Nicely done. Poor man’a brisket, my favorite cut for smoker

Question for your crew:

If it is determined that Jane Street has been manipulating the price of bitcoin, and creating billions in losses in liquidating cascades and lost hodler value, but that manipulation has been done by taking advantage of loopholes which are not well defined or illegal within existing law:

Should the market regulators:
A: define those loopholes and close them immediately
B: open an enormous, almost unlimited “loophole exploiters only” area where they and other market makers can continue to create paper bitcoin and other spoofing strategies to distort the market and kill the inelasticity of Bitcoins fixed cap 21M supply

Fact. Doesnt mean that man has to be the boy’s father but positive, and sometimes hard-nosed mentorship, coaching and love from a father or father figure, creates strong men.

You’re doing your best to gaslight here, particularly after I said I’m not signaling bip-110. You could easily look at the mempool screenshot and draw the conclusion that the taproot enabled workarounds that allowed inscriptions and dust utxo bloat is livable and that fees would drive them out with more L1 use, but also conclude that unilaterally blowing out op-return opens additional unwanted vectors that an 83 byte return didnt. 🤷‍♂️. Balance takes are lost here on both sides but again, you’ve concluded that those trying to learn, assess and decide are retarded if they dont agree with you.

👋. Perhaps you should have read the full text for context…but hey, I’m just a retard so what do I know?

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsg3p2790h0ktwr9n2q4a50qf8m3uvrqvuxkl92cwjhrfw65r59lxczwc8av

No, definitely not. I'm not signaling bip-110 and am still evaluating the technical arguments for both sides....but thanks for the broad assumptions and name calling...it definitely helps with open discourse.

From Loop's piece today, which I'm still digesting: "I believe that our primary goal should be to build / discover enough valuable use cases that we can generate sustainable demand for block space that results in a robust block space market and thus drives enough fee revenue to miners that it offsets the ever-decreasing block subsidy. "

My comment was an observation that one side is interested in a fee market for blockspace (data). Blockspace has value but it doesn't make it "hard money." The other side seems to be working to revert to the principals of hard money...which prop the native token of the blockchain Bitcoin. Taproot and the blowout of opreturn is enabling the fee market for data, but not necessarily hardening the money.

But hey, that just my retarded take. My nodes will signal what I choose when I'm finished with my thorough....some would call it zealous, review.

because one side doesn't think its money

So revert the witness discount AND capping op return seems like a reasonable compromise. Dust moves to op return…but doesnt allow large data sets embedded in op…its a limited capacity dumpster. I assume this would also require a soft-fork to undue parts of segwit. Complicated.