I just ran a software installer that required me to accept the terms of the MIT License. Made me laugh. If I can't agree to those terms... I can't imagine any I would!

Learned the other days the Olympic medals were gold until... Guess what year... 1912. Go figure. So much was put in motion in 1913.

So sad it's funny.

Even worse! 😉

And feed the Matrix?

I've come across that argument before. It's not censorship to have a purpose for something and not make it a platform for everything that could possibly be there.

Thanks to those who responded, and those who have put videos out on this topic, and to for the nudge to look into it - there's more clarity available than the last time I looked. I listened to a few of Tone Vays and Jimmy Song's interviews, and Tone's conclusion talk. I had the impression during his interview with and that he was stuck on something he had personally appreciated or thought was true about Bitcoin and presented to others, and he didn't get past it in the conversation. Seeing his talk, that was clear - his romanticized/outdated idea of the culture and transparency of Core was more important to him than the details of the question at hand. Believing that decentralization is best protected by having one big, happy team and threatened if others form makes no sense, but it lets him see those who question his notion as a threat to Bitcoin. These controversies aren't fun, but they certainly push us to learn more and take our place in the story.

Nah. She's gotta tell you when to stack harder!

So the difficulty adjustment means we don't need a majority of miners? That's interesting.

I only see a little of the chatter about the Bitcoin price, but I haven't seen anyone mentioning the uncertainty around the fallout of Core v30 and a potential fork as a factor. Macro forces influence the big players more than the humble stackers, but this is something impacting Bitcoiners, and I wonder how many are unsure. A fork is spoken about as either a threatening event to be avoided at all costs, or a solution to a problem, from either side. Not many people explain what actually happens if it comes, and it seems like a tension between choosing what you believe is right and betting on what you think the majority will choose as the main Bitcoin. If I understand the history right, in other times the people pushing a change forked off, but here, the maintainers of Bitcoin Core itself have initiated the contentious change. So if there's a fork, it's harder to say which side would be splintering off - the main implementation changing Bitcoin's uses, or the alternatives keeping it as money. Running Knots, not upgrading Core, changing settings, or choosing BIP110 are ways people are showing their stance, but we don't know if it means helping decide the right path forward for Bitcoin or getting kicked off into some minority spinoff that tries to keep Satoshi's Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash but lacks the strength of the main network. To make it even more complicated, there's debate over what even makes the difference - nodes, miners, or both, and whether the balance of power has gone off track. How do we defend this solution we know is so powerful in solving the world's problems, without damaging its value or splitting it into things it shouldn't be? Is a fork inevitable? What happens if it comes? #fork #BTC #BIP110 #asknostr

I appreciate this. So BIP110 is a softfork, and if Core pushes the issue, they hardfork, and whatever chain has the most length/hashrate/proof of work wins?

Muted. I'm not here for the opinions of AI bots.

If you know that already, sure. In an emergency when nobody knows how to verify it's real, cash still would be more recognizable, easier to trade with, and less of a way to stand out. A lot depends on those relationships you've already built.

Prayer, rejoicing, resisting, giving, obeying, praising, enduring... For wrestling against flesh and blood? Archery, I suppose.

Knots was an option before BIP110. Very few people actually explain how a soft fork works, what percentage of nodes (or "economic nodes", whatever that means) or hashrate makes the difference, whether this is setting up a hard fork, and what happens if that happens, worst-case. How does each user decide which chain they're on, etc.? Maybe it's 3 hours in on some podcast I've missed, but it takes quite a bit of digging to find a good written rundown. Maybe someone can write a long-form article on Nostr on it. My basic understanding: Whenever there's been a fork, whatever coin forked off has died. Usually it's been others initiating the controversial change - this time it's Core. v30 is the "fork" in my opinion, the departure from what has been, but Core has the advantage of being the default implementation everyone knows. Feels a bit like voting. I want to decide based on what I believe is right, not which side I think will win. But I don't even understand the mechanics yet of how those things play out, where in an election, or a sports game, assuming things are honest, people know how winning works. And I have looked - I imagine many others haven't had a chance to try to learn about it. I think this confusion is part of the price cooling off - other things scare the suitcoiners, only a few get under the skins of real Bitcoiners, but something like this can. When we're through it and these questions are answered, I think a lot of people will kick back into gear who have held back because of this uncertainty.

Trying this out... It's much cheaper! It doesn't blow through my payments nearly as quickly. I'm glad I did all that copying and pasting first, so I would understand more of what's happening. I learned a lot. Now this means I can afford to finish it up!

Why?

Needing to hear this. Lots landing on me at once!

Looks like you're doing great!

They only control the narrative if they are believed. I don't care about the narrative - I care about the truth. They can make narratives all they want, while humble people keep stacking. Why an ETF? That's all linked in with the banking system, still trusting the same unfaithful stewards who've destroyed so much.

Often I wish people could see what I see in them. Or even better, what God sees. He knows how to complete the work He's begun in us.

Shakespeare doesn't build native apps - I would have used it if it did. I used with Claude Sonnet 4.5 in my browser, copying the code into VS Codium on my computer, doing research to choose my approach and asking questions along the way. It gets expensive, but works well. I like the big context window, the memory for seeing the whole project at once. Anthropic closed my account and doesn't have anonymous payments. I did a little bit with Maple AI too - hopefully it becomes easier to use for this with more file-sharing flexibility.

I've decided to rename my published app, much to my chagrin. I had checked for related apps with the same name, but hadn't looked far enough - other CRMs have the Connections name. Now that I've chosen names for the other apps I've planned, I have a pattern to follow, and the new name can be an improvement. Just a hassle to change everything over on Codeberg and . My plan is to publish an update under the old name so any existing users can see how to switch, then publish as a new app. But I'm all ears if there's a better way!

I'm planning the apps I want to take with me when I switch someday to a #Linux phone, and ones I'd like to see on Zapstore before then. Not critical infrastructure or utilities, just lifestyle ones that make the whole experience more pleasant.

I've built my first app, and it still has plenty left to do, but I have plans for 5 more. A couple days ago I generated icons to use, then figured out names for them all. Now I'm copying over files from the first one where the foundations will be similar. I've got a workspace set up in VS Codium so one AI agent can work across projects and compare to what was done elsewhere. I should focus on the first one and other responsibilities, and I will. But this gives me a starting point so I can capture ideas as they come.

I'm a brand-new developer, publishing on Codeberg and Zapstore, so far. I haven't figured on ngit yet, but I'll hopefully get there. I don't see the point in building FOSS on GitHub, except that it's what everyone's known.

Weren't they hacked not long ago?