@SkylerByrden
Feel free to steal my memes
No relay list published yet.
Recent Notes
floppy is a deeply irresponsible, immoral and sad person. this is the final chapter of his already ruined reputation.
he’s so deranged that his entire existence revolves around hating cashu. imagin...
After reading that garbage I can comfortably say I hope he just nukes everything with no warning next time.
Bitcoin Core Dumpster Fire
https://blossom.primal.net/2f94c6687c53d6a8d8d840f641a47a0b047d3c73ec2584ff8aa687470aab0c91.mp4
Slay the beast. It’s the only way forward.
No.
You need100% Miners to filter
If the network was 100% Knots and miners continued to include spam they would be risking being rugged and going bankrupt.
Would it be a success if knots were 100% of nodes?
Only temporarily. Even Luke supports multiple well maintained implementations. Right now there’s only one; Knots.
cry harder 😂 https://blossom.primal.net/43c90380e5e98d2b0dd4fe32c175dbcba65cc0a2e195bd32e701cf4ab9a91fe8.jpg
The pow of the hashcash stamp is a fee costing the sender.
The pow of bitcoin ensures no entity can mine every block.
Do you really not understand the distinction?
The pow of bitcoin ensures no entity can mine every block.
Do you really not understand the distinction?
This is a long post that hopefully bridges some gaps between technical people (devs) and non-technical users and how they look at spam prevention in Bitcoin. I hope that it clarifies why I think that ...
The all-or-nothing logical fallacy, also known as the false dichotomy or black-and-white fallacy, occurs when a situation is presented as having only two mutually exclusive options, ignoring any middle ground or alternative possibilities. It oversimplifies complex issues by framing them as an either/or choice, often to manipulate or persuade.
For example:
• “You’re either with us or against us.” This statement ignores the possibility of neutrality or partial agreement.
• “If you don’t support this policy, you must hate progress.” This overlooks nuanced positions or alternative solutions.
This fallacy is problematic because it limits critical thinking and dismisses valid alternatives, leading to flawed reasoning or polarized conclusions. Recognizing it involves identifying when someone presents a situation as having only two extremes without justifying why no other options exist.
For example:
• “You’re either with us or against us.” This statement ignores the possibility of neutrality or partial agreement.
• “If you don’t support this policy, you must hate progress.” This overlooks nuanced positions or alternative solutions.
This fallacy is problematic because it limits critical thinking and dismisses valid alternatives, leading to flawed reasoning or polarized conclusions. Recognizing it involves identifying when someone presents a situation as having only two extremes without justifying why no other options exist.
