Why an Anti-Bitcoin President Is Better for Bitcoin | Knut Svanholm

Awesome episode!

I quit drinking years ago, over a decade, and the thing that helped the most was to think of my desire to drink as this little person inside me, and me beating the shit out of him every time he tried to talk me into cheating. I can say from this experience that everything you said about appetite in this episode was spot on and high signal. I appreciate it.

"distributed authoritarianiam" Wow, what a 🚩by Greg Maxwell, who is perfectly fine with centralized authoritarianism by Core. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, and what it means to run your own node, is a serious problem considering who it's coming from. Turns out "the experts" aren't the experts we thought they were. The way core proponents twist the meaning of censorship and authoritarianism is alarming. Another great discussion. Thanks guys!

Great episode, thanks! Core's main argument (repeated ad nauseum) is filters don't work 100% of the time. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to be as good as possible. Maximum friction for spammers and anyone else who wants to use Bitcoin for non-monetary uses. Of course miners will do anything for money, that's exactly why an op_return limit and other policies are needed, but certain core devs have twisted this around to justify removing one of the few tools available to pleb node operators (the absurdly high v30 default is effectively the same as removal). The point Luke makes at 1:36:40 is particularly good. Core supporters focus on one side of the equation, the spam that gets mined, and ignore what isn't. The thing about deterrents is we can't know how many attacks aren't even attempted at all because a deterrent exists. In the firewall example, at least intrusion attempts can be detected, but the attacks that never happen can't be measured and so are easy to ignore and dismiss. This is one of many flaws in Core's arguments. Thanks again guys!

Really good discussion. The spam issue is still worth talking about and will remain so indefinitely because it's really about fundamental rifts between bitcoin stakeholders. So I'm sympathetic to Tomer's weariness of the topic, but thank you both for slogging through it anyway. The discussion should continue. More battles are on the horizon I think that will fall along the same fault line.

The best example of core going woke was the blackist change in 2020. It's a particularly good example because the PR author explicitly did it for woke reasons: to use a "more appropriate" word and "make everyone happy". Contrary to Murch's claim that core tries to keep conversations technical (around 1:39:00), this PR had no technical justification at all. This was a good conversation, but if anything it made me even more anti-core. A lot of nitpicky weak arguments from Murch, and dismissive hand waving of valid concerns. We know there is more than one core dev, we have read the core arguments and we are still unconvinced. For all Murch's appeals for understanding the core position (I did make it to the end) he seems to have made very little effort to understand the position against this change. I read the "experts" letter, did he read the rebuttals? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19227

Great episode.

Great episode!

Great episode!

Another awesome episode. Thanks Guy!

Awesome discussion. Mechanic's summary at the start was more convincing than anything I've heard in favor of this retarded change. The beginning of the core woke infestation was the PR to remove the word "blacklist" from some test code because, somehow, this word is offensive. All the devs cried "it's no big deal" but I knew at the time it was a bad sign. Now core is a woke cesspool. I will not be running their software anymore.

Well said. As someone who's more anti-core than pro-110, but also a 110 supporter, I agree with Guy's take on this. One thing worth mentioning is that some of the biggest names in Bitcoin development, like @npub1qg8j6gdwp… and sipa, are the worst offenders when it comes to misrepresenting 110 as censorship. It's particularly disappointing these heavy weights can be so wrong about this, and it's impossible not to read bad intentions when they keep pushing the same flawed logic. It definitely works on the midwits though, so not surprised they do it.

The term "sound money" has nothing to do with the noise gold coins make. It comes from the Old English "gesund" meaning strong or healthy. This is why we say "Gesundheit" when someone sneezes. And also why the word is frequently applied to things besides money like "sound reasoning". Robert (and Peter Schiff) uses the incorrect gold coin origin frequently, and it grinds my gears every time. See the adjective section in this link: https://www.etymonline.com/word/sound

I don't know how Saif never gets tired of answering the same five questions. Thank you for your patience and perseverance Saifedean!

A lot of bitcoiners forget we live in meat space where government violence can be used against us. Our courage will be tested.

Lopp, Todd, and Blue Hair Matt, anyone associated with Bitcoin Magazine or Brink, are bad actors. There is zero doubt. They want to enable spam, they want to freeze Satoshi's coins. Enough is enough. If Satoshi's coins are spent by a quantum hacker, then this is what he wants. Who are these clowns to second guess his intentions?

Great rip!

I'd love to see a core fork that is completely developed and maintained by nyms. Satoshi showed us the way, and it's a shame we didn't follow his example and make pseudonymity the defining characteristic of Bitcoin development culture. Any dev who's legal identity is known can be assumed to be compromised at this point.

This was hands down the best pro vs con conversion on bip110 I've heard. It's amazing how productive and informative it can be when both participants debate honestly, attempt to understand each other, and don't resort to cheap shots, insults and straw manning. Thank you gentlemen!

Great episode!

Thanks guys, I look forward to the roundtable every month. Always high signal.

Great conversation. I'm a believer in "strong opinions loosely held'. There's nothing wrong with reassessment and changing your mind at any time, although it doesn't seem like there's any major disagreement with hodlonaut's views and those of BIP-110 supporters. Regardless, I respect his choice to withdraw support. Taking a non-committal view while assessing is always wise. An episode with Giacomo on the topic next would be awesome.

Thanks guys, I really enjoyed this series.

At 54:30, Pete compley loses the plot. Core is making this change not knots. Pointing out the problem doesn't create the problem. Core is creating the problem and ignoring it, as Pete seems to prefer, doesn't make it disappear. It's a truly bizarre argument to blame the messenger. Also there is zero need for knots to ever fork. We just want the ability to configure a limit on op_return. Core certainly wants knots to fork because then their opposition goes away, but there's nothing to be gained in that for knots users.

Thank you for having Lopp on your podcast @npub1mrmu3s588… , it's important that people hear what core v30 is all about. Here are a few notes I made while listening. Hope someone finds them useful. 23:40 Lopp says stopping non-monetary activity is a "relentless cat-and-mouse game of trying to change the rules of Bitcoin". The only people trying to change rules is core. We have an existing mechanism, the datacarriersize option. That's what this whole debate is about. We just want to keep that option as node runners. 29:25 If he wants core to focus on more important things then why don't they drop this PR and leave the option in place with the same default and not deprecated? Again core is the ones making a change here, not knots. 41:52 He casually mentions Citrea. Let's not forget this is what sparked the current push back. This is the VC funded start up that wants this change, and Lopp's involvement is a conflict of interest. Citrea wants this change because it helps Citrea, and Lopp as an investor. No pleb node runner has asked for it. 47:10 Trying to minimize non-monetary data in Bitcoin is not censorship because Bitcoin is a monetary system, not a storage system for arbitrary data. Knots users are pushing back against scope creep. Having a mempool policy to help with this is not the same as censoring a tx for political reasons. These are frequently conflated by Lopp and other core supporters. 49:32 "Yes bitcoin is money, it's also many other things." This is the heart of the entire conflict between core and knots. This is core and Lopp's view of bitcoin, but it will never be mine. This is why options exist, so individuals can have autonomy and set their own mempool policies. This is what he wants removed on behalf of Citrea. If you disagree then run knots.

Whites less likely to own bitcoin than non-whites? Had to rewind and make sure I heard that right.

The more anti-maximalist rhetoric you hear, the closer we are to the next panic induced downturn.

Sats vs bitcoin is annoying but put the blame where it's deserved, which is Dorsey/Square. Maybe paying 900 bitcoin for something isn't confusing to Marty but explain to me how this is good for adoption because it's confusing to everyone else.