@supertestnet is pretty cool

Howdy!

My kids don't have a phone yet (oldest is 10), so I currently stack for them by adding to my own stack.

I probably have the best monetary econ library in my country

Aren't there like seven people in Iceland or something? Surely you can lay claim to best econ library on any island?

There's this famous story about the Duke of Wellington. He had an affair with Harriet Wilson and when Ms Wilson and co tried to blackmail him, his response was "Publish and be damned."

I've used this as my mantra for some years. Perhaps confused about who the implied subject actually is, though.

This is such a power move. I think it applies to many more circumstances in life as well.

Or is it this from July 2010:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a30b56ebe76ffff9f9cc8a6667186179413c6349

Is this the first time an explicit block size limit was introduced in Bitcoin (sep 2010)?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/172f006020965ae8763a0610845c051ed1e3b522

I wish I had made this comparison.

Why do you prefer talking to typing? Is it because multitasking?

Do you find yourself reading over these transcriptions very much? I'd think I'd braindump and then rarely go back around to read the dump.

Finally, do you find that it is changing how you speak? Especially when speaking with the intention of talking to whisper-talk?

What if we got two bitcoins out if this?

One (bip110) that continues to attempt more restrictive and complicated soft forks that continually aim towards limiting arbitrary data in Bitcoin transactions...

But this line of reasoning answers itself doesn't it? Who wants to sign up to a Bitcoin that is predicated on frequent contentious soft forks without end?

(If they aren't contentious, who is doing the deciding about how best next to limit transactions to expunge the scourge of spam?)

@dathon_ohm pointed out the repeated requirement of new soft forks. Do you really believe the economic weight of Bitcoin users want to embark on this path?

It's shovel time. Going to go move dirt from one place to another.

Boston and Deep Purple are good guesses.

The mountain is beautiful. The mountain is perfect.

But you cannot live on the mountain.

And when you come back down, when you come off the mountain, things are not perfect.

And that is good.

So go and enjoy the imperfection, because while hope may be born on the mountain, it lives down below.

Perhaps it even dies there, but dying at least is evidence that you tried to live.

When credit is mandated and subsidized, the price goes up.

And this is mostly what our government has been doing for the last two decades. And still are doing:

Lower 10-year yields help US households take out home equity loans to fund greater consumption...Therefore, Bessent will use the RMP and buy backs to purchase 10-year treasuries and reduce mortgage rates. -Arthur Hayes

Same dynamic as higher end: give everyone a subsidized (nay, guaranteed!) loan to pay for college and all of a sudden college costs WAY more than makes sense.

Sure houses are nicer/bigger/better than they were -- as are college dorms and cafeterias -- but that's because all of a sudden everyone could pay for more. So everybody does pay for more and voila, it costs more.

Eat a Peach
Skull and Roses
Fresh Cream
Blue Öyster Cult

I'd go on but I don't want to hog all the good ones.

Would love to see a video on Bitcoin powered social media. Zapping is a uniquely Bitcoin phenomena and also really really ridiculously cool.

I hadn't heard of your project before. Your videos are cool!

I always love it when I get new stuff to chew on! Bookmarked.

This is what I was trying to understand for the last week. The supporters of BIP 110 keep saying these things like "asymmetric advantage" and "we don't even need a majority of hashrate" and I couldn't see how such things were true...unless they actually had a majority of hashrate.

I think what I established yesterday was that they believe they have an advantage in attracting hashrate and this advantage stems from a game-theoretical claim that it is less risky for a miner to mine on the 110 side in event of a split.

They seem to believe this is true primarily because the btc chain cannot "wipeout" the 110 chain, while 110 chain can wipeout the btc chain (if it gets and sustains a majority of hashrate).

"Wipeout" in this context means orphan. As in the 110 chain is valid as far as the btc nodes see, and therefore if it ever accumulated enough PoW, the btc side of the split would be orphaned and all nodes would see the 110 chain as heaviest valid chain.

But as I tried to express to some if them yesterday, this is circular: it is saying we will attract hashrate because we attract hashrate.

I would be very curious to hear @dathon_ohm's response to this. I believe they have stated similar things here: https://x.com/dathon_ohm/status/2012311839594471791

Your point about using btc and 110, versus the awful mess I made in the OP is accurate. I was trying to avoid antagonizing anyone by labeling one side or the other as the "true btc" side