Forrest YSL

thinking v knowing

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@MayaBoissonnet @komakom36885352 great question, same curiosity

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@tlxue @zachzhao1984 do you mean Rene standalone app?

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@OsaurusAI @Maddy_Shroff Hi, Hdoes this include Claude Team / Pro / Max subscription login (like the ChatGPT/Codex sign-in), or is Claude currently API key only? The docs only mention “Claude family via Anthropic Messages.”

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@ianwong_ @chetanp @josh_coyne @benchmark @kleinerperkins @BasisSet @A_StarVC @ericwu01 @justindross @GGuptaSF @mkraning @diogomonica @gilbert @xueshao @Fanatics Kindly share the guide

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@GrassFedBitcoin @LukeDashjr @saylor would like to know your opinion about this post,

https://t.co/zsPkd2DJwx

[SightBringer @_The_Prophet__]

⚡️BIP-110 should die.

The proposal crosses Bitcoin’s constitutional line by turning a faction’s judgment about acceptable transaction purpose into consensus law.

Once that precedent survives, every future coalition learns the same lesson: capture enough developers, miners, companies, or public opinion, manufacture an emergency, then rewrite neutrality in the name of protecting the network.

That is how political money is born.

Bitcoin’s deepest property is not merely the 21 million cap. It is the credible assurance that nobody can easily alter the rules governing property after capital enters. Scarcity without rule stability is fragile. Ownership without neutral settlement is conditional. A monetary constitution that changes whenever a powerful faction declares a use illegitimate eventually becomes another discretionary system.

The data-storage externality is real. Nodes carry costs that individual users may not fully pay. Bitcoin must still address measurable burdens through fees, relay policy, technical efficiency, and conservative engineering. The network cannot begin judging what bytes mean. The moment consensus distinguishes virtuous transactions from undesirable transactions, miners stop serving a market and begin enforcing an ideology.

Saylor sees the danger clearly because this is Bitcoin’s post-victory phase.

External attacks strengthened the network. Bans failed. Ridicule failed. Competing coins failed to capture its monetary consensus. Institutional adoption now introduces the subtler threat: ownership and influence concentrating around custodians, mining pools, ETF issuers, exchanges, treasury companies, regulated intermediaries, and security consortiums.

Bitcoin remains decentralized in code while economic power around the code becomes increasingly centralized.

That is the real terrain.

The institutions entering Bitcoin will initially swear loyalty to neutrality. Later they will discover regulatory obligations, reputational concerns, national-security demands, sanctioned addresses, prohibited content, environmental mandates, and “systemic risks.” Each exception will arrive as a narrow necessity. Every narrow necessity will create infrastructure for the next exception.

The capture sequence is predictable:

First, undesirable behavior is identified.

Then neutrality is framed as irresponsibility.

Then restrictions are presented as temporary protection.

Then dissenters are accused of endangering adoption.

Then the exception becomes precedent.

Then Bitcoin still exists, but ownership increasingly requires permission.

BIP-110 is dangerous because its activation design tries to manufacture inevitability before genuine consensus exists. A contentious cultural dispute does not justify coercive signaling, bundled restrictions, uncertain compatibility costs, or chain-split risk. The technical flaws found around late upgrades make the entire exercise even more reckless.

Bitcoin has reached the stage where the people claiming to protect it may become more dangerous than the people trying to destroy it.

The enemy at the gate could not rewrite the ledger.

The faction inside the walls might persuade participants to rewrite it themselves.

Bitcoin survives victory only if every proposed exception encounters a culture strong enough to ask one question:

Does this preserve neutral, voluntary, permissionless property, or does it give somebody new power over somebody else’s transaction?

BIP-110 gives a faction new power.

Reject it.

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@wesleybrad060 @LukeDashjr https://t.co/zsPkd2DJwx

what do you think about the reasoning of this post?

[SightBringer @_The_Prophet__]

⚡️BIP-110 should die.

The proposal crosses Bitcoin’s constitutional line by turning a faction’s judgment about acceptable transaction purpose into consensus law.

Once that precedent survives, every future coalition learns the same lesson: capture enough developers, miners, companies, or public opinion, manufacture an emergency, then rewrite neutrality in the name of protecting the network.

That is how political money is born.

Bitcoin’s deepest property is not merely the 21 million cap. It is the credible assurance that nobody can easily alter the rules governing property after capital enters. Scarcity without rule stability is fragile. Ownership without neutral settlement is conditional. A monetary constitution that changes whenever a powerful faction declares a use illegitimate eventually becomes another discretionary system.

The data-storage externality is real. Nodes carry costs that individual users may not fully pay. Bitcoin must still address measurable burdens through fees, relay policy, technical efficiency, and conservative engineering. The network cannot begin judging what bytes mean. The moment consensus distinguishes virtuous transactions from undesirable transactions, miners stop serving a market and begin enforcing an ideology.

Saylor sees the danger clearly because this is Bitcoin’s post-victory phase.

External attacks strengthened the network. Bans failed. Ridicule failed. Competing coins failed to capture its monetary consensus. Institutional adoption now introduces the subtler threat: ownership and influence concentrating around custodians, mining pools, ETF issuers, exchanges, treasury companies, regulated intermediaries, and security consortiums.

Bitcoin remains decentralized in code while economic power around the code becomes increasingly centralized.

That is the real terrain.

The institutions entering Bitcoin will initially swear loyalty to neutrality. Later they will discover regulatory obligations, reputational concerns, national-security demands, sanctioned addresses, prohibited content, environmental mandates, and “systemic risks.” Each exception will arrive as a narrow necessity. Every narrow necessity will create infrastructure for the next exception.

The capture sequence is predictable:

First, undesirable behavior is identified.

Then neutrality is framed as irresponsibility.

Then restrictions are presented as temporary protection.

Then dissenters are accused of endangering adoption.

Then the exception becomes precedent.

Then Bitcoin still exists, but ownership increasingly requires permission.

BIP-110 is dangerous because its activation design tries to manufacture inevitability before genuine consensus exists. A contentious cultural dispute does not justify coercive signaling, bundled restrictions, uncertain compatibility costs, or chain-split risk. The technical flaws found around late upgrades make the entire exercise even more reckless.

Bitcoin has reached the stage where the people claiming to protect it may become more dangerous than the people trying to destroy it.

The enemy at the gate could not rewrite the ledger.

The faction inside the walls might persuade participants to rewrite it themselves.

Bitcoin survives victory only if every proposed exception encounters a culture strong enough to ask one question:

Does this preserve neutral, voluntary, permissionless property, or does it give somebody new power over somebody else’s transaction?

BIP-110 gives a faction new power.

Reject it.

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@mattkratter Hi @mattkratter i can’t send you DM as i did not pay for Premium

would like hi hear your comment of this post about BIP-100

https://t.co/zsPkd2DJwx

[SightBringer @_The_Prophet__]

⚡️BIP-110 should die.

The proposal crosses Bitcoin’s constitutional line by turning a faction’s judgment about acceptable transaction purpose into consensus law.

Once that precedent survives, every future coalition learns the same lesson: capture enough developers, miners, companies, or public opinion, manufacture an emergency, then rewrite neutrality in the name of protecting the network.

That is how political money is born.

Bitcoin’s deepest property is not merely the 21 million cap. It is the credible assurance that nobody can easily alter the rules governing property after capital enters. Scarcity without rule stability is fragile. Ownership without neutral settlement is conditional. A monetary constitution that changes whenever a powerful faction declares a use illegitimate eventually becomes another discretionary system.

The data-storage externality is real. Nodes carry costs that individual users may not fully pay. Bitcoin must still address measurable burdens through fees, relay policy, technical efficiency, and conservative engineering. The network cannot begin judging what bytes mean. The moment consensus distinguishes virtuous transactions from undesirable transactions, miners stop serving a market and begin enforcing an ideology.

Saylor sees the danger clearly because this is Bitcoin’s post-victory phase.

External attacks strengthened the network. Bans failed. Ridicule failed. Competing coins failed to capture its monetary consensus. Institutional adoption now introduces the subtler threat: ownership and influence concentrating around custodians, mining pools, ETF issuers, exchanges, treasury companies, regulated intermediaries, and security consortiums.

Bitcoin remains decentralized in code while economic power around the code becomes increasingly centralized.

That is the real terrain.

The institutions entering Bitcoin will initially swear loyalty to neutrality. Later they will discover regulatory obligations, reputational concerns, national-security demands, sanctioned addresses, prohibited content, environmental mandates, and “systemic risks.” Each exception will arrive as a narrow necessity. Every narrow necessity will create infrastructure for the next exception.

The capture sequence is predictable:

First, undesirable behavior is identified.

Then neutrality is framed as irresponsibility.

Then restrictions are presented as temporary protection.

Then dissenters are accused of endangering adoption.

Then the exception becomes precedent.

Then Bitcoin still exists, but ownership increasingly requires permission.

BIP-110 is dangerous because its activation design tries to manufacture inevitability before genuine consensus exists. A contentious cultural dispute does not justify coercive signaling, bundled restrictions, uncertain compatibility costs, or chain-split risk. The technical flaws found around late upgrades make the entire exercise even more reckless.

Bitcoin has reached the stage where the people claiming to protect it may become more dangerous than the people trying to destroy it.

The enemy at the gate could not rewrite the ledger.

The faction inside the walls might persuade participants to rewrite it themselves.

Bitcoin survives victory only if every proposed exception encounters a culture strong enough to ask one question:

Does this preserve neutral, voluntary, permissionless property, or does it give somebody new power over somebody else’s transaction?

BIP-110 gives a faction new power.

Reject it.

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@marinatrajk @assistant_becky @vellum_ai similar in usefullyness as https://t.co/X0vSdakYuY

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@_The_Prophet__ @grok explain to me based on your angle

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@BenjaminStongMD @_The_Prophet__ @grok explain to me

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@PiusSprenger @grok explain to me

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@jaysmontoya @jackmallers @grok explain to me

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@Excellion @BitPaine @grok explain Samson's reply to me

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@TheRealPlanC @grok explain for layman

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@knutsvanholm @grok what does this means [We're in the "then they fight you" stage, and this is the enemy 👇] ?

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@maxkeiser @grok what does it means?

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@JamesEastonUK @grok explain this post to me

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@btcjvs @Ma1973sk @grok can you explain what does this post means?

[Forrest YSL @forrestysl]

@_The_Prophet__ I know this is true