Thread

Replies (55)

↩ replying to Greeny
i think the point more is that something seemed off about some of the people who actually went right through with deals (eg blockstream) and that some of us, and i recall that you are not a civil debate partner, have been saying there's something amiss in some of the big name bitcoin companies, for, well, nearing on a decade in some cases.
Yes, but after reading all the responses to this, I agree with most of them. More dirt will probably come out as to why these people visited, but maybe by chance some only went and didn't get tricked? (hopefully) We don't need any more neg press, so that sucks. The funny thing is that my real Bitcoin journey can be credited to Whitney Webb... My gf sent me a link of her talking about her book and after searching some more of her interviews, I landed on the one where she was on TFTC - and have been learning and stacking as much as I can since! This too shall pass... I appreciate you and all the podcasters/authors/analysts in this space. I know that good will prevail! πŸ‘Š
↩ replying to GLACA
If they didn't notice that they lost this battle when Peter Todd put the entirety of BIP-444 in a transaction in a way that was BIP-444 compliant it's a good sign you're arguing with someone who can't listen to reason. Just enjoy the airdropped fork, assuming you can dump it before the 51% attacks and zero market value make it completely zero bid. Big if. Not saying anyone has to like the fact that this is how information works. But heads in sand rarely change the nature of reality. At BEST it'd solve a legal problem -- but only one of their own making. The ethics aren't any different; contiguous or otherwise. And if bitcoin is about legality we've already lost the ethical battle anyway.
↩ replying to BitcoinIsFuture
The point wasn't that I like Peter Todd. It was that the action laid bare the inaccuracy that BIP-110 can in any way prevent the hosting of CSAM on chain, making all of the moralistic crusading very clearly a bad faith argument. I do happen to like what Knots was prior to this whole op_return drama, and would have liked to see it continue growing. Instead, it's been turned into a sideshow. Over the inclusion of a harm reduction measure that costs more to use than more harmful alternatives. This whole charade has been an own goal of epic proportions, and an immense waste of resources and brainpower. Policy filters may not solve much entirely but with enough of a userbase they'd have made things too unpredictable for what some of the nonsense can tolerate. This forking meanwhile has ensured that this won't be an issue. Rather than fight spam, I expect the outcome of it to actually be more of the fillip garbage and utxo bloat. All while leaving anyone who wants to put abusive images on chain no less impeded than they were.
When you become a dad long you learn to spot the freaks from a mile away. You can spot them anywhere, not just bitcoin. OG bitcoiners overindex for fucked up shit because some came from a counterculture and got wealthy very young and very fast. I love bitcoin and my fellow bitcoiners but thats just the way it is. I, for one, am not surprised at all about all the depraved shit being disclosed. stay humble and stack sats (and ammo.)
Not being apologetic BUT… this is still coming from the government and I could see them throwing some legit pedos under the bus just to legitimize them falsely tainting the reputation of some people. Which results in infighting in powerful circles, weakening them and thereby keeping the powerful in power. I assume during this information war almost everything is plausible.