Absolutely not. There's waaaayy too much "building" happening already. That's the problem, as v30 shows us.

We need rock solid digital gold which can be privately teleported worldwide and into the future.

We need something to buy that will hold value and increase in value, to get Freedom Go Up.

We DON'T need all that scammy "building" which ruins bitcoin for what we really need it to be.

You're missing the point.

The point is : now we have an extra hypothesis as to why some of the devs and "influencers" we're pushing for the crazy v30.

It's not about their personal disgusting depravity, it's about the code. Their personal disgusting depravity is relevant to the extent that it's part of the reason behind the push for the crazy code.

Some like to say that Bitcoin is only software. But it's more than that. It's a social phenomenon. The software itself means nothing unless people adopt it and use it. So the social aspects are relevant.

v30 is a socially suicidal change to Bitcoin. The fact that some of those who pushed for those changes are part of a very small minority of depraved maniacs helps explain why they might not even *see* why it's socially suicidal. They're just not normal.

All that means that, going forward, we must be even more cautious about anything they promote.

That's why the Epstein scandal is relevant concerning those devs and influencers.

I was uneasy, for a long time, about Blockstream having an office in Israel. Didn't know what to make of it. It was the first strike.

I was looking up to Adam for a long time. His take on v30 was disappointing to me but it was only the second strike.

Epstein is definitely the third strike.

Whether the pro-v30 like it or not, plebs complaining on social media is also a part of bitcoin's immune system.

“eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”

I'm grateful that she left.

Has the Core team come to their senses on op_return yet, or does the bitcoin price need to go further down?

I agree 100%. If the btc gets stolen, so be it. No preemptive stealing.

Put your foot down for no. And if the kids themselves absolutely want to go and get brainwashed, let them pay for it.

The only alternative would be some kind of online university where the damage might be less.

Maybe there is a unicorn country out there where the university people are still normal, but I'm not sure.

The poor cats obviously don't have EMF meters.

What's the issue? Why do you want to "censor" my 500 MB gifs? You should download them for free and relay them for free for me.

/sarc

Do we have any third implementation that would simply be conservative?

Just a v28 with only patches in case of network-threatening bugs?

I'd like to support that kind of third implementation. Might as well use those sats while they still hold some value...

I went back and forth on your arguments for a while.

- I don't think govs should have reserves. If they can save, it just means they stole too much and should give it back. If they insist on pumping my bags, I'll take it, but I wouldn't vote for that.

- For public corporations : I would just abolish securities laws. I would let the private market figure it out. And since I'm really not someone who would ever invest in a public corporation, I guess it's hard to imagine what I would prefer to invest in.

But proof of reserves means publishing the public key, which is a security risk if you have billions sitting on that address. If you say you'll move the funds afterwards, it defeats the purpose because it could just be moving funds around (people do that all the time in the fiat world to qualify for mortgages or visas, etc).

And again, it's not proof of liabilities.

Even more importantly, it's not proof of the "legalese". I can control an address but have signed a contract that makes that bitcoin vulnerable to The Great Taking (David Webb explains really well the interaction of UCC section 8 and bankruptcies).

Basically, it's security theater.