RussianHODL

#Bitcoin

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@RockChartrand Government is the only true enemy

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@PeterMcCormack By printing more usd?

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@fartface2000 @TXMCtrades @FreeSpeechBTC21 Nuke it!

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@theonevortex @rodpalmerhodl @ODELLXYZ You're doing a great job educating ignorant plebs on bip110 🤝

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@kongzi256 Meaning 12% of the network will reject non-bip compliant blocks miners will continue to mine and fork themselves off the network?

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@danheld @JamesTsetsekas @AloisSchmalzl Fractional reserve IS considered counterfeiting in Austrian School.

There's no counterfeited Bitcoin on chain for that matter.

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@pierre_crypt0 @0xReflection It means it's gonna be the first time

[Heavily Armed Clown @heavilyarmedc]

I don't agree with this framing at all.

First all because I don't agree with Luke's framing, he is being dishonest, he's not on some genuine moral crusade.

He knows how Bitcoin works. He has always wanted to break it.

Nobody is forcing him to store anything. Node software literally determines what you are willing to store in your local db.

If he doesn't want to store something in particular in his local db, he can change the rules enforced by his node.

Of course, he will ultimately end up in a different network, and so will everyone else that runs his code.

But nobody is forcing anybody else to do anything, this is an opt in, permissionless protocol.

What he can't do, is force everyone else to run the changes he wants, because honest technically savvy people understand you can't really stop arbitrary data you don't like in a permissionless system.

I'm not a secularist by any means, but I'm also not a liar, so I can understand how permissionless p2p digital cash necessitates permissionless p2p digital data.

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@SantoXBT WOW!!! 56 TPS??? DIGITAL CASH?
That's definitely enough for millions of micropayments

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@Houseofyogi The government was always the foe.

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@100trillionUSD Weren't you the one who sold real korn for etfs? 🤡

[nunchuk_io @nunchuk_io]

Mechanic: Thanks for the kind words about Nunchuk. We appreciate you recognizing us as a pioneer in the space.

We also appreciate you admitting that the original premise is ridiculous. The question was not just poorly phrased, but absolutely loaded.

I wrote "multisig is a bug" because that is the logical conclusion of what the OP insinuated. It was an error which the BIP author, a technical person, didn’t bother to correct, but instead doubled down on.

Let’s be clear:
Multisig HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with BIP-110.

Multisig or multisig fragments by themselves do not contain OP_IFs. It is the Miniscript compilers that generate OP_IFs. Bringing up multisig is irrelevant and does nothing but sow FUD and confusion.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about how Bitcoin standards are actually made.
We know the process because we went through it with BIP-129, and participated in others.

Bitcoin is unlike other technologies. It is radically decentralized. There is no central committee making decisions like there is for web browsers or GSM/CDMA standards.

This means a proposal can only become an industry standard through its own strength. You must convince others to adopt it by demonstrating that it is sound, exhaustive, and safe. You need neutral language, precise logic, and time in the market (extremely low time preference).

How do you think multisig became the standard it is today?
A few years ago, almost no hardware vendors even bothered to support it (think early versions of Ledger/Trezor). It took years of incremental effort by many people, convincing stakeholders one at a time.

Throughout that process, BIP authors must stay unbiased. You must be considerate of all stakeholders. You must stick to facts. You must maintain a cooperative spirit.

The author has to be the GLUE that unifies vastly different players to accept a common standard. That is the challenge of making changes in a system this decentralized.

Now, look at this conversation.
Does this feel like fact-gathering or cooperation? Or does it feel like a witch hunt?

Before finding out the facts, or even learning how Bitcoin wallets work, the goal was to accuse and strong-arm us into making changes for a draft that is less than 3 months old. Does this look like the type of sound engineering Bitcoin needs, or more like “move fast, break things” BS of fiat software?

There is a ridiculous hidden assumption here that the proposal is already final and should be accepted as truth, even though it’s still in the draft stage and lacks substantial peer review.

The OP wanted to "cancel" us before even understanding the inner workings of wallets. It feels less like engineering and more like cancel culture.

These tactics might generate engagement on X, but as a means of creating a Bitcoin standard?

They have zero chance of success. I can tell you that right now, given our experience in creating a BIP.

Just my 2 cents on the vibes around this conversation. Please change the rules of engagement if you want any chance of success.

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@George275523842 @BobLoukas Bitcoin is not widely accepted because of "legal tender" laws, that won't allow business to use it.

Do we have worldwide ban on AI usage? AI helps governments collect more data on individuals and doesn't threaten their Monopoly on Violence

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@notgrubles It'S aLl AbOuT vIrTuE sIgNaLlInG 🤡

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@elonmusk Anywhere*

*Except Russia

[Mr.Hodldamus @MrHodl]

@knutsvanholm Nodes don't matter to consensus rules unless they're economic nodes.

Question for you: Why are you such a retard?

[Wicked @w_s_bitcoin]

My favorite quote from @GrassFedBitcoin’s latest YouTube video:

“An intolerant minority can tighten the rule set and everyone just kinda has to go along with it and they should just go along with it to minimize disruption...”

That may sound persuasive until you think about it for more than a second.

If an intolerant minority could unilaterally tighten Bitcoin’s rules, we’d already have BIP-300/301, BIP-119, and BIP-360. Each of those has a committed minority behind it. None activated. Why? Because they lack broad consensus. Any attempt to force them would simply strand their supporters on a minority fork.

SegWit worked because it already had widespread consensus before BIP-148. BIP-148 didn’t create consensus, it enforced an outcome the network had largely agreed on.

Absent that consensus, a “rule-tightening minority” doesn’t coerce the network. It isolates itself. That’s why many soft fork proposals, even those with vocal and persistent support, have failed to reach activation...and why BIP-110 will fail to do so as well.

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@elonmusk You're as happy having 800+ billion as you were at 100 billion?

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

@TabarnakDan @saylor Including himself, sort of

[RussianHODL @RuHODL]

Hey there, @start9labs
I've got "request failed" while trying open the Updates section.
Marketplace also doesn't work.
Checked everything (incl. Tor), tried system rebuild. Nothing worked.
Any advice? It's been for 2 days minimum.
Thanks