What about God?

The lesson of entropy that Bitcoin teaches us about the physical time chain, that physics bears out when that lesson is applied, is precisely that man creates nothing. We only participate in creation as cosigners by our choices.

And, correct me if I am wrong, is this not also precisely what St. Thomas says about money, explicitly: that it does not reproduce?

One thing that actually just clicked for me in light of Jacks comment and what I learned while writing my little essay, is that another way to say what Jack is saying (I think, correct me) is that money IS the model memory, a form (in the Platonic sense, even) accruing order that the rational will cosignings. Either we choose higher goods, or we err and choose lesser goods.

We choose to participate in bring higher order that comes from source into being by coordinating our work or recycle the goods of the world under fiat (fictions of human value creation, dollars, ape jpegs, rent seeking, interest) under entropy.

The conclusion is not only that simple spam is pure entropy, but that non-monetary data with "financial" use cases that have these vaneers of being money-related are perhaps worse, because they are actually fiat, aka fictions of value creation.

Word magic is fraud. We don't create.

Hopefully that ramble made sense.

Shocked, I tell you.

Ideally they would. Easy for me to say coming in and Monday morning quarterbacking, but it seems like this whole situation is wildly political for no reason. The conversation would ideally have been:

"Hey, we're behind on some maintenance. Let's drop some cruft, tighten some unnecessarily loose data limits that are feeding non-monetary use and kill the inscriptions hack."

Then we would have a calmly go through back testing against the chain to make sure we didn't chop any legit monetary use and roll the thing. It's not that hard.

And then I assume there would be hot cocoa with marshmallows. ☕

Obviously that ignores that there are incentives, financial interests, rivalries, reputations, egos and tribes. I'm not surprised this is hard for non-technical reasons. My point is just how purely non-technical problem actually is here.

The actual technical problem itself could have been solved by small number of people in a matter of weeks if they were working together well. Instead we have a total shitstorm.

Whatever. It will be fine, but I have to be pro 110 on the merits until someone can explain why its a bad idea from on the merits. 🍿

The real quantum threat is the friends we made along the way

The word theoretically is doing way too much work here. CRQC is never going to happen because it's not physically possible. There is no known physical threat to ECC, including Bitcoin keys. The only threats here are FUD, regulation and self-inflicted mangling of the network.

I think that overstep was more than an overstep and they also neglected mainenance, like fixing the inscriptions hack. Without accusing anyone of anything, I can't help but notice that both the actions and inactions all pointed in the same direction of allowing shitcoinery on the network.

Bitcoin is money. Anything that can be done to tighten parameters to shut down non-monetary uses that crop up or sneak in a unintended consequences of other changes, without breaking existing monetary uses, should be done because that is responsible maintenance.

It narrows the state space, reduces the attack surface and supports keeping the network distributed by keeping the block light.

From a purely technical perspective (I've got no tribal dog here, and my local community if very core-centric, and I am friends with core devs) 110 really looks like a maintenance catch-up after some neglect.

Don't shoot but that's my honest read on the technical picture and somebody who has built and maintained software-based systems for a very long time.

Instead of fighting about this we could be focusing on making sure that 110 is a technically correct tightening of the bolts. No reason it should be anything else.

If there are specific, concrete issues, I am sure they can be fixed if brought to light.

That's insightful because those are the kinds of power games we are swimming in. And it makes sense because Plato and company hated sophistry, which is what you call that game.

But I looked it up and what Plato actually wrote in Phaedrus was this, which he put into the mouth of Socrates.

"I am myself a lover of these divisions and collections, so that I may be able both to speak and to think; and if I find anyone else who I think has the natural capacity to look to one and to many, I pursue him ‘in his footsteps, behind him, as if he were a god’."

Which seem more like straightforward reverence for the skillful intelect, with implicit anti-sophistry. Later he says:

"First, you must perceive the nature of the thing you're discussing... Then, having grasped the single idea that unifies the many particulars (collection), you must next divide it... trying not to mangle any part, as a bad butcher might do."

Bitcoin is money. Invest in yourself.

Many fine people on both sides

Thank you very much! I don't want to inadvertently spread error.