Good, we need geopolitically diverse mining.

Although they probably just contribute hashpower to "Antpool & Friends" :-(

Yeah, it's not in the article, but in the judgment, which is worth a read: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2025/2025bcpc192/2025bcpc192.html

In this case it also didn't help that the husband had been bragging about his bitcoin trading success, even lying about having 200 bitcoin.

Here's the article on MSN: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/b-c-family-tortured-for-13-hours-by-thieves-impersonating-mailmen-in-2m-crypto-heist/ar-AA1QU0ko

Security is all about friction and inconvenience. If you have convenient access to USD 1.6M, there are scenarios like this that you're not secure against.

But if they had been secure against it, wouldn't the attackers have cut his genitals off? Of course there's a chance, but the calculus doesn't really check out. It's a significant and unusual escalation for no realistic gain.

The link stopped working. Here's a working link: https://winnipegsun.com/news/b-c-family-tortured-for-13-hours-by-thieves-impersonating-mailmen-in-2m-crypto-heist

It's a sarcastic remark about stale narratives. In the bcash runup a lot of people concerned themselves with "who would get the bitcoin name" and "who would get the subreddit" like it's some sort of divorce proceeding.

Let's be careful with terminology; there wouldn't be more than one "fork". Your question is better stated as "which side of the fork".

Nobody would "inherit" the name "bitcoin". The name would stay where it is. There aren't any kingmakers who declare who "gets the name". Perhaps in the 2017 era it was reasonable to speculate whether exchanges would swing their scepters and declare such things, but we learned that's just not how things work.

It's been almost ten years of this. I'm tired. Let's just get this fork over with, get our little airdrops and move on.

I still wonder how they have push access to the bitcoin repo in the UASF project on GitHub. That repo was last used for the BIP-148 UASF in 2017, and now it's suddenly sprung to life again. There are no publicly listed owners of the project, but perhaps Luke was one of them?

Doesn't really matter, just a point of curiosity and a perhaps unfair suspicion that they're using that project to establish legitimacy.

I think it's quite likely they break the law in many jurisdictions. And if not, I think it's very likely that mint operation will be outlawed in the near future. It's not like financial legislation tend towards permissiveness.

Cashu might be wise to adopt the assumption, right or wrong, that mint operation will be cracked down on. If it chooses to exist at the mercy of lawmakers, it is doomed. That's why I think the future of Cashu, should it survive, is pseudonymous mints, possibly running as Tor onion services. This path will be riddled with rug pulls, but over time, trustworthy mints will emerge, not merely by the Lindy effect, but also through relentless user vigilance and by the application of proof-of-liabilities schemes.

Thinking mints break the law doesn't mean you think they should shut down or that you agree with the law.

So NixOS has a board. The board created a constitutional committee, and gave it a mandate to create a constitution. The constitution creates a steering committee, and that committee created a moderator team and mandated it with moderating the forum. The moderator team demanded that the steering committee resign because they felt like they meddled too much in the affairs of the moderator team. When the steering committee refused to resign, the whole moderator team did instead.

I mean ok but … this is an open source project maintaining a Linux distro! Why do they need governance the scale of a small nation?? It's like it's designed to generate drama. These kinds of structures only attract people who enjoy navigating them.

Paywalled for me, the article (somehow without the graphic) can be read here: https://archive.is/XD1IW

So disappointing that CoinDesk would make an embarrassing mistake like that. I've written the reporter and I hope he will correct it even if the article is a bit old. This debate certainly doesn't need misinformation.

What a relief. This is not the first vote, and it will not be the last. They will vote again, and again, until something passes. Hopefully they can't garner more support for the current proposal. The best we can hope for is that what finally passes will be severely watered down.

The authoritarian trend in Europe is very scary.

Not many will move from using inscriptions (Taproot input scripts) to OP_RETURN (an output type). But some that are storing arbitrary data that aren't inscriptions (JPEGs etc), but are using fake public keys creating unprovably-unspendable outputs that permanently bloat the UTXO set, will hopefully switch to OP_RETURN.

They are already quite unpopular, since they plan to plow up the ocean floor to mine for minerals. Now they're building a bitcoin reserve, and bitcoin is already very unpopular in Norway.

This crazy nasty-ass company just doesn't give a shit about what people think.

Coremunists

Not to be confused with Sovryn, which is some sort of platform for trading and lending that aspires to be decentralized.

In my mind there's definitely a parallel to bitcoin self custody. Use LibreOffice, and nobody can take it away from you. Your file is on your own system, and nobody knows it's there. You open the file and edit it, and it's nobody's business but yours. There is no tracking, no censorship. Even if your internet provider cuts you off, you can still work on your files.

I realize this is all rather absurdly banal, but this is one of the thousands of faces of digital self-sovereignty.