Jackthemimic
JackTheMimic

Why would you want to be on an exchange? Is it money or a trading token? Mine it yourself, work for it, or take payment in it. Listing is fiat nonsense.

2026-09-03 19:17:41 CEST

- reply

Why would money need to be listed on an exchange?

2026-09-02 16:22:08 CEST

- reply

Someone should tell that Bitcoin company that Bitcoin is non-refundable.

2026-09-01 14:41:09 CEST

- reply

Those are rare. Just like american mothers. Most people are not that attractive.

2026-08-30 17:31:34 CEST

- reply

New to me. Looks like a new bot attack. I blocked and WoT reported them.

2026-08-30 16:48:52 CEST

- reply

It's a podcast about money. How interesting is money really? Most people are interested in what happens after you spend the money not the interim between providing value and exchanging it.

2026-08-30 16:46:06 CEST

- reply

Arrogance is a disgusting perfume.

2026-08-30 16:35:12 CEST

WORD5 #695 6/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛⬛⬛🟧⬛
⬛🟧🟧⬛⬛
⬛🟧⬛⬛🟪
🟪⬛⬛🟧🟪
🟪🟧🟧⬛🟪
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/
The last word on my mind.

2026-08-30 00:33:34 CEST

WORD5 #694 3/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛🟪⬛🟪⬛
🟪🟪⬛🟪⬛
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-29 18:39:56 CEST

- reply

Basically bad colon stuff. Still on the mend.
But I hear kidney stones will put you on your knees so, be careful out there.

2026-08-29 13:55:23 CEST

- reply

NFTs can be done on any database, a blockchain is unnecessary. SmartContracts, are just what normal people call programs with cryptographic key pair signatures.
Ethereum is a rube-goldberg machine of useless technical debt. There is no need to make a contract on a Blockchain database. Just write a program, sign it with private keys, and OTS it. No giant contrived datastructure necessary.

2026-08-29 13:48:11 CEST

- reply

Dude, forreal, ethereum blows chunks. I don't see a single thing it could do that Nostr and Monero couldn't.

2026-08-29 13:43:48 CEST

- reply

How would they find out? I thought it was private.

2026-08-29 13:30:33 CEST

- reply

I thought I had one, turns out I had Diverticulitis, combined with a UTI. Brutal stuff. Anyway, I hope your peehole is alright bud.

2026-08-25 19:25:45 CEST

- reply

Stop eating too, I guarantee you spent more on food than a node and that's opportunity cost flying right out the window.

2026-08-25 07:04:16 CEST

- reply

I was wondering why no one was taking a sober look at the state of mining and code governance. This make a lot more sense.

2026-08-25 07:02:52 CEST

- reply

"If" the government gets that power. Who's delulu?

2026-08-24 13:30:58 CEST

- reply

I'm fucking with you, everyone knows if you don't say Israel is literally the worst, got the call, don't you know? To be clear, they might be the worst, but real opinions may vary.

2026-08-24 13:25:31 CEST

- reply

Weev got the call, on IRC, apparently. 😂

2026-08-23 18:36:20 CEST

- reply

30 hours or so, the other 50, I drive trucks. The money is nice. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

2026-08-23 18:03:39 CEST

- reply

I work about 80 hours a week, and yes 55 is more than enough, just a joke pal.

2026-08-22 16:56:27 CEST

- reply

Nah, much easier to just capture (which was already done) Stratum and Segwit were the worst things to happen to Bitcoin. Stratum for the centralization and Segwit for the Blockweight measurement. I've moved on, and I spent 11 years studying Bitcoin. Sucks buck we blew it.

2026-08-22 16:53:44 CEST

WORD5 #687 5/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟧
🟪⬛🟧⬛⬛
🟪🟧🟧⬛⬛
🟪⬛⬛🟪🟪
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-21 12:30:47 CEST

WORD5 #686 4/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛⬛🟧🟧🟪
🟪⬛⬛🟧🟪
🟪🟪🟧⬛🟪
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-21 12:12:16 CEST

- reply

Antichrist type shit, nice.

2026-08-19 23:04:33 CEST

Imagine how this pump feels to people who just lost their stack to a ColdCard.

2026-08-19 04:23:16 CEST

WORD5 #684 5/6* (Hard Mode)
🟧⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟧🟧⬛🟧
⬛🟧⬛🟧🟧
⬛🟧🟧🟪⬛
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-18 18:25:19 CEST

- reply

Hey man, I was just bad at it. Lol

2026-08-18 16:57:43 CEST

- reply

I'd rather ignore you.

2026-08-18 16:40:52 CEST

- reply

I don't know if you understand what the word emotional means. I'm using logic to deduce my positions. "If this, then that."
You, on the other hand, are attributing motive and politics to my positions, which is an emotional stance. "You're blackpilled" which attributes to me the connotation that I am unwilling to accept an eventuality where good can win, which I am not.
Telling people that the Titanic is sinking is not the black pill position. I am telling you the situation is grim and there's nothing you can do to save the ship. Facts. Saying it is impossible for anyone to survive this shipwreck is the black-pilled position.

2026-08-18 15:06:54 CEST

- reply

It's hilarious to think that you would be owed money for allowing the cancellation of a digital license.

2026-08-18 15:01:24 CEST

- reply

Their collusion would have to synchronize independent mempools and block templates as hashers, whereas a centralized block template from a pool is much, much simpler.
And of course, 100 1% pools would be better, but it wouldn't be more decentralized because each of those pools is a centralization point. Think of your question this way. Is it better to have 100 Twitter clones, but still centralized servers, or to have something like Nostr. Would 100 Twitter clones be "decentralized" Even so, that's not even close to a possibility because people gravitate to a single solution, the least resistance, the most powerful pool. So if even one of those pools got 2%, everyone would flock to it.

2026-08-18 14:43:50 CEST

- reply

Percentages per pool don't really matter because they can always coalesce or make backroom deals. The only thing that truly matters is for the standard protocol to have the hashers create the block templates as well. The only way that happens is with the adoption of stratum v2 or datum which have been roundly rejected by pools.
The only other option is for economically dense nodes such as exchanges and wallet provider nodes to change the proof of work algorithm so that miners have to start over.
allowing a competition based on Stratum v2 pools to proliferate or even as long as you're doing a proof of work change, changing the necessity for the stratum protocol in the first place.

2026-08-18 14:39:52 CEST

WORD5 #683 5/6* (Hard Mode)
🟧⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟪⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟪⬛🟧⬛
⬛🟪🟧🟧⬛
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-18 14:11:09 CEST

- reply

Every time you respond to me, it's emotional garbage that has no argument. Who says I'm black-pilled about anything? I'm just reading things as they are. Nowhere did I say the bad guys have to win, for it's inevitable that they win.

2026-08-18 13:46:11 CEST

- reply

The hash provider also transmits the winning block hash which gets relayed around the network regardless of if the pool itself rejects the block template.
But regardless of that, they have no incentive to allow Stratum V2 at all. So that's kind of a moot point.

2026-08-18 07:05:27 CEST

- reply

That has no bearing when the incentives align. Fiat can be very persuasive to any jurisdiction. But whatever, bury your head in sand about it, I don't care anymore. 11 years of experience and technical experience but sure, the mantras influencers say are your rebuttal. It couldn't happen because game theory between nations (as if nations don't work together all the time).
All good man, don't worry about it.

2026-08-17 23:45:02 CEST

- reply

Says fucking who? With as much hash share as they have who says that an Iranian can make a transaction if the pools agree not to? That is pure speculation. If hashers can pick templates it is assured by overwhelming probability that every transaction makes it into blocks as soon as fee-appropriate.

2026-08-17 23:38:42 CEST

- reply

"my pool is working hard to make me more money, for free – hey, instead can they allow me to ruin the whole pool, for everyone, for no reason? After all, I contribute 0.0001% of the hashrate of this pool, I should be allowed to destroy the whole pool (and the pool’s brand, and reputation, which I had no part in making) because I am a retard”
Great argument. I guess being an actual miner is pointless.
(Try reading the article instead of just reposting it instead of an argument)

2026-08-17 23:30:31 CEST

- reply

Source
-Bro, trust me.

2026-08-17 21:29:03 CEST

- reply

How do you solve Bitcoin's miner centralization problem?

2026-08-17 20:46:52 CEST

- reply

Twitter is not the Bitcoin network. Ypu HAVE to run software that enforces your ideas or you have no opinion on it.

2026-08-17 20:45:14 CEST

- reply

No. A softfork is consensus valid meaning any new blocks are accepted by status quo nodes. If they rejected those version 4 bit blocks, THAT would be signaling "nay". Usually you would have to run a URSF client or accept the new stricter rules.

2026-08-17 17:10:00 CEST

WORD5 #682 5/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟧
🟧🟪⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟪🟪⬛⬛
⬛🟪🟪🟪⬛
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-17 15:21:14 CEST

- reply

Remind who? The exchanges and the mining pools that control Bitcoin now? Knowing your cypherpunk roots disallows those establishments to take a foothold in the first place. Once they have a foothold, there's no removing them. Cool? Lol

2026-08-17 13:52:23 CEST

- reply

I'm not going back to trading rocks for stuff.
Also, the foot guns that you're mentioning are entirely avoidable, even in the most retard-proof way. Seed QRs or having seed cards are a way that even retards can hold their money securely.
And I don't know if you've ever studied history here, but taking on the government head on is actually never the way things work out for the revolutionaries. They always start with subterfuge and backroom meetings so they don't immediately get stamped out.
Bitcoin's capture is simply because the revolutionaries forgot their purpose.
I always gave Monero shit because some of the economic policies are kind of retarded. But because of the cypherpunk ethos being first and foremost, they never forget what their purpose is.
That, it turns out, is the much more valuable aspect of a good cryptocurrency.

2026-08-17 13:46:47 CEST

Yo @nprofile…jyhm this is the second update in a row that has been pushed with invalid signing credentials. Are all of the developers that are pushing and merging part of the GitHub keyring? Because whoever is signing the releases is not a valid credential on the actual release.

2026-08-17 06:00:02 CEST

- reply

I would just piss it out if I could but it ain't budging.

2026-08-17 05:47:13 CEST

If you ever have the chance to develop a kidney stone, I'd say, don't do it. It doesn't feel like it's worth it. 0/10 wouldn't.

2026-08-16 23:33:24 CEST

- reply

I think you are attributing things to me that I don't believe. I am talking practical application of the promise of bitcoin. It only works as a decentralized node and decentralized mining network. If either centralize it fails. Mining has centralized necessitating "firing the miners" but the practical accomplishment of that goal is borne upon a large swath of users who don't see the problem.

2026-08-16 17:19:40 CEST

👀👀👀👀
WORD5 #681 2/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛🟧⬛⬛⬛
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-16 17:12:46 CEST

- reply

We just saw the evidence with BIP110. How many nodes outside of the BIP110 crowd said "Hey, the miners ignored them, that's not good. We should fire them and change the proof of work!"
Nearly 0%. So now how many BIP100 nodes defected after the chainsplit? A few. So now less than 20% of the network is just going to start again on a hardforked chain.
My emphasis is on the "just" fire the miners. The JUST is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

2026-08-16 07:34:53 CEST

- reply

That was quicker than I thought they would start pushing it. Lol, once centralized mining is in play, the cretins are unafraid to push the envelope.

2026-08-16 07:32:45 CEST

- reply

This is the equivalent of saying "Just make your own military." It doesn't really work that way and people were naive to think it did.

2026-08-16 07:23:38 CEST

- reply

That was never the issue, obvsly.

2026-08-16 06:00:59 CEST

- reply

Report an *aggravated murder

2026-08-16 01:59:49 CEST

- reply

Can't do that if you don't have an economic node rivaling an exchange or Hashpower rivalling Foundry. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

2026-08-16 01:58:57 CEST

- reply

Tail emissions and Demurage talk pushed by Peter Todd.
Ordinal BIP pushed after LukedashJr was removed as BIP editor.
Pay attention, you can't just be complacent and have freedom, it works when the miners are on your side, not when it's against their interest.

2026-08-16 01:52:33 CEST

- reply

Demon, obviously projecting that he shouldn't be alive.

2026-08-15 15:09:49 CEST

- reply

Have you been checking these reports and videos for AI? The water doesn't make any sense in the second video.

2026-08-15 15:08:33 CEST

- reply

Then she died

2026-08-15 15:04:04 CEST

- reply

Yeah, but when it happens to someone who spent over a decade studying it, building on it, and helping others into it, maybe there's something to be analyzed there.

2026-08-15 14:56:36 CEST

WORD5 #680 4/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛⬛🟧⬛⬛
🟧🟧⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟧🟧🟧🟧
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-15 04:54:27 CEST

- reply

Yeah, we get it Peter is always trying to destroy Bitcoin. With centralized mining he can ABSOLUTELY get a demurrage softfork pushed.

2026-08-14 20:50:35 CEST

- reply

Like many other things a government touches, it gets corrupted. Lots easier when it's already a centralized network.

2026-08-14 19:08:44 CEST

- reply

Gay take.

2026-08-14 17:28:40 CEST

- reply

Now that miner centralization has been proven, of course Israel gets involved. They never play a game that isn't rigged.

2026-08-14 15:54:30 CEST

WORD5 #679 4/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛🟧⬛⬛⬛
🟧⬛🟧⬛🟪
⬛🟧🟪🟪🟪
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-14 15:29:41 CEST

- reply

See? That's what I've been saying. Reject it don't just pretend 20% of the network didn't exist. (Now they don't exist)

2026-08-13 23:37:44 CEST

- reply

Being indifferent on a protocol IS acceptance. This is why legacy wallets are compatible with SegWit. If running older software was a rejection, SegWit wouldn't have activated.
Either way "economic support" SHOULD be irrelevant to the network node model but, it turns out if you are an exchange node your node is more important than thousands of individual nodes. Which is basically banking with extra steps.

2026-08-13 18:16:19 CEST

WORD5 #678 6/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛⬛⬛🟧⬛
🟧⬛⬛🟧⬛
🟪🟧🟧⬛⬛
🟪⬛🟪🟧⬛
🟪⬛🟪🟪🟪
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-13 18:04:35 CEST

- reply

Collusion is not necessary for this to occur. Everyone just follows incentives. The hashers provide hash at the lowest cost they can. The pools maximize revenue by including EVERY transaction they can (regardless of node rules). Exchanges nodes will always try to maximize the amount of Bitcoin they can purchase from miners. Making their relationship symbiotic. Core are coders first and the more feature rich you can make a program, the more you can do with it.
All of this culminates in the mining pools effectively setting the rules of the network. I have expressed how this could be exploited to get even more control but THAT requires collusion. The issue is they didn't realize they were in control until last Saturday.
As far as the UASF there was no URSF meaning the miners have the option to do a MRSF. But, normally people would say "The hashers would move their hash out of a pool that goes rogue. The hashers did not do that. I think they are complacent and will go along with whatever the pool pushes.

2026-08-12 23:41:22 CEST

- reply

Well, the last sentence is the real crux. "Refuse upgrades without needing anyone's permission"
That becomes no with the mining centralization and "economically dense" nodes working in concert (as they did on Saturday). I wrote up an easy way they could push a new rule without social consensus and force everyone's compliance, here:
#nevent1q…87e6

2026-08-12 20:48:19 CEST

- reply

Technically, no, but in effect, yes.

2026-08-12 17:56:17 CEST

- reply

After you mine a block, a coin-based transaction where new Bitcoin are issued are locked for 100 blocks. So, the rewards don't come until 100 blocks are mined on this chain.

2026-08-12 17:44:22 CEST

- reply

stuff that comes out of your butt.

2026-08-12 13:24:54 CEST

- reply

Why isn't there a gore warning on this video? I almost threw up.

2026-08-12 13:23:15 CEST

- reply

Not true (hilariously I found a video series right after I posted that that doesn't mention Bitcoin at all)
But all you have to do for reference is explain from the ground up how a blockchain works, how proof-of-work works, how stealth addresses work, how ring signatures work, how ring CT works, how to produce wallet addresses, how seed words translate to private keys.
As a technically minded person, I like to build my systems knowledge from the ground up and not rely on some comparative structure about how "a tent is kind of like a building," except not at all.

2026-08-12 13:06:12 CEST

Challenge Level: IMPOSSIBLE
Make an informational video about how Monero works and it's technical details WITHOUT mentioning:
- Bitcoin
- How it differs from Bitcoin
- How it's not just for criminals.

2026-08-12 04:24:39 CEST

WORD5 #677 5/6* (Hard Mode)
⬛🟧⬛🟧⬛
🟧🟧⬛🟪⬛
⬛⬛🟪🟪🟪
🟪⬛🟪🟪🟪
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

2026-08-11 22:11:52 CEST

- reply

CVE#1 rm -rf / can be used to delete your root directory.
🫪🫪🫪

2026-08-11 21:34:14 CEST

- reply

Meet me on testnet 1...

2026-08-11 20:45:19 CEST

- reply

Curious why you didn't consider Monero mining. Lotta CPUs can run on sun.

2026-08-11 20:44:23 CEST

- reply

You need the doomers to check your unfettered optimism for holes. #BlessTheDoomers

2026-08-11 20:29:19 CEST

- reply

RandomX wasn't even considered? Even with their conception of centralization?

2026-08-11 20:27:29 CEST

- reply

I think PoW change has to be an absolutely catastrophic miner centralization MASF scenario like I point out here, to even consider doing:
#nevent1q…87e6

2026-08-11 20:00:15 CEST

- reply

Hashrate or GTFO

2026-08-11 19:56:51 CEST

- reply

See, this is kind of what I mean. I'm not for his proof of work change or the hard fork. I wasn't even for BIP 110, I just wasn't against it. I don't see Luke or mechanic as leaders although mechanic is much more reasonable than luke is. But because I wasn't calling them a bunch of retards, suddenly I'm in their camp or something.

2026-08-11 19:33:43 CEST

- reply

Well, to be fair, I was having rational discourse, but I was being lumped in with people calling others pedophiles or whatever just because I didn't think BIP 110 was the worst thing in the world.
So I really think this might have been a pot and kettle situation that didn't help any of us.

2026-08-11 19:30:21 CEST

- reply

I am saying they can (if they have the current paradigm of majority hashpower) IGNORE all of the users who don't run the new version. Nodes who aren't corporate Miners and Exchanges don't matter. That's what we learned on Saturday. There is not enough decentralized hash power to even come close to competing with those five companies.
And again, if you don't get on board with the Cartel, you'd have to switch to Ocean (unlikely with the current events) or another protocol that uses DATUM (who?). And I don't think any of these hashing warehouses are even close to ready to do something like that.

2026-08-11 19:13:05 CEST

- reply

I swear I could explain this much better in person. Text is not my favorite medium of expressing ideas.

2026-08-11 19:10:32 CEST

- reply

And my argument is that the users would just use exchanges to transfer Bitcoin from one person to another.(another centralization pressure.)
And since the everyday user is not important or economically dense enough to matter, this would go through without a problem.
Remember, my argument is that the mining companies and the exchanges would work together in tandem because they benefit each other in this arrangement. Since the suit coiners don't care about sovereignty they'll just use the exchanges to do their financial shenanigans and all of the real Bitcoiners(who don't actually have any power) would be left out in the cold just like the BIP110 people.

2026-08-11 18:58:37 CEST

- reply

Yes, but where did I say that it was an emergency? I was just stating a fact. And then in the note you're responding to, you claim an emergency when I was asking a question:
Does one classify an emergency as: Time until you solve the problem is N time. Time until cascade failure is N-1 time?
You disregarded that question and then reference the OP. Wut?

2026-08-11 18:50:08 CEST

- reply

Desperation is a lot more acceptable than realizing the fact that miner centralization is a real threat vector.

2026-08-11 18:19:42 CEST

- reply

Ahh, I always had a blind spot for the difficulty thing when it came to hard forks in the past.

2026-08-11 18:16:01 CEST

- reply

I've never really looked into this, but does the difficulty reset somehow or have a starting value? Because I don't see why the difficulty threshold would change just because the algo did.

2026-08-11 18:03:50 CEST

- reply

I know, I'm just wondering what the incentive is for people who mine in a pool when it's actively discouraged. And at least by my estimation, the juice isn't really worth the squeeze when you could get the entire subsidy for yourself often enough with modern hardware.

2026-08-11 18:02:12 CEST

- reply

I feel like you just totally disregarded what I said and made your own point there.

2026-08-11 17:59:53 CEST

- reply

Maybe you don't understand the scenario I'm laying out here. A legacy node(version bit 1), NOT a legacy transaction.
This node finds a SegWit address with Bitcoin and produces a transaction without a signature. This is a valid transaction on the legacy node, but when broadcast to the network, anyone running version bit 2 or above will reject the transaction for not having a valid witness.