₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M

#Bitcoin

[Sparrow Wallet 🐦 @SparrowWallet]

Unless @Apple's decision to terminate @craigraw's Apple Developer account is reversed by June 30, all new installs of Sparrow will fail, and development on macOS will end. If you value Sparrow, a repost would help. @AppleSupport

[Craig Raw 🐦 @craigraw]

My attempt to protect users from scam apps on the @AppStore has gotten my Apple Developer account flagged for termination - ironically, for "dishonest activity".

Unless it's reversed by June 30, all new installs of Sparrow Wallet will fail, and development on macOS will end.

The context: since 2023, more than a dozen fake "Sparrow" apps have appeared on the App Store, as recently as April this year. Users have contacted me after losing their savings, in some cases their life savings, to these impersonators.

I'm the developer of the real Sparrow Wallet, a desktop app, and I hold the registered US trademarks for the name and logo. I have publicly warned @Apple and the community about these fake apps from early 2024, but they keep appearing.

The app @Apple flagged was a placeholder that was never published. Its only purpose was to warn users that Sparrow is desktop-only and that other "Sparrow" apps aren't mine. This approach may have been misguided, but there was nothing dishonest about it.

I'm confident this is an automated misclassification that Apple would reverse on review - but I may be terminated before a human ever looks at my appeal. The cost would fall on @Apple's own users: blocked installs and no updates for a tool people rely on, which opens the door for more fakes.

If you value Sparrow, a repost would help. @AppleSupport

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@BigSeanHarris This is the answer. It has been given many times.
https://t.co/Nh8ACoAnVI

[Coinjoined Chris ⚡ @coinjoined]

You could always mine blocks full of OP_RETURNs, not just 100kb but 1MB. The only thing the relay limit did was ensure that only miners with private channels or preferential peering ever saw them, thus centralizing properties. That's not a spam defense: it's a miner-cartel subsidy.

Removing the relay limit doesn't create a new capability. It removes an information asymmetry and fixes a malincentive. Now everyone sees the same transactions, which reduces centralization pressure and levels the field for smaller miners instead of privileging well-connected pools.

Why remove the limit entirely? Because protocol-level babysitting is unnecessary. Economic incentives already cap OP_RETURN usage naturally. If you want to store bulk data, inscriptions are strictly cheaper and more efficient. The market routes around artificial constraints, every time.

Limits that don't bind behavior but do concentrate power are worse than useless.

[Yan | swan.com @skwp]

🚨Action Required: FinCEN has a proposed rule that tramples our 1st and 4th amendment liberties, continuing the expansion of unwarranted search and seizure on law abiding Americans.
You can comment in less than 5 minutes with 3 easy steps:

1. Source a list of objections. Here's a nice list of bullets: https://t.co/GB11jE6LkL. Or look at the bottom of this post for my full text, which was generated from my own bullets using OpenAI.

2. Go to https://t.co/WBu5zqr0I4, paste your bullets, alter them as you wish, add the prompt at the top: "Reformat the following in a voice appropriate for submission as a FINCen proposed rule making comment".

3. Go here to comment: https://t.co/q9tiXwCRCH and paste your letter.

Example text generated from my own input of issues:

-- snip --

I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed rule that pertains to the reporting of Bitcoin transactions. I believe it's crucial to reconsider certain aspects of this rule to ensure that it aligns with the principles enshrined in the 4th Amendment.

Address Reuse in Bitcoin: Bitcoin, by design, promotes the use of unique addresses for each transaction to maintain user privacy. Repeatedly using the same address exposes one's entire transaction history to any recipient. Such a practice compromises user privacy, a concern that the proposed rule might inadvertently encourage.

Mixing and Privacy: Mixing is an essential privacy-enhancing technique in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Without it, users would inadvertently reveal their entire Bitcoin balance every time they transact. It's akin to sharing one's bank balance each time they make a purchase, a scenario that's clearly problematic. The proposed rule might deter users from using mixers, leading to unintentional privacy breaches.

The Programmability of Bitcoin: Bitcoin's architecture allows for various transaction structures, such as joint wallets or lightning channels for small-value exchanges. The current draft of the rule may inadvertently categorize these standard practices as reportable events, leading to an overwhelming number of reports that might be challenging to process effectively.

Concerns about Terrorism Financing: While the intent behind the rule is understandable, it's essential to note that there's limited evidence to suggest that Bitcoin plays a significant role in financing terrorism. Most illicit financing activities still occur through traditional fiat channels. Implementing rules that might be perceived as infringing on the 4th Amendment could unintentionally diminish FINCEN's standing as an institution grounded in democratic principles.

Geographical Implications: It's vital to recognize that while these rules might be applicable within the U.S., a significant portion of cryptocurrency activities occurs outside our borders. Implementing stringent rules might inadvertently push more users to platforms that are less transparent and harder to oversee.

I kindly urge the commission to evaluate the potential unintended consequences of the proposed rule, especially concerning the preservation of civil liberties and effective oversight. It's essential to strike a balance between national security and individual rights.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@V4BTC @sethforprivacy There's a subtle error here: there's actually no "them". There are humans, and there are various power structures that we engage with and that "use" us. The "State" generally bids for our services with power over others, BTC with money. Both are very effective, but which wins?

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@V4BTC @sethforprivacy Because too much money is under "their" control - BTC needs to eat a lot of it to become resilient against all future attacks. BTC remains vulnerable as long as it's "small". And yes, their rules have relevance to us - "they" have a monopoly on the use of force.

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@lopp Are you at all sympathetic to the underlying directional argument? Aside from appealing to "improve sovereignty" arguments concerning sovereign key mgmt, do you see his point? ETH et al clearly seek to extract from BTC, imho to the detriment of humanity. Thoughts?

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@sovrynmindset The test is: Is Bitcoin "incentive stable/compatible" after the "majority subsidy" era (i.e. still high mining energy expenditure, large reorgs uncommon). We get to find out in ~9yrs (+3 halvings).

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@jakeeswoodhouse Timeline fuzzy, but it was just me making sense of my own experience.

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@MrHodl Thru a muscle-centric nutrition lens, a high-protein bfast and dinner are both important for maximizing total muscle-protein synthesis. In this view, lunch is the shitcoin (bc mTOR is still active 5+ hrs after high-P/leucine bfast). [ref: Peter Attia #228, Don Layman]

[Robert ₿reedlove @Breedlove22]

Fixing incentives is the nearest we can come to fixing human nature.

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@TheBlueMatt The problem is most (all?) projects at least *want* to play as neutral money for the internet bc it's where the money is. It's monetary warfare playing out globally, in real time. If we don't fight to defend the truly neutral option, it will be overrun. It already is being.

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@ODELL (Part of) the problem is bitcoin won't be competing in "the open market", rather a market rigged for incumbent structures/actors. Letting/encouraging parts of the rigged, incumbent system to attack each other is good. Assuming victory is not anti-fragile.

[Bitcoin for Freedom @BTC_for_Freedom]

«I don’t like bitcoin maxis. They are too toxic and I can’t take them seriously.»

This isn’t a f*** game. This is about seperating money from state. We don’t have time for shitcoin scams, defi and other distractions!

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@davidmarcus It's because this is monetary war. If #ETH 💩 ppl were ok with it as protocol for dEceNtrALizEd web, all would be well. But they're not - they want their token to BE MONEY so they can be rich and (more importantly, for insiders especially) POWERFUL (since it's not decentralized).

[Alexander Ellefsen⚡️ @4lexEllefsen]

When Bitcoin fell from $17.000 to $3000, 85% held their ground and did not sell. #Bitcoin  is more than a speculative asset, it’s hope for a free world based on sound money and sound principles. Keep dropping the price whales, we know what we own 💪

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@Porkchop_EXP "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

[₿itcoin Hermit ∞/21M @bitcoin_hermit]

@torkelrogstad Ok. Don't chant it. I don't either. But I sympathize with those who do, and I support the spirit of their chanting. You might ask yourself: if BTC fails, how pathetic will we all look enslaved to the global surveillance state? And which is worse, in aggregate?