Author of “Modern Chains.” Catholic. Husband. Father of two. Former Army Officer, AH-64 Pilot. BS in Art, Literature and Philosophy from the US Military Academy. MA in Philosophy from Holy Apostles College and Seminary.
Public Key
npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 Profile Code
nprofile1qqsr3gwdr05shx5f35jpthqsrhcgwrc4kuh2y0xmpt0647kgp5p06zgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsdnjnt5
Show more details
Published at
2026-06-24T04:57:30Z Event JSON
{
"id": "ffc26a03a6215f1b08edd111ff9c71535814d57a0085d90edeb5aad9a3acdf5a" ,
"pubkey": "38a1cd1be90b9a898d2415dc101df0870f15b72ea23cdb0adfaafac80d02fd09" ,
"created_at": 1782277050 ,
"kind": 0 ,
"tags": [],
"content": "{\"display_name\":\"Neal BIP110\",\"name\":\"hylomorphic\",\"lud16\":\"[email protected] \",\"banner\":\"https:\\/\\/blossom.primal.net\\/d76d0ddf4f017f56ebbe1fd95095a9d2a42e2e42bce415c1e55d57510ebf5d8c.jpg\",\"website\":\"https:\\/\\/www.modernchains.com\\/\",\"nip05\":\"[email protected] \",\"about\":\"Author of “Modern Chains.”\\nCatholic. Husband. Father of two.\\nFormer Army Officer, AH-64 Pilot. \\nBS in Art, Literature and Philosophy from the US Military Academy. \\nMA in Philosophy from Holy Apostles College and Seminary.\",\"picture\":\"https:\\/\\/blossom.primal.net\\/3cb6c0e18be5a6dc40f018dcfe5ac0a245b52ee48dc911550932d1b7dccb7755.jpg\",\"lud06\":\"\"}" ,
"sig": "18fc069930901d2cc1496c3a12be035a8e67e34a9262e0baa263a684ef22b76df7c8eaf92d3b3824c47d8fa3407a90f9fd7185bebe79012d677913c6f105d20c"
}
Last Notes npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic if they tried another 110, i would run it becuase it’s better specs npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic it played out, and 110 didn’t have enough. the outcome doesn’t change the decision making process. still no one can argue on “X protocol rules are better for how transact on the network than Y protocol rules for Z reason” the anti-110 side won, but not sure many even know that that’s good for them npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqs9hmkdxk7d97fees65q23zc24h7l833wl7wg3t9w698xzxa6nvapgurqq8u yup npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic if nodes don’t control the network, then how does the network remain decentralized? #asknostr npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic For anyone in opposition or on the fence about 110, if you cannot point to how 110’s tighter limits inhibit your use of the network, then perhaps you don’t have a principled reason to oppose it. Dare I say, 110 probably better serves your interests. https://blossom.primal.net/2e393c659362d94579f4fa58cf5cb1f0e4c2c45395416526c62af96324f3f4f6.jpg npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic baffles the mind the things that must be said today npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic my primal has been glitchy and slow. i wouldn’t have been surprised if it messed up. keep saying what you gotta say. people are listening 🫡 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic my primal has been glitchy and slow. i wasn’t going to be surprised if it didn’t work. i should have just found a note lol if you keep having things to say, say them. people are listening 🫡 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic 👍 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic Why would anyone want a non-110 block? 110 blocks have better specs. What does a non-110 block do better than a 110 block? #asknostr npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic was looking again, 110 does cap UTXOs to 34 bytes, so spamming UTXO would still be marginally more expensive than it is currently, but again, it’s still not the cheapest way to get the data onchain and people wanting to put their spam/scam in a UTXO have some other incentive superseding the pure “economic” cost of the transaction npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic will have to wait and see npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic so the fake pub key thing is always going to be a thing with current address types. with or without 110, hostile actors that want to blow up the UTXO set can and will if they want. nothing we can do about it. the big OP return doesn’t do anything to mitigate that anyways. so 110 doesn’t stop it but the 100,000 OP returns don’t either. i would rather take the win, close up what we can with this opportunity, and work on solutions to mitigate exploiting current address types for me, 110 doesn’t create more of an incentive for the UTXO bloat. if spammers just want data onchain cheap, they can hash huge files and throw the hash in the OP_Return, i think the people that do the harmful stuff get off harming something beautiful imo. i know that’s not a perfect answer/solution, but it’s always trade offs that’s just how i’m thinking about it npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic sorry i wasn’t clear on the point about “would "immediately URSF"” i mean i would start to build support and find a shelling point to actively prevent the harm. in order to preserve stability and order against something, i would try and rally the troops and like up across from the bad UASF. apples to apples, head to head I have thought this stage of the battle through, and i’m still working through a lot of all the scenarios from the best to the worst cases. atm, i do agree with u if there is a close but drawn out chain split, i think 110 prevails cause it is stronger. if 110 dies in the vine, it gets a little harder for me to decide right now. i have a never negative reaction to the possibility of changing PoW, i would be of a mind to try and try and sell people in a better BIP again, to save the chain. but i’m still working through that. i respect greatly that you have already gotten your ducks in a row. it took me too long to figure this first step out npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic yeah, if 110 broke something monetary, you could say it, point at at, but it doesn’t. most all the people i interact with, when i ask them how they use bitcoin, it’s just to make normal transactions. they are completely uneffected, wouldn’t know if we soft forked 110 or not. the people screaming have some other thing they are wanting to do, some other interest, and are trying to convince me to go along. they just throw out all this bs about censorship, neutrality, or stopping spam trying to get to forget about asking why do YOU yourself even use bitcoin in the first place i’ll carry my own water thank you not carrying water so someone can scam npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic Why I’m Running BIP 110 I needed to make this video because the conversation around BIP 110 has become mostly rhetorical clamor. I want to sound out my thought process. I want to put it on the record to dampen the noise, raise the dialectic signal, and give people something concrete to challenge. Each of us must decide which action best serves our own interests. Every action has an end. You act because there’s some state of the world you want to bring about. Everything you choose to do has an aim. So I’m not here to engage in debate for sport. I argue and fight because I want to find the strongest arguments possible to inform my decisions. I need the tension of the strongest opposing arguments pushing on each other because I have a responsibility to myself and a duty to my family. They depend on my judgment and my leadership. I cannot afford to make decisions out of tribal loyalty, social pressure, or vibes. I am a philosopher who studies ethics. I WILL not take a deliberate action I cannot ground in principle. Put another way, I must be able to articulate WHY I ought to take a certain course of action. It’s just not enough for me to say, “That thing is bad, so I’ll just do this other thing.” I need an affirmative case to base an honest cost-benefit analysis. What do I gain? What do I give up? What risk am I accepting for what prize? So what does any of this have to do with Bitcoin and BIP 110? Bitcoin is software. Yes. But nobody runs software in the abstract. You freely choose to run it because you want it to do something for you. The software itself has no intentions, but the protocol isn’t neutral about validity. A protocol draws lines, defines boundaries, and sets the parameters of what is accepted and what is rejected. Protocols enforce rules which means enforcement is inherently NOT neutral. This has been one of the biggest issues short-circuiting the logic of discourse. Bitcoin’s neutrality is emergent from its decentralized, open, and permissionless access for any person to participate within its boundaries. We cannot afford to conflate bitcoin’s neutrality with protocol enforcement. You and I can run Bitcoin for different reasons, but neither of us runs it for no reason. We either arrive at that reason deliberately, or we outsource the thought to an authority, instinct, appetite, or fear. The act of running bitcoin software is imbued with purpose: a teleological imprint. Every accepted block is the product of purposeful human action. The decision to validate, accept, and build upon that proof of work affirms “The enforcement of these protocol boundaries serves my interests.” The seeming paradox of “bitcoin is adaptive” and “bitcoin is immutable” resolves without contradiction when you realize adaptation is collectively bounded by individual self-interest. We feed Bitcoin our separate interests, Nakamoto consensus arbitrates among them, and out of that comes collective order. That is Bitcoin’s unique power. It finds the common good in the mess of competing self-interest. When someone uses the term “consensus” to mean broad vocal approval, social agreement, or support, that’s clumsy at best and gaslighting at worst. Bitcoin protocol consensus is ultimately expressed through action on the network. People say, “I don’t have to do anything. I can just sit out and watch. Tick-tock, next block.” Fine. But sitting out doesn’t remove you from the consequences. Through your supposed “inaction,” you delegate your sovereign agency to the people who are “in action.” You allow yourself to be pulled behind the wagon. Maybe that’s a tradeoff you consciously accept. But that is not a neutral position. You are just letting others affirm and enforce the boundaries. So, after all of that, why am I running BIP 110? I run and use Bitcoin software to fight against fiat and central banking. I recognize them as modern implements of economic bondage: formal slavery. Over my dead body am I going to pass that burden to my children without fighting it. Bitcoin is the best tool I have for that fight. So everything I do in Bitcoin serves that end. Every protocol decision comes back to the same question: Does this make me a more effective fighter against the people and institutions that would have us in chains? For nearly a year, I’ve followed this issue. I’ve searched for the strongest arguments on both sides. I’ve engaged the leading voices whenever I could get their attention. I separated each argument from the personality making it. And for someone as focused on principles as I am, this has been dreadful work. Most of the arguments dwell on the smell of the flower, or the emotional significance of the way the sun glistens on the leaves. I don’t give a shit about any of that. Show me the roots. What principle is feeding the whole thing? I am not intimidated by big names or technical jargon. I am not impressed by cleverly dancing around issues. I just trace the principles through all the particular arguments. Is the argument logically valid? Is it sound and compelling? If the principles ground out, I can judge them on their merits. If the principles never ground out, then it’s modern sophistry. Take the endless argument about “cEnSoRShIp.” Enforcing protocol boundaries cannot, by itself, be the definition of censorship. Because if it is, resolve the performative contradiction right now. Turn off your node and don’t comment. Your node is already “censoring” transactions and preventing somebody from gladly paying a miner to put something on chain. I cannot entertain non-rational performative contradictions. The same goes for the endless semantic loops around “What is spam?” and “How do we stop it?” Round and round we go, ignoring the root question: Which protocol boundaries best serve the end for which I run Bitcoin? And no, I don’t think Bitcoin simply dies if BIP 110 fails. Until Bitcoin is dead, until it is no longer the best tool I have to fight against fiat, I will wield it toward that end. So here I am. Just a man, a husband, and a father. Facing my finitude, with imperfect knowledge, unable to predict every actor and future consequence. The fog of war is real, but I still have to lead. I still have to act. I still have to choose. Waiting for omniscience is not an option. The best I can do is ground my action in a principle. In one word, that principle is defensibility. Come block height 961,632, there will only be two doors in front of me, and I have to go through one. There is no pause button, tick-tock, next block. Two sets of protocol rules in front of me: BIP 110 and non-BIP 110. Every block is a breath, a heartbeat of the network affirming itself. No step forward escapes scrutiny simply because you scrutinized the last one. The battlefield develops, and I still need a deliberate reason to continue on path. Why ought I enforce these rules rather than the alternative? As I understand, BIP 110 tightens the rules. It restricts the boundaries, tightens tolerances, reduces the set of states the protocol will accept. I grant, it does not follow that “more restrictive” automatically means “better.” The rule set could become so tight it removes some valuable capability. There are always tradeoffs, and each individual makes their own judgment. All else equal, tighter validity boundaries give an attacker fewer permissible avenues inside the rules. So I ask myself a very simple question: If I were a hostile attacker like a central bank, a nation-state, or anybody else threatened by Bitcoin, which chain would I rather attack? The BIP 110 chain or the non-BIP 110 chain? Unless someone can show me a specific weakness introduced by BIP 110, or a specific defensive capability BIP 110 destroys, as a hostile attacker, I would prefer to attack the non-BIP 110 chain. Its boundaries are more permissive. I understand that doesn’t mean BIP 110 makes bitcoin invulnerable. It doesn’t mean I know every possible attack. It means that, in principle, at the protocol boundary, BIP 110 is either equally defensible or more defensible than the non-BIP 110 chain. That is the affirmative benefit I can put on the scale. By running BIP 110, all else equal, I gain defensibility: a real advantage. So what are the tradeoffs? What do I give up? Or put affirmatively: What advantage does non-BIP 110 have over BIP 110? What concrete benefit is worth trading away BIP 110’s defensibility advantage? Name the capability. Name the property. Give me a real, principled benefit I can actually put on the other side of the scale. When I was speaking with Wicked about this the other day, he said he didn’t see the threat, wasn’t going to be strong-armed into a protocol change and wasn’t falling for the bluff. I understand the sentiment. I really do. But those answers don’t help me do the cost-benefit analysis. They don’t inform my decision-making process. They don’t put anything real on the other side of the scale. They don’t give me anything to weigh against the defensibility I gain from BIP 110. There is risk and uncertainty with all action, and come activation height, it’s one protocol or the other. I understand both protocols carry risk, and there is no escaping the choice. So how do I choose? The analogy that came to mind was Russian roulette. The revolver represents the additional exposure non-BIP 110 asks me to retain: the broader valid state space. I cannot see into the cylinder. Maybe it’s empty. Maybe there is one round. Maybe it is fully loaded. I do not know. What do I win for playing? Risk can be rational when the prize is worth it. So what is the prize? What does non-BIP 110 give me that BIP 110 takes away? What does non-BIP 110 do better than BIP 110? Maybe there is an extraordinary benefit worth the exposure. Fine. Put it on the scale. But if nobody can articulate a sound, principled case for that benefit, then I have no reason to take on the additional risk. All the logically invalid arguments, rhetorical appeals, and emotionally charged ad hominems do not tip the scale. And to be clear, I’m not saying tighter is always better. Maybe next year somebody proposes a soft fork that tightens the protocol so much it would choke Bitcoin to death. Eighty-three-byte blocks. Whatever. If a proposed change harmed my interests, harmed my family’s interests, or damaged Bitcoin’s ability to fight fiat, I would oppose it. I would URSF it immediately. I would try to kill the proposal in the cradle, before it could muster any momentum at all. That’s why I have such a hard time understanding the lack of a URSF response to BIP 110. I keep hearing: “Only zero to one percent of blocks are signaling.” “It isn’t worth the effort.” “Maybe if it gets to thirty percent, then we fight it.” That just doesn’t make any sense to me. That is not how I fight something I genuinely believe hurts me. If a proposal threatens the thing I’m trying to defend, I don’t wait until it becomes stronger before I resist it. I confront it early, while the cost of resistance is lower. So here we are. If you made it this far and you’re mad at me for running BIP 110, I don’t know what to tell you other than win me over with a better argument. Show me the affirmative benefit of the non-BIP 110 chain. Show me how the non-BIP 110 chain is better money. Show me the risk BIP 110 introduces. Show me the principle I’ve missed. Give me something real that I can measure defensibility against. Activation height is coming. The blocks won’t stop for you. If you do not deliberately make a choice, you are just letting others make it for you. Since I have duties to myself and my family, that is not an option for me. I will not outsource that responsibility and then pretend I remained sovereign. Nakamoto consensus is a collective sausage made from individuals putting their own interests on the chopping block. So here I am, putting mine out there. Know your end. Know the prize. Know what you gain, and know what you’re giving up. Ground your action in principle. Ask yourself, “what do I use bitcoin for?” Verify for yourself that your actions align with your interests. Ensure you are driven by a genuine argument and not some sophisticated propaganda pushed by people trying to get you to carry their water. Whether BIP 110 wins or loses, the work ahead is practically the same. The fight against fiat continues, just under different conditions. I don’t pretend to know the future behavior of every network participant. But I know what action I’m going to take. And most importantly, I know why. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic that boring it puts you to sleep 😂 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic peer to peer 🫡 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic Why I’m Runnint BIP 110. https://blossom.primal.net/f7f51bab4f0f5cee1885422674aa34659fb1a3436dd0320aed0857e605d917d0.mp4 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic protocols enforcing boundsries is not censorship, period so tedious npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic i think everyone is pursing their interests. everyone runs software they like not really sure something that can be universally applied to a domain means much of anything. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic ok 2021 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic from my view it’s backwards, the filtering will always happen with relay policy. tightening protocol parameters, moving the boundary envelopes simplifies the types of transactions allowed. people using crazy “op_if 1 = 0 then (arb data) is just crazy to me. simply saying, the way the protocol was in 23 is better for the network than it is now, doesn’t compel me to think it’s some grave mistake. if it became changing the protocol consensus every month, then i would not support that because that would be more like trying to “filter” and i’ve been working through these issues with everyone else for over a year. we can only do what we think serves us best. that’s what makes bitcoin bitcoin npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic For me it all turns on defensibilty. 110 is either ≥ legacy legacy is either ≤ 110 with 110, we can win more defensibilty with legacy, we can win _____ How do you fill in the blank? Why should I play russian roulette? #asknostr #BIP110 #core #bitcoin npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic nakamoto consensu is sausage made from everyone putting their dick on the chopping block it’s not about being right or wrong it’s about putting it out there npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic Summary of back and forth i had yesterday: -110 censors, dont adopt110 if 110 censors, then legacy censors too -but legacy is legit censorship why is that? -it has adoption but that’s arguing don’t adopt 110 becuase it hasn’t been adopted.. how could it get adoption if not adopted? -….. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic For the people who don't like conflict and the BIP110 war, just know it is necessary. It's a gift to both sides, no matter who comes out on top. If you don't test your ideas against proof of work and put them in the fire, you have no fucking clue what they are really made of. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic From my view and participation in BIP110 dialog, it seems like all the tension is related to people processing the seeming paradox of a dynamic relation producing immutabley stable effects consensus is alive, it can change or adapt every block but we say 21M is fixed it’s fixed insofar as it is locked by incentives and self interest we participate with the network with action: running nodes, mining, transacting, hodling we feed it our self interest, and the consensus rules that emerge are the collective good of the network. how people act within consensus is “free market” and how people set consensus is “free market” both are good and necessary people doing valid things now dont like the idea of those things not being consensus in the future. other people think current consensus doesn’t serve them well and want different things to be consensus in the future neither is “bad” for the process the consensus rules remain or change by the people voluntarily running software that serves their self interest, as expressed by the main chain. i run 110 cause i think it serves my interests best. and thats ok if others don’t agree. all we have to agree on is the main chain is always right if it expresses something different than you think is best, it’s right and ur wrong, and that’s ok. it came up with a better answer for the collective good you could. i guess all im trying to say is it’s ok to be passionately opposed to others self interest, if u understand how bitcoin is processesing everyone’s self interest to produce a collective good, you don’t have to be scared or fearful of the output. 110 will either change consensus rules or it won’t. either case, bitcoin is doing what bitcoin does, it’s not ded, and there is no need to cry cause it does what it can only do. it’s stupid to say people advocating for their self interest is going to destroy bitcoin it’s stupid to say any change is going to kill bitcoin the censorship arguments are preformative contradictions the “what’s spam?” “what’s monetary?” “what’s arbitrary?”questions are answered by the protocol itself the free market is action is a domain and a establishes the boundary of the domain these things are not contradictions, even if they “seem” paradoxical npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic #bitcoin ‘s consensus is an expression of collective self-interest. I think not understanding that dynamic relation is the principled root cause of all #BIP110 contention. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic i think touring ukrainian weapon facilities have him an erection that lasted more than 4 hours. little heart couldn’t take it npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic Hunter Beast is making the technical argument that there are extremely sophisticated attack vulnerabilities which enforcing people to chunk data protects against. all spam bs aside, 110 prevents those attacks and is necessary Hunter Beast is making the technical argument that there are extremely sophisticated attack vulnerabilities which enforcing people to chunk data protects against. all spam bs aside, 110 prevents those attacks and is necessary i totally understand that there are legitimate reasons to be against 110, but I would also say there legitimate reasons to be for 110 as well. the clash of steelmen is more competitive that the meme npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic yeah, 1 is a reality check. 2 is a trade off judgment call, and honestly i can respect anyone’s call on 2 if they accept 1. 3 follows from 2 if we cant agree on a common frame of the issue, we cant have a productive dia-logos it’s just a sterile exercise npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic what is the issue with this line of reasoning: 1) acknowledge 100k makes network less defensible that 83. 2) acknowledge benefit of 100k < defense of 83 3) acknowledge BIP110 > current consensus rules #asknostr #bitcoin #nostr #core #knots #BIP110 #v30 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic arbitrary only if u deny telos that’s the principle behind any non-arbitrary boundary. The “why” behind the line. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic hmmm. I think there a distinction in the two: the meaning of “what happens” is only intelligible within a context of purpose. where as “why speed of light is constant” doesn’t require a purpose to answer or phrased differently, i think the outputs of those questions belong to different categories. would have to think more on that, very interesting stuff needless to say npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “we should ask what the physics of Bitcoin requires” we need the “why” i think “what’s” have taken us as far as they can npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic people choosing what software to run, miners choosing what chain to mine on you’re right.. so much tyranny Ironically, ur arguing if people run software that you don’t want them to run, that’s somehow a “power grab” npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “bullying” has a negative connotation i don’t think is accurate to reality. miners, nodes, and users all work together in unison, but they are not equals. node runners have to be point man, if they are not the conductor, the ensemble will sound like shit we will see how it plays out, but i don’t know what principles reason a miner would have to not mine BIP110 compliant blocks. if they had a URSF we would have a more accurate score card, but as is, act activation block height, if u a miner if you don’t click the button, other miners could blow u up, but if u click the button, you are safe. if there is no URSF, we will only know after the fact. and honestly i wont be surprised by either outcome i think we don’t get a chain split and switch to BIP110, and that’s cause i couldn’t get anyone to provide me with a valid principled answer to why v30 was good without contradicting themselves. maybe the miners have one. but i can only go off the best arguments i can gather npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “how miners act” 💯 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic the same principles used to justify core v30 can be used to justify BIP110 the same principles used against BIP110 can be used against v30. my arbitrary line in the sand is no different than your arbitrary line in the same. both sides are drawing lines in the sand, but one side pretends they aren’t. even if ignore the principles driving the line drawing and compare the lines as equally valid, which they aren’t, but if we do, there are real tradeoffs to both. core v30 advocates point at a “technical” optimization and ignore trade off cost on the other side. BIP110 advocates at least address the true costs on both sides of the line. censorship, what’s spam, what’s non-monetary and every other tired argument thrown out there to justify v30 destroys itself by its own logic. i tried steelmanning the case for v30 for about a year. asking every v30 proponent that i could catch their ear to articulate the principles. that’s just my findings. if the principles are out there, i couldn’t find them, and adam back, lopp, wicked, rearden, shinobi and mr hodl couldn’t articulate them either in a philosopher, ill go whereever the best arguments presented take me. so am always open to hearing arguments. its my practice of steelmanning both sides and sending them against each other before i decide anything. not sure if thats dumbed down or not, but the best i can do npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic they are caught in performative contradictions. the principled structure underpinning their position is either not accounted for at best, or denied at worst. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic the incoherence of core advocacy comes from the fact that what carries their thought doesn’t appear in what they think. modern day sophists npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic most people talk that way, but when it comes up natural u don’t notice. when its the same form/pattern over and over and over, that’s sticks out npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic sats left the wallet, but not showing in poll.. hmm npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “If every permanently stored bit imposes the same physical burden on every node forever, then every bit should compete under the same economic rules.” 💯❤️🔥🔥 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic pro tip: make ur fire pit smokeless cheap and easy DIY npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic Must not have met many Catholics that’s ok. all the technical mumbo jumbo sits on invalid logic. here is a story to depict the error in reasoning. there was an open barn surrounded by a fence with a 80 bit gate. it does not follow logically that because the barn is open, you should tear down the gate. core v30 tore down the gate BIP110 puts a door on the barn, because v30 took down the gate. if core reverted their change, we wouldn’t need a door, because there is a gate. none of the big wig v30 advocates could articulate a principled reason why removing the gate is good for the network. it’s good for a few individuals, at the cost of the other network participates(miners, nodes, users) miners ultimately have to choose also, you keep saying hard fork, but that’s not true npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic Ad hominems just can’t be all of one’s argument. applied like salt to a nice tenderloin you should try some tenderloin btw they’re still fun, especially when true npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic lol you’re a vegan 😂 explains why ur immune to logic npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “functionally the same” don’t tilt at windmills Bitcoin wasn’t bad on10-9-23. and making bitcoin on 10-9-23 consensus isn’t bad either. satoshi used relay policy to address data usage on chain. v30 said nah so consensus is the arbiter npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic he was also the one who made the first filter. what was functionally accomplished with relay policy prior to v30, is functionally the same accomplished at consensus with BIP110 just because you say the word “technical” does not supercede logic npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic you are still limiting what I can put in my transaction. why are u limiting me? npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic I can understand why some people want 100k relay policy limit. Why would wanting a limit other than 100k make someone a bad actor? npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic but they didn’t remove the limit, they moved the limit to 100k. So what’s the “technical” reason for 100k? why not 50k? why not 200k why not 4mb? you haven’t thought about the principles driving the decisions. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic if you use100k OP_Return just run core v30+ if you have no need for OP_Return over 80 then signal for BIP110 with ur node npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic analyzed from first principles, both sides are advocating for a limit. but only one side acknowledges that. BIP110 the v30 side is stuck in a performative contradiction every time they open their mouth on the issue. they can’t answer “why not 200k?” or “why not 4mb” BIP110 at least has a logically valid and rational justification. for 80. sure, maybe some other number for the limit is optimal, but it’s the failure of v30 to produce one valid argument for why 100k is the correct limit. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic I think as long as money remains a means ultimately aiding us to our final end, God, we can confidently walk forward through our lives. When money becomes the end, it’s an idol and it can only lead to misery. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic something like that. Money enables us to coordinate human action with people you don’t know, would never have the opportunity to get to know, and have no concrete reason to “trust” npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic when relay policy functionally prohibited OP_Return >80, there was no problem. but if protocol consensus functionally prohibits OP_Return >80, there is a big problem? You do also realize v30 limits OP_Return? I can’t make a 2mb OP_Return :’( I’m being censored. I want to pay the miner but the oppression! the limiting principle is the same on both sides. each side has to make an affirmative case for why they drew the limiting line where they did. So why do you think 100k is the right limit? why not 200k? or 4mb? npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “if we are to have an honest debate, we need consensus on semantics” completely agree I also completely agree with you on your diagnosis of how woefully incomplete our use of the term “money” is. I’m always striving to apply the aristotelian/thomistic principles to get an account of “the whole” so understanding the 4 causes ans how they relate is always my basic starting point. material is all physical/digital attributes of the medium. yawn. formal the 3 functions, Sov, MoR, UoA, yawn. effecient the act of exchange, similarly yawn. and like you are getting at, the final cause, final end, ultimate purpose of money is where is gets interesting. money is what creates abstracts the bonds of human relations at scale. its purpose is to shape how we relate to each other as a society/civilation. a household doesn’t require money for parents to relate to children. even a tribe has no need for it, everyone knows everyone else as a particular concrete person. but when you scale past dunbars 150ish people, you can only relate to others in the abstract. and i think that’s where the memory stuff really hits home. that’s what we are writing about. the interesting depths I think we are both keyed in on the same horizon and headed in a similar converging direction, just coming at it from different places. I’m with you on your last post. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic i do not know the answer. for me personally, on principle, i would argue “no” on the basis of what “arbitrary” means. but i accept that there are externalities i cannot see, and open to “yes” so some smaller amount, which does not expose the networks belly, is probabilistically optimal. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic Ironically, both sides of the v30 vs BIP110 debate use the same principle to establish a limit. The only difference is the accident of what the limit is: 80 vs 100k If one limit is “cEnSoRInG” then so too is the other. “I want to make a full block single transaction and am willing to pay a miner for it. How dare the network censor me!” Arguing the limit of 80 censors while the 100k limit does not is a performative contradiction. It’s non-rational and invalidates itself. No matter what possible limit is in place, they all are subject to the same scrutiny. What are the tradeoffs? Why not 160? Why not 100k? Why not 200k? Why not 4mb? Hell, why not 8mb? What are the benefits? Why is the limit placed were it is? Why is the placement best for the network? What changed? Before v30, relay policy functionally prohibited OP_Return >80. There was no issue then. If protocol consensus enforces the same functional prohibition, why is that an issue now? These questions require affirmative answers and would have answers if we were engaged in good faith rational discourse. That’s the principled root at the bottom driving this entire mess. It’s probably the only producive debate anyone could have. All the other shit is a literal circus. 🤮 @nprofile…5hgl @nprofile…hw9w @nprofile…stwk @nprofile…ql08 @nprofile…xxx2 @nprofile…g6jt @nprofile…y689 @nprofile…wncc @nprofile…tnt2 @nprofile…tqyx @nprofile…c90s @nprofile…hqk9 @nprofile…krmc #BIP110 #v30 #Core #knots #bitcoin #nostr npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “paying for the bits” everything has a essence, and with tools those essences are functions. the thing they do. satoshi made it perfectly clear the design is to function as money, the UTXOs as cash. that is not to say it can’t do other things as well, but it does establish a hierarch of functional purpose. you can use an axe to drive in a stake but it comes at the cost of chopping. discussing those tradeoffs is a legitimate discussion, i would never dismiss anything out of hand. it’s always been about the tradeoffs, and even v30’s limit of 100k betrays this. why 100k? why not 200k or why not just open it up entirely to the full block? why not double the block size? all these questions have answers implicitly, but no one advocating for v30 ever said them outloud. what is the principle driving this limit? the 100k limit inherently means that >100k would be worse than 100k. so in your garden analogy, it’s not about identifying types of weeds. it’s just saying for every carrot you want to plant, you get X amount of space to do whatever you want with, plant anything or nothing. there are trade offs associated with every number you could answer with. v30 doesn’t allow a person to fill the entire block with one 4mb transaction, even if they would pay the miner for it. is that bad? ironically, the driving principle is idenitcal on both sides of the debate. Both use the same principle to establish a limit. If one side is “cEnSoRInG” then so too is the other. the only difference is the accident of what the limit is. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic acouple different angles to hit the same principe. for the first one i’ll hit the surface lvl practical side. before v30, relay policy functionality prohibited OP_Returns greater than 80. there was no issue with this. no baby or bathwater dilemma. if we move that functional prohibition from relay policy to protocol consensus, what’s the difference? where is the baby and bathwater? npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “This the distinction between monetary vs non-monetary is fiat.” the spending of a UTXO is the monetary distinction, so all transactions on bitcoin are monetary. a transaction isn’t monetary because you paid a miner to pick it up, it’s monetary because you are spending UTXOs. but that is not the issue. arbitrary means discretionary, meaning it literally doesn’t matter at all what is in it. OP-Return is non-monetary by design, those bits do not spend UTXOs. it can have nothing in it, it can be full of text, or anything. it rides ontop of the monetary transaction. the issue in contention is what parameters (ie size) for the arbitrary data are best for the network. 0 ? 40? 80? 100k? 4mb?? if a person cannot make the affirmative case for why they think a specific number is best for the network, they aren’t tall enough to ride. if i really care about embedding data in the place that doesn’t care about the data, i have no legs to stand on in opposition if people want to make reduce the size of the place. and i think that’s where people get it wrong on both sides about the “fuck you bits” the monetary bits moving UTXOs are fuck you bits the arbitrary bits are arbitrary it doesn’t matter what anyone puts in the OP_Return. the content doesn’t matter. if the content mattered, then its censorship the consensus change is about size, not content. yes, if the size is smaller, certain content can’t fit, but that’s not the change i have no use at all for arbitrary bits, and would be perfectly served if the data carrier limit was 0. but i think a small allowance for arbitrary data, 40-80 bits is probably better for the network as a whole. anything beyond that i think introduces risk to the network and hurts network performance. and why i run BIP110 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “To me Bitcoin is both Physical and Metaphysical.” 👀 You are keying in on main theme our book. A topic which breadth is only rivaled by its depth. Stories are important, and as language can never escape metaphor, it is true that everything is a type of story in some way. I’m overly cautious as modernity has trained people grip stories with both hands and lose the one hand gripping reality. ie. Noah Hararri “Sapiens” et al. one of the main reasons i love bitcoin, it is a re-assertment off reality. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic It’s easy to fall into focusing on “similarities.” “This is like that” you can say a lot of true things that mean little to nothing. Philosophy is all about making the right distinctions. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “shouldn’t” is a category error. businesses have to serve the needs of the market else they cease to exist, minus some central planning type subsisies. also “cost more” in what terms? npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic politics makes sense once you realize the purpose of “political squabbling” is to distract people and obfuscate what the monetary system is doing. #bitcoin npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic welp, spaceboi is literally retarded. “cAn’TteLlWhATsPaMIS” isn’t even a midwit response i’m sorry he can’t tell the difference between a whale and an gorilla. the object of censorship is the content of what’s being said, sent etc and by whom. the object of filtering is the form, size, or shape. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic i need to get to that too. got the server set up and my node running. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic privacy, like freedom, is a means not and end in itself reality is the ultimate public domain. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic that’s odd, it’s a poll but i only see one option to select. good thing the only answer allowed is the right answer npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic The main point of my advocacy is showing people that the money isn’t broken. the title of that book has sent people down the wrong path in terms of advocacy. macro is noise. ignores the essence of money. majoring in the minors describes when u need prescription economics is gay if you don’t understand the ethics it derives from npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic all these are downstream effects of the federal reserve system the lengths they go to keeping their dream of papering over reality alive npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic 40th time is the charm! npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic i remember going to tbr midnight showing for matrix 2. it was on a school night too lol npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic morality is direction, not the sophistication or magnitude of a vector. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic 💯 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic as a neutral party, it stretches credulity into the absurd to think the better team walked away with the W tonight. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic your life itself was given. you were born from relation, into relation, and will do the to your children. the “State” means a million things to a million people. but what it is essentially is relation. it’s non-rational thinking “the State” could be dissolved or erased. the sooner people realize all issues concerning “the State” are directional snd not categorical, the sooner bad actors lose their useful idiots. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic start9 is the best npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic peter mccormack said “you would get along with my bitcoin friends.” so my money is on “not yet” he definately understands the federal reserve system npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic 💯 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic humans are finite, yes. but truth and lies are directions, not a carrying capacity npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic you and hundreds of thousands of people npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic the idea it’s extreme to say “let’s make consensus match what relay policy has been for over a decade” is an inversion that proves the people in bitcoin arent immune to clown world i’ve engaged in good faith to listen and ask many top core v30 advocates how the changes to data carrier size help me, the pleb node runner on a btc standard. i get why the changes help them do the things they want to do. but they dont help me and if you aren’t actively making use of large OP returns, then it doesn’t help u either. Just be honest with yourself with why you use bitcoin, what purpose does it serve you, and then run software that aligns that best serves you. just make a conscious decision each one of us have a responsibility to ourselves, to serve our interests npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic I’m not numb, as in there is a feeling there that is being snuffed out. i am happy to be free, to be outside of fiat. on a bitcoin standard, im always better off. either my savings power is ripping or my purchasing power. thats the best thing about being on a btc standard. subsume the. volatility. make it yours. you can’t do that if you think of btc as an investment. that’s still using a fiat dollar denominator. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic If you still have the feels for the fiat price of bitcoin, quell any anxiety knowing that bitcoiners set the fiat floor. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “Would all energy fall into the form of money because of exchange?” No. not all energy is an exchange between persons. two rational creatures, exercising their will, creating purpose and meaning. these are all immaterial phenomenon physics cannot account for, but are still necessarily true and real. different category than the rock rolling down the hill. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic we can cut the word “widely” it’s a wiggle word and not necessary the act of exchange itself is what brings money into existence npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic if a well armed society is a polite society, how polite would society be if we each had a killdozer? 🤔 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic what do they have you on? npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic most people are reliably unable to show up on time. does that count? 🤣 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic i tip my hat to you always such a smooth delivery npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic every human being is a moral agent by nature it’s a persons mode of being to think in terms of “good” “bad” “better” “worse” that’s the floor, so i play into that. every person is already doing enough “philosophy” when they get up in the morning to get the ethics. but not everyone has the “economic chops” i see it the other way around. every person can recognize ethical case. most people who can get the economics have already. point out how fiat aggresses upon them. they recognize that’s bad. ask them questions to make them think about why they have justified that aggression in the past. they will have to tear down the mental walls in their own mind, and imo that work will make them “philosophically” strong enough so the rest. meet them where they are as people speak to, encourge and train watch them grow and actualize their “philosophical” potential as a human being npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic Ethical case doesn’t change with price 👀 npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “It relies on honest node runners protecting its fundamental purpose and not being apathetic or passive about alternative use cases that harm it and obscure its identity.” exactly, node runners serving their self interest. npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic “everyone acts in their own self interest” i think you miss the magic of bitcoin consensus it is the only way you get “money for your enemies” it the best method in history for sorting out all the contentious vectors of self interest and finding the common good. scammer’s self interest that doesn’t align with the collective interest will not form consensus so long as all the other non scammers pursue their self interest. bitcoin empowers the sovereign individual user. it’s an asymetrical defense you don’t want to fight fire with fire. tribalism vs tribalism is just gay the decade long spam war was always going to be settled at consensus npub18zsu6xlfpwdgnrfyzhwpq80ssu83tdew5g7dkzkl4tavsrgzl5yslzlyv6 hylomorphic What would you go to war far? What would have to happen for you to put it all on the line? What would you die for? Unless you can see that answer concretely in your mind, you don’t know what it means to be alive.