@ROIdegen24@BitcoinPierre What you call bad, we long-term hodlers call a normal part of the cycle. Some of us got in when the price was below a dollar, and see it go up and down in waves like clockwork. This feels no different if you've been here more than 5 years.
@denverbitcoin Of course not. We're on borrowed time thanks to their need to popularize AI in general... The drug dealer only gives out so many free samples.
@TheGuySwann Been there, done that.
Now I just change models. Different models fail on different subjects. Go through every model on https://t.co/8vdeuvRUVH if you have to.
@raefejenkins Voting is immoral, and this time it's even more immoral because if enough of us vote for Massie all we'll accomplish is to force Israel to fill him with holes.
@ClayTravis Stocks are high because the money is broken.
Unemployment is not low AT ALL, just lied about.
Lifespans are not health. People are far more unhealthy.
And now everyone knows they are ruled over by pedophiles.
This planet needs a giant meteor, stat.
Some Alpha for the kids:
The block size wars didn't start in 2017. They started years earlier when Gavin Andresen began pushing for 20 to 30 megabyte blocks. A lot of us pushed back hard because we believed Bitcoin needed to stay small and permissionless. We wanted anyone to be able to run a node over Tor or even broadcast transactions over ham radio if they had to.
By 2016 the Hong Kong Agreement was made. Miners and some developers agreed to activate SegWit first followed by a 2 megabyte hard fork. Luke Dashjr wrote the code but Bitcoin Core refused to merge it into their repository. Jihan Wu got so angry about this that he posted his infamous "fuck your mother" tweet.
Miners then refused to signal for SegWit even though Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 had been running on roughly 90 percent of the network for almost a year. On top of that Bitmain and ViaBTC were mining empty blocks using covert ASICBoost while fees were going through the roof. We wanted malleability fixed and Lightning to move forward but we were being hijacked by Jihan Wu. That is why BIP 148 was justified.
The whole point of BIP 148 was that economic nodes were going to activate SegWit on August 1st no matter what. We had overwhelming industry support and nearly 90 percent of nodes were already running the software. The high threshold was only there as a backup in case miners changed their mind. We never expected it to reach that level because economic consensus was already there.
Compare that to today. BIP 110 does not have anywhere near that kind of economic support across the ecosystem. The people behind it claim they are being censored but the truth is most people simply think the idea is bad. Activating a soft fork like this with only 55 percent hash power would be an attack on Bitcoin. You cannot compare the two situations.
Both the big blockers back then and the BIP 110 crowd now made the same mistake. They have their own implementation called Bitcoin Knots, yet they remain obsessed with trying to control what Bitcoin Core does. No one can force users to run any specific version of Bitcoin. The software is backwards compatible for a reason. Users decide what they run, and unfortunately for the BIP 110 crowd they dont have a monopoly on "users".
@xGirthQuakex@callebtc Just because you are too dumb to read its open source code doesn't mean the people reading your retarded post are. https://t.co/bilE2GZetF
@hodlonaut Whoa, r/Bitcoin still exists?
I stopped visiting years ago when they started banning everyone for being libertarians. Privacy became evil on that board... I think it was run by traders & bankers.
@Milajoy It would be a LOT easier to make the list of politicians we DON'T need to arrest. In fact, it's probably just down to Tom Massie at this point.