foo

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@Scavacini777 @kurtwuckertjr What videos?

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@BitcoinSith @Dimi_h Just like Core uncapping of op return, all we really need is the precedent to be set that Bitcoin 256 is money.

We don’t need a hammer which fundamentally changes consensus in ways that break numerous existing integrations. Let those be grandfathered in, who cares.

[Falahbrook @Falahbrook]

@mattkratter MARA already tried OFAC censorship. The DOJ itself said it failed as TXs simply get picked up by other miners.

You made an absurdly contrived scenario, assuming near-total global miner coordination against their own economic incentives.

Sad to see you go out like this.

[Secure Sovereign 🚀₿🧡 @secsovereign]

I formally specified Bitcoin's consensus rules from scratch. I built an independent Rust implementation and verified it against 900,000+ blocks. I put together a sixteen-year quantitative dataset on Bitcoin Core governance, tracking contribution concentration, merge authority, and funding sources across the entire history of the project. I designed a horizontal commons governance model as an alternative to the current structure. I've written seventeen articles on Bitcoin protocol and governance. All published and freely available, and the code is under open source licenses.

I'm also consistently critical of Bitcoin Core's governance structure. Bitcoin has one implementation and no written specification. That means the codebase is the specification, and whoever controls the codebase controls what Bitcoin is. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's an architectural fact with documented consequences.

People sometimes tell me I do this to sound smart or to work out some personal issue. On the personal issue, they're actually right, just not in the way they mean. I've been the single point of failure. I've also depended on one. Both positions are worse than they look from outside, and the person in the middle usually knows it before anyone else does.

The maintainers should understand this better than anyone. They didn't design this structure. They inherited a codebase that became the de facto specification for a network securing over a trillion dollars, with no formal governance and no way to distribute the responsibility. That's not power. That's exposure. The critique isn't aimed at them as people. It's aimed at a structure that's bad for everyone, including them.

What I keep running into instead of counterargument is access control. The mailing list is moderated. The IRC is moderated. The subreddits are moderated. Core contributors have blocked me here rather than answer the argument. And it's not just the online channels. I'm feeling the same friction locally, trying to participate in community events. The funding concentration is in the dataset. Go look at who employs the people running those channels and then look at who funds those employers. They are not going to engage the substance because engaging it is not in their interest. That's not a moral failing. It's an incentive structure. I'm not going to change it by softening the critique.

I'm fully allocated. I don't hold anything else. I'm not here to undermine Bitcoin. I'm here because Bitcoin is worth getting right.

Honestly, I welcome the pushback. The minute people stop arguing with me is when I'll actually start to worry.

If the analysis is wrong, show me where. I'll update publicly.

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@Rob1Ham @Scavacini777 @callebtc @rogerkver @kurtwuckertjr Yep.

“Texas sharpshooter fallacy”

a Texan who fires bullets randomly at the side of a barn, then paints a bullseye around the tightest cluster of bullet holes and declares himself a sharpshooter

Sound familiar?

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@Dimi_h Do you think there will ever be support for a less aggressive SF?

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@Dimi_h @BTCyourmind Is this just because the problem wasn’t obvious until runes, ordinals appeared? Or is it because Luke’s approach is incomplete?, or is it complete, and the approach wasn’t known until he invented / found it?

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@Dimi_h @BTCyourmind What’s your thought on Kratter’s narrative that BIP-110 was “basic protocol maintenance”?

I find it curious how Satoshi, and early developer forums discuss datacarriers and the problems with arbitrary data, but never formerly propose restrictions at the level of consensus

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@mattkratter @blank21M This is not simply “returning network defaults”. That would have had 90% support.

It was a basket of good, but potentially risky changes to fundamentally redefine what a block can contain

https://t.co/6nUqzPeenh

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@DrStarHeartsong @bramk Not saying Kratter is a bad guy, actually the complete opposite. I think he was mislead in a “road to hell is paved with good intentions” type of way.

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@DrStarHeartsong @bramk Can’t have a Trojan horse to overhaul consensus when the horse is a transparent container of open source code.

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@DrStarHeartsong @bramk Consider that Kratter gave Luke his following/audience. Then Luke implemented 110, and leveraged Kratter to market the changes as a safe “return to defaults with some obvious extras” type of change. Complete BS

I’m a software engineer w/18 yrs exp & studied Bitcoin for years

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@DrStarHeartsong @bramk Kratter has surfaced very real, legitimate concerns.

- a handful of mining pools construct most blocks
- one software lineage dominates nodes
- a small developer/funding ecosystem heavily influences defaults
- institutional custody is increasingly replacing sovereign users

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@Dimi_h @Scavacini777 @OrangeSurfBTC @mempool @FoundryServices @ViaBTC @MARA nothingburger fixes to known, well understood issues.
Nothing like 110 which redefined what a block can contain.

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@DrStarHeartsong @enur72 @mattkratter And if/when 6102 occurs for BTC, NGU

It’s fundamentally the same effect as lost coins, where remaining coins become more valuable, as described by Satoshi. Ownership of coins does not equal power. Same concept, just different scale.

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@DrStarHeartsong @enur72 @mattkratter Blackrock is in the business of packaging products and charging fees. He’ll adopt and support whatever increases the value + adoption. These incentives are aligned with Bitcoin in the same way you or I telling friends about BTC drives NGU. It’s all a part of Satoshi’s design.

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@DrStarHeartsong @enur72 @mattkratter I appreciate the point you’re making here about NGU but I was actually being sarcastic. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to conclude capture. There is evidence to conclude that people with money and influence are trying to destroy bitcoin, and spam is a part of it.

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@enur72 @DrStarHeartsong @mattkratter 1. One guy’s miner signaling game theory didn’t work
2. There was no URSF (apparently Bitcoin is a democracy)
3. Saylor’s memes are cringe

I conclude from this evidence that bitcoin is 100% captured

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@secsovereign Thank you for everything you do. The research and information you share is invaluable.

[foo @USER_FOO_]

@BlueDavid @ScarcityMan If the 20% is a bunch of guys with 0.1 BTC in cold storage on average whom never transact… they are economically irrelevant by definition, but for some reason we have people claiming Bitcoin is a democracy and nodes are obliged to cast their vote at every soft fork