to become captured. It needed to become the exception, not the rule. The mechanism by which it did that is decentralization.

Work is being done to hard fork Bitcoin with a new Proof-of-Work algorithm.

I have said repeatedly in the past that in certain scenarios, should mining become captured and centralized to too great of a degree then the only defense the network would have would be to hard-fork to a new Proof-of-Work algorithm.

I stand by this perspective as a truth fundamental to Bitcoin and everyone must agree with this stance if they are to believe Bitcoin is not whatever a necessarily few mining pools say it is.

If you believe the miners acted on behalf of a silent community who secretly opposed BIP110 then I will respectfully disagree but agree that your conclusion about a PoW change being unwarranted must follow.

You have misjudged the BIP itself and are simultaneously oblivious to the mechanisms that were abused to deny it, along with the intentions of the people working them. You also did not indicate your dislike of the BIP via discernable metrics (i.e not running a URSF and committing to its rejection) - instead you relied on a few pools to decide on your behalf.

So what am I going to do?

Wait with a stalled out Knots node. Another block will be along later rather than sooner, but I'll take it. That is what my entire Bitcoin stack sees as the state of the network. If a PoW change HF comes along with the next update to @BitcoinKnots that makes blocks start showing up faster I will upgrade to it and enjoy the benefit.

I have no desire to attempt to call this new chain "Bitcoin" - Bitcoin is a case study in protocol capture and instead of dying, becomes a tool for the sickest of purposes. I can think of nothing more evil than centralized Bitcoin. It is whatever tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist told you Bitcoin was.

But for all my day-to-day activities, all the software I use, Bitcoin is simply stuck at block 931,633. At current hashrate the next block will take ~32 hours. I sincerely doubt that anyone wants to find another 2000 blocks at this pace so HF is the only practical option.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

True

[Bitcoin for Freedom @BTC_for_Freedom]

The chance to separate money from the state died when BIP-110 failed. People celebrating this don’t understand what’s coming. This was our last chance for freedom. The state will soon use robots and AI to become so strong that you should read 1984 to understand your new way of living. Enjoy.

[Sound Money 🟠 @HardMoneyFeed]

@LukeDashjr @Gustavo58917613 If Bitcoin is not ASIC-resistant, mining again will eventually become centralized. .Satoshi wrote in the Bitcoin whitepaper that the CPU should be one vote. That means Bitcoin was originally designed around CPU-based mining,