Yes. And it shouldn’t be 150 rabbit holes to go into. That all should be abstracted away, because people have no time to watch thousands of hours of podcasts or read hundreds of articles

Covid was the turning point for me. It has arguably been one of the three events in my life that has shaped me more In hindsight, I admit I was not strong enough for too long, but that was part of my own journey and hope I would act differently in the future

For what I’ve always read, real node count is impossible to get, and apparently it should be somewhere in the 15k to 100k range But 💯 I agree with your sentiment. It should be orders of magnitude higher Using a wallet with someone else’s node is more like getting a cab driver drive you, while running your own node is actually owning your own vehicle and being free to drive

I believe he must have gone crazy in the last couple of years, or he has sold his soul to the devil himself. At the very, very beginning, he got it: Hard money. Separation from a central issuer, who you anyhow cannot trust. Nobody can take your savings away from you. Etc. Now he’s calling for centralization and integration with the current system. Either he secretly wants Strategy to become the central bank of the new economy, by which he would be at the center of the money spigot, or he just got threatened and now works for the US Government

He used to be a bitcoiner. Corruptio optimi pessima.

Thank you for your work. Qs: - When you say Bitcoin is burning, you mean Bitcoin-related software, such as wallets, right? - Why is Bitcoin the obvious first target, and not the banking system, swift, military systems, etc? -

Where is this listed? Two same tickers?

I didn’t say I fully agree with BIP 110. I also don’t like temporary solutions But IMO it’s a signal and a step in the right direction. Or at least a better direction than the one Core proposes.

AFAIK Saylor never talked about Bitcoin as money. He always did it as asset. That made sense for him, because he was “backing” his stock with BTC the asset and needed many to follow that narrative. Until he started issuing credit to buy more bitcoin. Then he stopped talking about bitcoin the asset, and started talking about bitcoin as digital capital. Either way, for him the important thing is that he controls others’ bitcoin. In other words, he wants to centralize as much of it to become a sort of bank, or even a central bank (of the “crypto economy”) BIP 110 represents again a grassroots movement that encourages people to enforce their own rules in the mempool, to run their own nodes, to reject the type of transactions that harm long-term decentralization of bitcoin. In other words, to be self-sovereign. This self-sovereignty is of no use to Saylor, so he opposes it. That’s my pleb’s take.

Nah, I think Saylor is just being disingenuous. He just needs retail to buy his stock, because otherwise his house of cards falls. If he wanted Bitcoin to be “digital capital”, “the apex collateral” or whatever metaphor or hyperbole he wants to use, then having bitcoin‘s code allowing file storage, should be something he’d be against.

Saylor used to lobby for Bitcoin’s ossification and hardening of the rules, so that it’s difficult to change. “Do just one thing, but do it right” was the quote, or something like that That Saylor would have favored BIP 110. Todays Saylor is a threat Having said that, BIP 110 is no solution, but rather a step in the right direction, and the fact that it only lasts one year means the divide will continue to grow

I also remember when Saylor was in favor of hardening the rules of Bitcoin, “make one thing right”, but now BIP110 seems like a threat