I haven't been decorated like this in a long time. 🥂 BIP-110: Making Bitcoin a happy place once again.

Disgusting

Digital credit brings with it a target rich environment. Perfect for some range time! Oh, and digital credit can't buy you more ammo.

Adam Back Running Ponzi Scheme?

Bring it.

Someone tells me @turtlecute33 has no actual authority at Braiins (I haven't verified this), so maybe it's not that bad. But it would still be a good idea for someone at Braiins with _actual_ authority to state clearly that they will be ready for RDTS support, and not rug their customers in this regard.

Look island boy @adam3us, BIP-110 is awesome, fixes multiple things/bugs (that Core can't or refuses to), has no broad technical or consensus objections (go ahead and URSF if you object). It actually IS up to individuals (instead of your bullshit fiat captured institutions), and so far the individuals/plebs are voting en masse with their Knots nodes and their hashpower. The 🔥continues to grow. Now either put up by cobbling together a URSF, and also flagging that you're a spam loving (c)whore in the process...or sit your geriatric A$$ down. We'll see you in August. P.S. stop trying to make #FOFO a thing, it's lame as fvck, like your speaking engagements.

Of the 130M taproot OP_IFs on-chain, 99.6% of them are hardcoded never to run. They are of the form: If 0 = 1, execute X Zero never equals one, so X is never intended to be executed If taproot is designed to execute code, OP_IF is 99.6% a system hack GitHub and plain text 👇

This is the appropriate stance to take. It says that as a business, you have tested the incoming UASF and you are ready to adapt to changing consensus rules. No serious business in Bitcoin can afford to appear negligent when it comes this. Last time plenty of businesses made announcements similar to the one below, and those that went further offering more vocal support increased their popularity and gained loyal customers as a result - @coinkite and @BULLBITCOIN_ being two great examples.

He's "cooked", yes. That term is what my son always uses when he's out of gas during a swim or workout. Yes, Saylor is cooked!

If I agreed with you that it was malicious, then yes, people should do as you're saying. The fact that they aren't is because it isn't, by the way.

fOrK ofF, says the VC spam apologist 🤡

Their reaction to our good faith efforts speaks magnitudes

Central banker

21. Bitcoin is money. Screw your digital capital.

You cannot simply ignore a soft fork once it has some reasonable level of adoption. "OK - can you define 'reasonable' please?" That's the thing - it's different for different people. A simple hodler can wait out a lot of network instability with unclear consensus rules for as long as they can hold off spending or accepting any BTC. A mining pool or exchange has far less tolerance for any such chaos. Therefore it's *reasonable* for some within Bitcoin who dislike BIP110 to believe they can simply ignore it. The people you see doing this are developers and people employed by spam companies in the space who have diversified into the various scams you see utilizing Bitcoin's blockchain. That stands to reason as network disruption doesn't actually affect anything they do, and they can publicly oppose BIP110 as it would only undermine what they're currently getting away with. However for exchanges and miners it's different. A fork that is going to be enforced by a client that's finding a few blocks a week with an upwards trend comes with the very real threat of wiping out any blocks you mine or any payments you send/receive as a business. You can oppose it vocally if you wish but the consequences for actually attempting to ignore it are immediately real once the fork activates. You now have to hope it dies fast before everyone else doing what you're doing abandons your bluff. It is possible to be ambivalent with regard to any particular consensus rule in Bitcoin - it is also possible to vocally and passionately disagree with one of them - however it is not practical to act as though they aren't enforced meaningfully when they are. The last group of people who tried - with very large numbers to boot - to conduct a mass-protest against a consensus rule (the block size limit) did so with Bitcoin Cash. Despite the passion and numbers big blockers had, Bitcoin Cash was a spectacular failure. The people against BIP110 have nothing like the numbers or passion to pull of a protest against any consensus rule so I find it reasonable to assume that their screeching and complaining about incoming rules that limit OP_RETURN sizes and witness stuffing will amount to something of far less significance than Bitcoin Cash ever did.

Exactly!

Every. Single. Time. 🤣 @kateesackhoff check out out Battlestar React-ica watch along videos on The Sackhoff Shows Patreon page 🚀🌟

Pests don’t like pest control

Here's the thing about @mattkratter, it took him a long time to understand #Bitcoin. Just like it did for most of us who now call ourselves Bitcoin maximalists. As far as I can tell, over the course of his understanding he went from ignoring Bitcoin, to trading it, to playing with shitcoins, and finally to becoming a toxic bitcoin maximalist. You know what I haven't seen from him? I haven't seen any sign of selling his name to a sponsor. I haven't seen him use his position as a bitcoin maxi to promote a bitcoin affinity scam or layer 2 nonsense. I haven't seen him grift his way into a bullshit position as a BiTcOiN AdViSoR at some second rate Bitcoin trashury company. In other words, all I have seen from him is a steady, progressive, and irreversible understanding of Bitcoin as money, a refusal to budge from that stance, and a willingness to put his name and reputation on the line to keep Bitcoin the hardest money man will ever know. The Bitcoin space would benefit from more bitcoiners like Matt.

BIP-110 Blocks Raining From Heaven