If a business accepts fiat and then immediately converts to bitcoin, should the fiat paying customer care? I can't think of a reason why they should, and the same is true going the other way.

How about OP_NO

If true then core's behavior is even worse than I thought. The reference client shouldn't be changed to appease one VC backed defi company. The only people who want this are shitcoiners like Lopp. If there's no viable alternative to core than this PR should be abandoned immediately.

Why are the computer manufacturer and Internet provider not also responsible?

Ossification happens when most users reject whatever changes are being made/proposed. It's inevitable that this will happen more over time.

I'm much more concerned about the core dev risk than the quantum risk.

Be wary of anyone using quantum FUD to push changing Bitcoin. Major scammer red flag.

I was orange pilled already, but Bitcoin Standard was the icing on the cake.

Academics like Selgin have been wrong about Bitcoin every step of the way. His opinion on it is meaningless at this point.

Every shitcoiner loves to talk about "multiple use cases existing together". There's only one use case I care about and that is money. I'm not interested in facilitating other use cases.

Patience

People's attitude towards lifeboats and icebergs was very similar on the Titanic.

With each new development in this drama, I'm more convinced that Luke/Mechanic/Knots are the good guys and Core, especially Todd, are the bad guys. Happy to be running Knots.

Not to mention literally everything will be affected, not just bitcoin. It's interesting that Bitcoin gets so much attention on this topic when it's probably the technology that deserves the least.

Where's the beef?

It's been Myanmar since 1989. How long do we need to add (formally Burma). I think after 36 years no one is confused by that.

This is a great idea and it says a lot that the security budget fudders don't just do this. They can do this right now with time lock scripts but instead they want others to bear the burden (typically there's some anti-hodler sentiment involved) so they (e.g. Peter Todd ) want to remove the 21M cap instead.

If out-of-band payments are so lucrative, miners will come up with creative new reasons for them. The end result of this will be a spam free-for-all and probably increased payments via "alternate communication channels". Unintended consequences are the biggest threat.

I think "intrinsic value" is synonymous with "non-monetary use", at least as most people use it.

Louis Cole is the best drummer I've ever heard. Incredible talent.

I'll never understand why a rag like The Economist can be consistently wrong about something for so long, costing its readers significant loss in purchasing power, and yet people keep coming back for more. There seems to be no limit to how much bad advice people will take.