Working in Switzerland as an automation technician with a passion for studying Bitcoin
Public Key
npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Profile Code
nprofile1qqst4slmn2uyfejrkgeemjk3e9upn2ty2jw2gwvnps0804amv68ejhgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dswcewqy
Show more details
Published at
2026-03-18T06:17:55Z Event JSON
{
"id": "cdb94e19f195836c0ee52ad94bb0b77f5b6c89306f1195154e2580ebb7dbe71f" ,
"pubkey": "bac3fb9ab844e643b2339dcad1c97819a964549ca439930c1e77d7bb668f995d" ,
"created_at": 1773814675 ,
"kind": 0 ,
"tags": [],
"content": "{\"lud06\":\"\",\"lud16\":\"[email protected] \",\"name\":\"Mischa\",\"banner\":\"https:\\/\\/m.primal.net\\/JvxP.jpg\",\"nip05\":\"[email protected] \",\"picture\":\"https:\\/\\/image.nostr.build\\/00696a3ae0a4c388624d36fb8eec11178f664a7c9ae802b542b20c9f65e1d762.jpg\",\"website\":\"\",\"about\":\"Working in Switzerland as an automation technician with a passion for studying Bitcoin\",\"display_name\":\"Mischa\"}" ,
"sig": "b7a7fa27cf9f518b4c730a58ca30739033388c618951dfd9eca30469befa5e9ba8f4b487270f6bbc14ce8388d6ac8db8349fed765c66524f86c3266a16da88af"
}
Last Notes npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa What if the allegations against Adam Back were true, and the mining operation was in fact a Ponzi scheme? The implications could be significant. If many developers associated with Bitcoin Core, companies, or other prominent figures had lent money to finance that operation, Adam’s inability to repay those loans could expose them to substantial financial losses. In the worst case, some companies could face serious financial distress or even insolvency. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Almost everyone loses unless BIP110 activates without a chain split. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The best outcome for everyone would be for BIP110 to activate without a chain split. If that happens, it would still be possible to revisit the change in a year. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa With over 15% of the network’s nodes, the longer it takes for a block to be found on the BIP110 chain, the higher the transaction fees rise. That attracts more miners, increasing the risk of the other chain being wiped out. Don’t be fooled by debt-ridden companies. They don’t pay you, they simply benefit from Bitcoin’s price appreciation. But in the event of a chain split, they would likely have the most to lose if the price falls. It seems they underestimated the risks. If they don’t reconsider their opposition, they may end up paying the highest price. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa *Failed to build momentum for a URSF npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The best outcome for everyone would be for BIP110 to activate without a chain split. If that happens, it would still be possible to revisit the change in one year. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa We have a war in Bitcoin, largely caused by Core’s misdirection. How is it that all the major companies ended up giving even more money to the same organization that funded Core during the period when it was moving in the wrong direction? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I think that once the major AI companies start trying to match their expenses with their revenue, many people will want to buy their own local AI setup instead. My suspicion is that this transition will take much longer than we expect. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa It’s interesting to watch. Core supporters seem to appear out of nowhere every few weeks. Once their arguments are debunked or their conflicts of interest become apparent, they disappear, only to be replaced by another new voice. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa 🇨🇭 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The beautiful thing about Bitcoin is that it can become whatever people value most. The rules that attract the most capital, attract the most hash rate and therefore become Bitcoin. In a world where everything inflates, the rules that best protect capital from devaluation will win. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa True, and I agree it’s the best shot we have. Bitcoin is not static. If there are several forks, the one people believe will be the best long-term store of value will become Bitcoin, because it attracts the most capital and therefore most miners. If BIP110 fails, a chain optimized for more than just money will become Bitcoin. That’s not the chain I trust. At that point I will diversify more. If we eventually have a truly decentralized chain focused only on being money, I will go all in again. That’s how Bitcoin works. Incentives decide which chain becomes the best money and therefore Bitcoin. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Before the Blocktrainer went full Saylor fanboy, he argued that Ethereum only pretends to be decentralized. His point was that it’s actually better to have a centralized system where everyone knows who controls it and who has the power to change it, rather than a system that gradually centralizes while nobody knows who is really in control. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa agree npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa physical gold and swiss franc npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa If BIP110 fails, I will sell a portion of my Bitcoins. If corporate interests are valued more than those of the plebs, it means Bitcoin is not as decentralized as I believed, and I need to diversify more. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa That’s true. That was the original intention they stated. However, after the overwhelming backlash, there were other ways to address the issue. For example, the outcome could have been achieved by simply limiting OP_RETURN at the consensus level. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa No major investor funds a business built around embedding arbitrary data into Bitcoin if that use case could disappear overnight. Core V30 changed those incentives by treating data on bitcoin as a feature to protect. That’s what BIP110 tries to solve. Sending that message is a powerful way to discourage future spam projects. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I’ve been mining on my own node for the past month using rented hashpower from Braiins and directing it to Ocean with around 2 PH/s. I was fully prepared to lose a bit while supporting decentralization, but funnily I actually ended up making around $50. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa For Saylor, it’s grow or lose. If he can’t continue accumulating more Bitcoin, then why should somebody hold his stock? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Actually, the fact that mining pools are so large may make it easier to carry out a UASF in practice. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I agree that mining centralization is probably the biggest problem, and because of that we now have the spam problem. If nothing is done against spam, it will attract larger funding rounds, more investors, and more people building non-monetary use cases on Bitcoin. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I do not think that BIP110 changes Bitcoin’s censorship resistance in any meaningful way, and I believe it is needed to close a form of misuse of Bitcoin that was not previously possible. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Theoretically, the temporary aspect lowers the barrier for miners to activate it. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Very interesting podcast, I’ve never looked at it that way before. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I don’t care about the fees. My concern is the long-term health of nodes and the decentralization of the Bitcoin network. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Okay yes, true that’s a fair point, but still what happend to this approach?! From my perspective, Taproot mainly benefited spam and data-related use cases without providing a comparable real-world benefit for Bitcoin as money itself. And still, there has been no serious alternative proposal to adjust or mitigate the unintended consequences that came with it. Opening OP_RETURN limits also benefits spammers, while not actually reducing spam. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The example shows that the Bitcoin community can drive out spam projects if we adopt a consistently hostile stance toward them. When such projects are unwelcome, VCs and investors quickly lose interest and stop funding them. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I disagree. There are ways to remove spam projects, and we have already done so. Look at Vitalik post and why he chose to build Ethereum instead of using Bitcoin. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa That’s not the point. The reason many of us want to restrict arbitrary data on Bitcoin is because we don’t want the chain turning into a platform for spam projects like Citrea or other shitcoins. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Seems so. I don’t know him. I just read something a few weeks ago about a fork he wants to do. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Bitcoin was originally designed so that the network remains decentralized as long as all participants act in their own self-interest. But what happens when the perception of many users no longer reflects reality? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Somehow true, but the block size limit is not meant to be full all the time. If no transactions need to be processed, that’s actually good, because the blockchain doesn’t grow unnecessarily. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa In my view, that’s exactly why we need to take action now. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa We as a community messed up too. If we had pushed back harder against arbitrary data during the OP Return, Taproot discussions, it would have sent a completely different signal to everyone. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The reason the financial system is the way it is comes down to greed. Satoshi showed a fairer system is possible. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa From what I’ve read, this would also be valid under the rules of BIP110. Is that correct? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa UPS-backed node and internet router. Running self-sovereign Bitcoin with my own Lightning node, managing channels, and ~1 PH of rented hashrate pointed to my node. That’s how Bitcoin stays decentralized. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Do you think the new Trezor with an open-source security chip is the safer choice? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Renting hashrate and pointing it to your own node feels right. Glad to contribute to more decentralized mining. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The technical side is too complex for me to fully judge. But in case of doubt, I would prefer fewer features if that helps preserve decentralization in the long term, because decentralization is the highest priority for me. I would rather have centralized scaling companies than a less decentralized main chain. My concern is that if the BIP fails, everything will just stay the same. I don’t think more time for developers will change anything. With BIP110, it seems nothing will happen unless it activates. If it gets activated, everyone would have one year to finally address the spam problem. If developers worked together to find a compromise instead of ignoring or insulting each other, they would probably find the best solution. But if things continue like this, nothing will happen, and I am willing to sacrifice some functionality for decentralization. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Interesting view🤔 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa So the main criticism seems to be about timing. Given how the limits are chosen, do you fully agree that they are reasonable? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I agree, but I think the criticism are mainly about future technologies that might not be able to connect different layers to the main layer because of the limit. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I understand that the current BIP110 could limit future development, and that is a valid concern. Maybe there is a better and more conservative way to set the limits. But no one is proposing real alternative solutions, and the problem still exists: It cannot be the plan that we have full blocks forever. The limit should be there for periods of high demand, not so that blocks are permanently full. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa In my opinion, Adam Back has lost a lot of credibility. First, he was involved with Epstein, and now I’m hearing more and more about Blockstream actively working on smart contracts on sidechains, with long-term plans to potentially expand this technology to Bitcoin Onchain. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa If a split happens, much more is at stake than just fees. A chain split would hurt Bitcoin’s reputation, likely cause a price drop, reduce mining revenue and fees, and probably create issues for Lightning too. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Truly astonishing. It’s likely Citrea has more to do with it than they admit. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Bitcoin becomes what its users use it for. The direction of Bitcoin is ultimately shaped by the collective agreement of users, and the rules can change if that agreement changes. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Many of the possibilities that are now used for spam were introduced with Taproot, with the promise that they would improve Bitcoin as a payment network. For a long time the argument was that these use cases simply needed time to develop. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa That’s true. But the fact that a bug has existed for a long time and was rarely used doesn’t mean it should be ignored once it starts being used more frequently. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The current conflict has not changed our fundamental understanding of what Bitcoin is. We all have significant skin in the game. In my view, the main difference between us comes down to the information and perspectives we each rely on. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The way I understood him, he thinks that both sides were paid to divide the community. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I have another point: npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Is this technically accurate? I believe it would also be a strong argument against Core’s decision. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I see the problem that v30 is trying to address, but I completely disagree with the solution they chose. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I agree. I don’t feel particularly pressured, but I do find Core’s behavior questionable. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa There was no real urgency that required this change. A soft fork could have been prepared properly and discussed openly, instead of introducing a controversial change that may expand the attack surface. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Now in moments of weakness, you just open it in the browser ;) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Maybe I’m wrong about the legal aspect. Right now, the risk seems limited. But we don’t know what could happen in the future if OP_RETURN remains open. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I fully agree. In that post, I laid out how I see the whole situation and why this conflict in Bitcoin exists, if you’re interested ;) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa “For the record, if Core gets routed around with Libre Relay, etc., the answer isn’t to turn Core into Libre Relay.” npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I do not see the situation as an acute emergency, even if it is sometimes framed that way by the Knots side. And i agree, it would be naive to assume that any side is immune to compromised actors. Based on what I have observed over the past months, I still lean toward the Knots position. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa For those who are not aware yet, this is the reason behind this childish attack. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa That’s how you properly respond to an accusation. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Fair point, but what is actually preventing Core from tightening the consensus rules? Why choose to fully open up OP_RETURN despite significant controversy? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Most nodes oppose the change in v30. Most nodes also oppose the change proposed in BIP110. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa We clearly have a spam problem. Core should roll back OP_RETURN and then actually focus on addressing spam properly. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Why not roll back the change? I’m convinced some people would pause and reconsider how urgent this fork really is. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa @nprofile…fg9w , I genuinely want your view on this, especially after seeing this post. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa If BIP110 is about ego and control, then how is removing the OP_RETURN limit despite heavy backlash, refusing to reconsider, not the same? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Thanks for the podcast. I agree with almost everything. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa As mining competition intensifies, efficiency increasingly depends on access to cheap capital rather than technology. In a world of centralized finance, this pushes miners toward centralized funding sources that come with conditions and influence. The result is a mining sector far more centralized than many are willing to admit. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa As competition in mining intensifies, inefficient actors are pushed out. While this is usually seen as healthy, in a world of centralized financial markets it can actually accelerate centralization. When Bitcoin’s price growth is limited and transaction fees stay low, the key efficiency advantage shifts to access to cheap capital and credit. Under pressure, miners are forced to turn to these centralized funding sources. Capital always comes with conditions and long-term influence. This creates dependency on existing power structures and makes genuine decentralization economically difficult. The result is a mining sector that is more centralized, and more reliant on centralized structures, than many are willing to admit. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Thanks for the interview. I largely agree with Jimmy on almost all points, which is precisely why his final conclusion is hard to reconcile. He clearly understands the reasons for pursuing a fork and even acknowledges the upside of what is often framed as the strongest criticism of the BIP: that it makes future changes to Bitcoin harder. A stricter consensus reduces the risk of frequent or careless modifications and helps protect Bitcoin’s long-term stability. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Bitcoin is for money. Nothing else. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The parallels to back then are obvious. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa One point many people overlook is that before v30, only public, identifiable operators could push big OP_RETURN data into blocks, which created a clear line of accountability. Today it’s a network-wide behavior: every node relays it, responsibility becomes diffuse and the impact on decentralization is now embedded in Bitcoin’s core protocol. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa It is correct that before Core v30, miners could also include large OP_RETURN transactions in blocks, but that choice was made by clearly identifiable actors. Miners are public-facing companies. Deliberately mining large OP_RETURN data could lead to reputational damage, loss of hashrate, and in extreme cases legal consequences. That acted as a natural social and economic brake. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I’m also curious to see if opinions will change npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I believe that once BIP adoption rises above 20%, miners will start upgrading to it before a UASF. The risk of turbulence and reputational damage for Bitcoin, especially around Lightning disruptions, exchange confusion, and price pressure, will push miners to protect themselves financially by preventing a fork and adopting the new rules. Miners who continue to mine spam would effectively split off from the main chain. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Isn’t that exactly why miners would support this BIP? If they want to stay profitable without creating chaos, all they have to do is back it and refuse to mine spam. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I get your point, but I disagree. For safety, transparency is actually a strength. As a medium of exchange, privacy is better, but that’s exactly what Bitcoin can offer. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Just like paying with gold isn’t practical for everyday use, paying with Bitcoin directly on-chain isn’t either. That’s why we end up with different trade-offs and approaches trusting companies, using protocols, or mixing both. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I choose a more optimistic view. The fight isn’t over. Lightning and eCash are powerful tools for increasing privacy. What we need now are strong, practical use cases that bring more people to Bitcoin. Not only because of the price. Nostr is already a solid start, and Fanfares, which I recently discovered, is interesting too. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa true💯 npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa In school, we spend most of our time studying what went wrong in the past, how people were exploited, manipulated, pushed into war, and what we claim to have learned from it. But there’s almost no focus on the problems we face today, or on how to truly think critically. Everything seems anchored in the past rather than the present. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I really like the idea behind Fanfares. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I’ve often heard that the true potential of Nostr hasn’t appeared yet, that its revolutionary use case still doesn’t exist. I think I’ve found one and the name is fanfares. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa I think Bitcoin shifts power and incentives away from money creators and toward those who hold and save it, enabling them to influence existing systems and political structures. Even if only a small fraction of miners confirm your transaction, the funds remain yours and usable. Even if you need to wait longer. The critical point is the 21 million cap, and so far there is no proven attack vector against it npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa A good beginner video for people who have not yet deeply looked into the fundamental reasons why some want to create a fork of Bitcoin. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Thanks, it looks really nice :) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa My mistake. I had actually written the comment for a different episode. Still, it doesn’t fit too badly ;) npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Strong interview with very interesting points.The fact that financial service providers must always chase higher returns just to keep capital, otherwise it moves to competitors, makes you question whether this system has any real winners. In the end, it feels like there are only two options: no money at all, or money based on debt and controlled through debt. Bitcoin finally offers a way out of this. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Strong interview with very interesting points.The fact that financial service providers must always chase higher returns just to keep capital, otherwise it moves to competitors, makes you question whether this system has any real winners. In the end, it feels like there are only two options: no money at all, or money based on debt and controlled through debt. Bitcoin finally offers a way out of this. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Do you think it will come to that? npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa Fiat systems survive only through constant intervention: growth is mandatory, debt must expand, and every crisis justifies more control. Bitcoin breaks this loop by enforcing fixed rules instead of power, making it the first truly free market built on mathematics, not intervention. npub1htplhx4cgnny8v3nnh9drjtcrx5kg4yu5suexrq7wltmke50n9wsu9axzv Mischa The fiat monetary system is inherently unstable and can only function if it is continuously supported and steered by intervention. Interest rates, liquidity injections, bailouts, war and regulation are not exceptions but structural requirements. Without these interventions, the system collapses. If market shrinks, debt cant be payed back and the system collapses. That is the core problem.
