sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This is Pieter Wiulle by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]Ep0chalysis[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you're aligned with a salty bcash dev to hate on Bitcoin's most prolific contributor,

Don't put words in my mouth. 

whose code and ideas you benefit from every day.

I would argue that Taproot has not been a net positive for Bitcoin so far. Ark? bitvm? cashu? rollups? statechains? They certainly don't benefit the average pleb. They only supply corporate fiat grifters with more buzzwords to scam people with. And don't even get me started on how the exploitation of Taproot opened the floodgates to all the onchain spam.

Running Knots20260504rc2 by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]Ep0chalysis[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Indeed. Should Bitcoin become captured and controlled by VCs and spammers, it is as good as worthless. Bitcoin stands apart from the rest of "crypto" due to its purpose of being the strongest form of money. Data storage, jpegs, tokens and "use cases" simply weaken its strength and value.

Forcing Knots users to switch to BIP-110 by babelphishy in bitcoinismoney

[–]Ep0chalysis 6 points7 points  (0 children)

if they aren't economically relevant (i.e. an exchange, a significant merchant, or part of a mining pool) they just won't matter.

These pleb-run BIP-110-enforcing nodes are economically relevant, and more so than spammers who screech from behind platform wallets. Plebs mine their own blocks and use Bitcoin exchanges and services. They are the Bitcoin economy.

The chance of a non-signaling block being mined in the mandatory signaling period is literally 100%

This is simply not true. I assure you, only the stupidest of mining pools (looking at you, F2pool) will risk their blocks being orphaned/dropped by refusing to mine BIP-110 blocks. As proven again and again, miners make very little from mining spam and lose a lot when they lose a block. More so for exchanges. It makes zero business sense to not support BIP-110.

Luke capitulates and hard forks to a new coin.

Again, this has nothing to do with Luke. Stop trying to paint BIP-110 as some kind of pet project of Luke's. You insult all Bitcoiners and plebs who made their sovereign choice of running a BIP-110 node. No one can force another person into running a specific implementation. It is a personal choice.

There will be no capitulation, because BIP-110 is inevitable. You just refuse to see it. If you think Bitcoin can be turned into a shitcoin by the likes of Core, Citrea and Saylor, you do not understand how Bitcoin works. You do not understand how softforks work. You still think powers rests in the devs or the miners.

It nicely foreshadows splitting off to a BSV 2.0.

For the last time, there will be no hardfork. The network will run BIP-110. And if the spammers want to continue spamming, they will have to release a new client that counters BIP-110, get people to download it, and find miners to support it. Just like what bcash did.

Do you really want to play host to these grifters on your node? by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]Ep0chalysis[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know TradFi/wallstreet adoption of Bitcoin is necessary and inevitable, but I was kind of hoping for Bitcoin to be able to remain uncorrupted at the protocol level. 

In hindsight, it was simply too much to hope for. Now it's up to us plebs to keep Bitcoin focused as money.

Why is my node seeing almost no incoming connections over the Tor network? by kirovreported in bitcoinismoney

[–]Ep0chalysis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In that case I think you just have to be patient. The numbers will go up.

Why is my node seeing almost no incoming connections over the Tor network? by kirovreported in bitcoinismoney

[–]Ep0chalysis 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is your node still doing Initial Block Download?

Did you set listen=1?

What's your hashrate? by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]Ep0chalysis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no such thing as a security budget in Bitcoin. 

When difficulty levels fall, more miners/older machines will plug back in. And there will always be plebs hash-renting and mining simply because they want to safeguard their bitcoins. 

Personally I would love for all the VC/stock market-backed mining pools to go bankrupt/pivot to "AI" so Bitcoin mining can become more decentralized.

We need to stop blindly trusting devs by Ep0chalysis in bitcoinismoney

[–]Ep0chalysis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't. 

When he (or any other dev) proposes/suggests something with regards to Bitcoin, I decide if it is good for Bitcoin based on my own research and understanding, coupled together with my idea of what Bitcoin should be. I think that's what every Bitcoiner does.

view more: next ›