2022: Bear markets are for building.
2026: Bear markets are for dunking on Sailor.

Interesting, what I hear is more like:

Marty: Water was created by the CIA to turn conservatives infertile.
Matt: wanna bet on it.

I haven't listened to a Saylor interviews for some time now, but I feel like every interview I've watched with him he says at least one retarded thing.

Last interview I watched, he seemed to think bitcoin was centralized because developers could just merge code at will, and because of that we shouldn't support them financially, because ossification would be preferred.

He does seem to learn and change his tune, at least early on. I have mad respect for that though.

Nice, been waiting for something like this. Hopefully the odds will change :p

Have you been on any other podcasts recently besides this one, you can recommend?

Found it quite one sided, but it was quite enjoyable. Sometimes it feels more like noise than signal when it's two groups just disagreeing for 2 hours.

sorry, ignore what I wrote, I'm retarded.

Does he not describe a majority hash power consensus vs a minority node/user consensus? If the users does not take action, there wont be a chain split. There is no rough consensus, and their wont be a split. Am i missing something?

And the minority hash power would be economically incentivised to move to the other side to avoid being reorged. I don’t understand why we would get a split if the majority of miners are going with bip 444. Would it not require a URSF or some sort of code change from the anti 444 group to force a chain split? Am I missing something?

You say "overwhelming consensus", but by whom? If most miners chose 444, non compliant blocks would be discarded by them, and your core node would go with the longest chain, no? If that was the case you would need something like a URSF to force a split, right?

I want the tokens or a prediction market so I can see the actual consensus. Something more sybil resistant than loud twitter users/bots.

This is starting to feel a lot like the block size war, not on content, but by the type of people who support each side, and their arguments.

Back then it was.
x: bigger blocks will lower fees
y: not long term and it's a bad way to scale
x: fuck you, you want high fees.

Would be cool if you could have tokens for each side as in 2017, but I guess that's not possible when it's a soft fork that's not guaranteed to split, right?