> You sell as much as you need to. Or as much as one wants to, according to one's risk appetite for what the Core team is doing.

I agree with most points you mentioned. I would be very tempted to define it simply as : - No changes unless to fix an existential bug or problem (possibly quantum at some point). A third implementation that is extremely conservative would be wonderful in my opinion. It would probably have to start with Core version 28 (no later than v28). Adam Simecka seems to feel that way too and he has a fairly substantial presence on X, but I can't find him here on Nostr. https://xcancel.com/AdamSimecka/status/1985405874031194290#m

I don't see how that can be enforced. The only real option in my mind is to have other implementations.

Yes. It shocked me when I heard him say that.

No. What a bad take. I use wired headphones to have less radiation. Not to be niche.

I don't like dictators anymore than the next bitcoiner but I get the feeling that the countries that this Liberty Congress will be most active in will be, conveniently, the ones that are : opposed to the WEF, opposed to CIA-funded revolutions, opposed to the US military complex and also the countries that have oil. Am I right?

Well said. Excellent video.

There are still lower wattage incandescent bulbs out there. I buy those. More expensive, but worth it.

Some don't care. Their reward for writing code is elsewhere. They don't need many users.

Cool story, except that's not what Satoshi said : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12.msg79#msg79

Core version 30 didn't help. Lots of OGs are angry. Those sitting on billions are taking chips off the table. Perfectly rational.

But I'm also talking about afterwards. I've lost trust in Core. So, even with a soft fork, I feel we need a third implementation going forward. We have to make sure this can't happen again.

I was really interested in what Calle was doing until I heard him (multiple times) talk about having KYC mints. I'm not interested and I question anything produced by someone who can think and say those things. As long as cashu is usable for privacy with small amounts, it has a role, in my opinion. The only point of cashu is the extra privacy.

Who do we have who's working on a third implementation? Core has gone rogue and Luke is pro-covenants, which I'm not. Is there any third implementation that would simply be conservative? Just keeping bitcoin the way it was before the horror of v30 (and possibly v29) ? We just need good stewards to be there in cases of dramatic bugs that could mess up the network (and potentially something for quantum down the line). #core #knots #node #bitcoin #btc

> still fascinating to me Absolutely not. The whole (and only) point of cashu is privacy. Not interested in the least bit in KYC mints.

No, the solution is simple : don't radically change bitcoin! Don't blow-up the op_return limit. Simple.

Yes it does.