McCoy

https://mccoy2016.me/

Bitcoin
NOSTR block 768722

Public Key

npub18y33vpqmudzm9wk9cnglgnrhqyu96c4l4tr59k2zw0gs5ep5a2kqjqx5t7

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrjgckqsd7x3djhtzuf505f3mszwzav2l6436zm9p885g2vs6w4tqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds5kv62g

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub18y33vpqmudzm9wk9cnglgnrhqyu96c4l4tr59k2zw0gs5ep5a2kqjqx5t7

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-24 21:04:34 GMT

- reply

With **5%** of the hash rate:
- Average block time ≈ **200 minutes** (10 ÷ 0.05)
- 100 blocks × 200 minutes = **20,000 minutes**
- That’s about **333 hours**, or roughly **13.9 days** (almost **2 weeks**)
So at 5% hash rate, you’d be waiting almost **two weeks** just to reach the 100-block coinbase maturity. And under standard Bitcoin difficulty rules, the first difficulty adjustment at 2,016 blocks would take nearly **9 months** to reach.

2026-07-23 21:42:09 GMT

- reply

Hard to change, by design

2026-07-23 14:35:29 GMT

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/51196dae111cee501a0db53998a8d2776b0344ef61598b376b5331ded074264d.jpg

2026-07-23 14:22:59 GMT

- reply

Best way in future will be to work and earn/paid in sats (cash, bitcoin is the best cash). Just like getting cash for mowing lawns in my youth. No one knew I had it except the payee.

2026-07-23 14:19:20 GMT

- reply

https://thebitcoinportal.com/live/nodes/bip110-simulator

2026-07-23 01:10:15 GMT

- reply

Immediate
Critical
Thats seems to problem with the cureent strategy: its not needed immediately and its not critcal.
Building consensus towards best ways to limit NFD on chain is a good goal. Many seem to be behind this.
Other issue is woring towardsb alternative clients besides just core. Ideally each supprted by multiple devs.

2026-07-18 18:51:33 GMT

- reply

is merge mining and drivechains the same tech/proposal - HQ

2026-07-18 18:47:35 GMT

- reply

Then as its _failing_ then there would be a strong push for other solutions, including merge mining, right?

2026-07-17 15:19:51 GMT

- reply

also i zapped and got a failed message

2026-07-17 15:18:18 GMT

- reply

Cool. Im just _a user of stuff_ + freak + humble stacker. i've managed to run both my own node and some lightning channels will start9 - novice. I was actually just unsure what tails relay did.

2026-07-17 15:03:19 GMT

- reply

Maple AI helping me understand.... it sourced RHR...🤣 LFG
https://blossom.primal.net/015b65be6c9a23143d2f1694c1670b48fe1131f1e06b9793edba1532a18bf3c1.jpg

2026-07-17 11:39:24 GMT

- reply

Is there a summary/ourline of exactly how to _close vulnerabilities_ without completely removing it?

2026-07-16 16:35:13 GMT

- reply

Bessent is making his rounds, dropping hints: they will:
- reprice the gold
- run it hot by printing to support AI
- make/allow/force all to buy securities

2026-07-16 00:20:24 GMT

Maple AI :
The main controversy around Taproot's activation wasn't about Taproot itself — the upgrade was broadly popular — but about **how to decide when and whether to enforce it**. Specifically, the fight was over who ultimately controls Bitcoin's consensus rules: **miners or node operators**.
## The Core Divide: BIP9 vs. BIP8 (LOT=True)
The community split into two philosophical camps:
- **BIP9 / "LOT=False" (Miner-driven):** This approach let miners signal support, and if they didn't reach a threshold, the upgrade simply failed. Proponents argued this was safer and less disruptive — don't force a rule change unless miners clearly agree. Critics called this giving miners a **permanent veto** over a widely desired upgrade.
- **BIP8 with LOT=True (User-Activated Soft Fork / UASF):** This approach set a deadline by which miners had to signal; if they didn't, nodes would begin enforcing the new rules anyway, effectively forcing miners to follow or be orphaned off the network. Proponents argued this was necessary to prevent miner obstruction (citing the SegWit activation experience). Critics warned it could risk chain splits and network instability if not enough users actually ran the enforcing software.
## The Speedy Trial Compromise
After months of stalemate, developers Russell O'Connor and David Harding proposed **"Speedy Trial"** as a middle path:
- **Short trial period:** Miners got ~3 months to signal.
- **High bar:** 90% of blocks in a difficulty period had to signal to lock it in.
- **Fail-fast:** If miners didn't signal, the attempt died quickly — no automatic UASF fallback built into the Core client.
- **Long delay:** If locked in, activation waited ~6 months to give everyone time to upgrade.
This was essentially **BIP9-style miner signaling with a much shorter window**, designed to gauge actual miner support without embedding a mandatory UASF into Bitcoin Core's official release.
## Why It Was Controversial
- **UASF advocates were unhappy** because Speedy Trial removed the built-in "safety net" that would force activation if miners stalled. Some released alternate Bitcoin Core clients with LOT=True as a hedge.
- **Miner-veto critics** argued the process proved miners could still block things if they chose to, and that node operators had been sidelined.
- **Governance concerns:** The debate exposed how Bitcoin's decentralized development process can deadlock when there is no clear mechanism for resolving activation disputes.
## Outcome
Miners overwhelmingly signaled support, Taproot locked in, and activated successfully in **November 2021**. But the controversy left lingering questions about whether Speedy Trial was a pragmatic solution or a precedent that lets miners (or the status quo) stall future upgrades.

2026-07-15 20:28:52 GMT

- reply

friend's

2026-07-15 20:26:22 GMT

Large numbers + cryptography + computational proof via DA-POW
**SOLVED BOTH**
✅coin emission without seigniorage
✅coordination = consensus = time stamping

2026-07-15 20:13:56 GMT

BIP45 doesn’t introduce a new extended key prefix because:
It works with standard xpubs (or ypubs/zpubs if the multisig is wrapped in SegWit or native SegWit, though BIP45 itself was designed around P2SH).
It’s a layer above key format. The xpub/ypub/zpub tells you what address type the key produces; BIP45 tells you how multiple people agree on which addresses to produce.

2026-07-15 19:38:12 GMT

So much to be grateful for...
https://blossom.primal.net/a19fe2f0a4e5726b185f4f8b6dc2e5f0d1bd7847bb54767a919d2a05a468558a.jpg

2026-07-15 16:52:35 GMT

- reply

Slow build. First asking, then understanding _what is money_?
After that, bitcoin is obvious.
The adage seems to hold: anyone who spends _adequate time_ (50 hrs? - 100 hrs ? or so) trying to understand bitcoin will get it.

2026-07-15 15:09:51 GMT

JP Morgan + Morgan Stanley with record Q2 profits
F-n bankers.
Opt out. Use a money they cannot control.

2026-07-15 00:10:50 GMT

If you have a couple of large LN channels + you can get paid in LN + NGU (say x10) from here , you actually may never need any more onchain bitcoin...., like never, for the rest of your life
Change my mind meme

2026-07-14 18:33:52 GMT

- reply

For me its beverages: crisp, draft, beer, in a cool pub with a friend; warm cup of delicious coffee on a cloudy day reading a book; cold Gatorade, after an intense workout

2026-07-14 13:47:55 GMT

- reply

OK. But how exactly do we get multiple separate clients (core/knots/others) running BIP-110 with many devs reviewing code?
Seems it initially would be Luke-coin maintained by... Luke

2026-07-14 12:19:01 GMT

- reply

Meanwhile
https://blossom.primal.net/cee9606dec74020a2b394a55f6ccf8a6ae45f5da99d7572d572a3701c79603a1.jpg

2026-07-14 12:16:33 GMT

- reply

Planning the exit. I'll buy your corn

2026-07-14 02:01:08 GMT

- reply

So post bip-110 (imagining it wins) everone runs knots with one maintainer?

2026-07-11 17:46:46 GMT

- reply

5 & 7 from the Movie Mud with McConaughey at the height of his powers... great movie. Love story. Kids coming of age. Adventure of youth...

2026-07-11 16:45:04 GMT

Bitcoin is for everyone/anyone....
This can be quite uncomfortable at times.
No alternative. Governed by decentralized rough consensus.
https://youtu.be/BTMVvoQSm4w?

2026-07-10 21:48:00 GMT

- reply

Best move: self custody and wait.

2026-07-10 21:24:53 GMT

Replay details via Maple AI:
Here’s exactly how it works:
**Before the split:**
Both chains share the identical blockchain history and the identical UTXO set. Your coins live at the same address, with the same txid and output index, on both the Core chain and the BIP-110 chain.
**You sign and broadcast on Core:**
You create a standard transaction spending your pre-fork UTXO to some new address. You sign it and broadcast it to the Core network. It gets mined into a Core block.
**The replay step:**
Because BIP-110 is a soft fork, a standard, valid Core transaction is *also* a valid BIP-110 transaction. The transaction format hasn’t changed. The signatures are valid. The inputs exist on both chains.
So anyone — it could be the recipient, a miner, or literally any observer — can take the raw transaction hex from the Core block (or mempool), and just re-broadcast it to the BIP-110 network. BIP-110 nodes see it and say, “Yep, that’s a valid transaction spending a valid UTXO,” and mine it into a BIP-110 block.
**The result:**
Your UTXO moves to the destination address on *both* chains simultaneously. You never intended to move it on BIP-110, but it moved anyway because the transaction was valid there too.
**Why this matters:**
If you were trying to sell your “BIP-110 coins” to an exchange while keeping your “Core coins,” the replay means both get sent to the exchange. Or if you were trying to split your coins by sending them to different addresses on each chain, replay undoes that — the same transaction executes on both sides.
**The exception:**
This only works for pre-fork UTXOs. If a UTXO was created *after* the fork on only one chain (like a coinbase reward, or a transaction spending a post-fork UTXO), it can’t be replayed because it doesn’t exist on the other chain.
That’s why, without explicit replay protection, a chain split is so messy: every pre-fork coin is entangled across both chains until you deliberately “taint” or split them using techniques like mixing with coinbase outputs or `nLocktime` tricks.

2026-07-10 14:50:14 GMT

- reply

And what would be the response to his main concern? Does his concern have any merit?

2026-07-09 21:53:07 GMT

- reply

What about the base, it looks like a ceramic

2026-07-09 01:53:44 GMT

- reply

The relationship between bitcoin versus regulators / law-enforcement, is far more nuanced than saying:
"If somebody does something illegal on Bitcoin, then unbounded criminal liability attaches to everyone who's running a node or mining bitcoin."

2026-07-09 01:50:00 GMT

- reply

More like you are literally sending a string of 1s and 0s, embeded with other similar 1s/0s that you might not even know about and cant easily decipher/look-at.
or
someone scribed out a horrible immoral phrase in morse-code on the $100 bill you are handing to the teller

2026-07-08 21:35:04 GMT

- reply

Only works if both forks survive long enough to be listed on exchanges + exchanges support them.
Also how will you know which fork will win? You wont with 100% certainty. So, pick your fork-support wisely....
Another strategy: 1.) all coins in self custody, cold storage, then...... 2.) do nothing - act like your in a coma for a year or so

2026-07-08 13:13:39 GMT

- reply

Near boomer here: Alby via start9. Works. Use LN to zap and sometimes pay for good stuff, like robosats invoice/deposit

2026-07-06 17:36:48 GMT

- reply

The real McCoy bro

2026-07-06 01:18:15 GMT

- reply

IDK..... intent matters...
sending or saving a string ones&zeros that you dont know is there, dont want, cant *read*, wont read is not clearly a crime

2026-07-02 01:13:16 GMT

- reply

The way it doesnt fail is NGU. NGU equals adoption

2026-07-01 12:13:34 GMT

https://fountain.fm/episode/QOdAoEwtewccCimXfqJ0
"My stance is that Bitcoin is money, and that money is best when it changes very little, which is why I'm an ossificationist. Related to that is my position on Softworks, which is that it's fine for bug fixes and security improvements. That includes removing opcodes almost nobody uses. I'm for simplification and for shrinking Bitcoin's attack surface. Does BIP-110 qualify? I can't tell. Read it one way and it shrinks the attack surface. Less arbitrary data, smaller blocks, cheaper nodes, more of them. Read it the other way and it's a policy preference smuggled into a hurried consensus change, something even the proponents half concede with their own FAQ, admits that spam is best fought with filters, not forks. Both readings are honest. I can't decide between them. And saying so isn't a dodge. It's the truth. Here's the part I want to be careful about, because it's the whole point of this essay. I'm not for BIP-110. I'm also not for stopping it. Those sound like the same refusal, but they're not. To be against activation, I'd have to know the chain is better off without it, and I don't. To be for activation, I'd have to know it's better off with it, and I don't know that either. The boosters are sure it saves Bitcoin. The loudest opponents are just as sure it wrecks it, with their warnings of chain splits and frozen coins. Both are predictions about a dynamic system. Which is to say, both are guesses wearing the costume of fact. I won't join either side, because joining means claiming a certainty that I've spent this whole essay arguing nobody has. What I will do is defend the attempt."

2026-07-01 02:55:38 GMT

- reply

fixed transaction maleability to enable LN.... thats about it

2026-06-30 01:24:44 GMT

- reply

Price, the only metric that really counts

2026-06-28 20:48:07 GMT

- reply

so if im running core 29.0 Op_return DCS at 83 bytes, and bip-110 activates with overwhelming support/hash, then my node is not in consensus, right?

2026-06-28 20:32:37 GMT

- reply

forks by definition are not backwards compatible

2026-06-28 01:40:02 GMT

- reply

kill shot, really? that easy to kill?
#nevent1q…ke3u

2026-06-28 01:22:13 GMT

They are spamming the network........meanwhile:
https://blossom.primal.net/1bd14353c07d6b41552301c241d6c398459a90d3492c661a25220b9fd4388511.jpg

2026-06-25 19:05:41 GMT

- reply

yes - posts not posting, then double amd triple posting

2026-06-25 15:26:08 GMT

- reply

Changing consensus should be very very hard.
Taproot upgrade was in retrospect probably not the right move.
BIP-110 or the version - post one year - will also likely be problematic for issues that are currently hard to see/unforeseen.
Default should be no change.
Pushing this as an *emergency* or even an *urgency* is not based in facts and IMHO will be why BIP-110 fails.

2026-06-25 15:17:38 GMT

- reply

Help me then: how is this wrong?
--->
Luke or a small team of devs could *push through a consensus change* in knots that they are *sure* is best for the network. Forces users to follow without choice: after two years only the newest version works, right?

2026-06-25 14:58:05 GMT

- reply

No. I dont support Core version 30.0, by running 29.0.
Luke or a small team of devs could *push through a consensus change* in knots that they are *sure* is best for the network. Forces users to follow without choice.

2026-06-25 14:31:09 GMT

- reply

Per Maple AI, kimi k2.6:
"Yes, BIP-110 would constrain certain Taproot scripts, and under specific circumstances it could render some UTXOs unspendable.
**How it constrains Taproot scripts**
BIP-110 proposes (among other things) to make the following invalid in tapscripts for blocks mined after activation:
- **`OP_IF` and `OP_NOTIF`**: These opcodes would be disallowed entirely in tapscript, even in branches that are not executed.
- **Large control blocks**: Taproot control blocks larger than 257 bytes would be invalid — this effectively caps the Taptree at 128 script leaves.
- **Large data pushes**: Data pushes greater than 256 bytes would be invalid.
**Could this make UTXOs unspendable?**
Yes, but primarily for a specific edge case. BIP-110 includes a **grandfather clause**: UTXOs created *before* activation are exempt and can still be spent using old scripts. However, this protection does not fully cover:
- **Pre-signed or timelocked transactions** created before activation but broadcast *after* activation.
- UTXOs that rely **solely** on a now-invalidated script path (e.g., one using `OP_IF`) and have no alternative valid spending path (no key-path spend, no other valid tapleaf).
If a Taproot output was constructed to force spending through a script leaf that BIP-110 invalidates, and that transaction is only revealed after activation, the consensus rules would reject the spend. With no valid path remaining, those funds would become unspendable for the duration of the softfork.
This has led to criticism that the proposal risks a form of *de facto confiscation* for certain complex Taproot contracts, even though standard pre-activation UTXOs are technically grandfathered."

2026-06-25 14:23:39 GMT

- reply

With knots not working after two years, that is essentially forcing users to automatically upgrade.
Not true for core. I can keep running 29.0, for as long as I want.

2026-06-25 11:25:48 GMT

- reply

Does BIP-110 *band* scripts that in part are used for financial transactions?
Why?
Does a given Knots version stop working after two years?
Why?

2026-06-25 11:23:25 GMT

- reply

Does BIP-110 *band* scripts that in part are used for financial transactions?
Why?
Does a given Knots version stop working after two years?
Why?

2026-06-25 00:51:09 GMT

- reply

The proposed solution seems worse to me than the problem.
Problem(s): nonmonetary data on chain; TapRoot seems to have introduced unknown, unknowns
Proposed solution: temp softfork, limiting rules with only 55% signal threshold; with a very small client dev team maintaining code; some supporters claiming its an *emergency*, and even hinting at legal threats to devs/miners/others who don't join their team

2026-06-24 17:13:38 GMT

- reply

running 29.0

2026-06-24 17:10:28 GMT

- reply

and zappn

2026-06-24 16:59:47 GMT

Out here grinding
Cuck buck price agnostic
I wont use their money

2026-06-21 02:37:02 GMT

- reply

The attack is:
supporting a fork without consensus; calling anyone who disagrees a pedo or captured; implied threats to devs or miners or even node runners that they will be legally liable for *illegal* non-financial data

2026-06-19 21:18:08 GMT

- reply

paper net worth, can cash out? no

2026-06-14 14:01:24 GMT

- reply

IMHO #4 is mostly dependent on the producers: those who make quality goods/services/stuff have to REFUSE Fiat, only accept bitcoin. Then to get good stuff people will seek and spend SATs

2026-06-12 15:23:11 GMT

Saving in hard money without permission for my future self.
Meanwhile...
Degens buying a tokenize IPO promise of a paper promise, of a space/AI datacenter product that is at best decades away
🤡 show

2026-06-10 16:31:34 GMT

@nprofile…2tll
On soft fork nuance: BIP110 activation dynamics are not same as Segwit (BIP148/141/91)
https://fountain.fm/clip/F2w7d9sbwrL2kLhfiXYN

2026-06-10 00:32:01 GMT

Back to basics:
https://youtu.be/LgI0liAee4s

2026-06-09 12:45:25 GMT

If you remove the fraud, you launch a deflationary spiral
- Jeff Booth

2026-06-09 12:43:25 GMT

Ignore the noise, focus on the numbers:
$39T debt
$1.9T deficit
10Y yields: 4.5%
21 million

2026-06-07 15:33:31 GMT

- reply

My list, 1986:
Peter Gabriel – So
Beastie Boys – Licensed to Ill
Talking Heads – True Stories
Van Halen – 5150
Bruce Springsteen – Live/1975–85
Cyndi Lauper – True Colors

2026-06-06 22:17:22 GMT

- reply

Buying April 2021 at $50-60k anticipating god candles.... it been a bit rough
https://blossom.primal.net/d3e264b5605ae33d3b2d44f5f0ad36b7423a6ec98930adc62f9bf0aaae4ce987.jpg

2026-06-05 21:07:59 GMT

- reply

LFG
Bitcoin Optech summarized proposals to make BIP324 transport encryption quantum secure and standardize QR-based signing payloads for miniscript wallets.
-- The work targets wallet interoperability and node privacy before quantum attacks are practical, giving operators and developers a clearer protocol migration path without urgent consensus changes.

2026-06-05 15:05:43 GMT

Maple AI: zcash....
This is one of Zcash's core tensions: **the same cryptography that hides transaction amounts also makes it impossible to directly audit balances inside shielded pools.** Here's how verification works—and where its limits are:
## How Supply Is Verified: The Turnstile
Zcash uses **turnstile accounting** across its value pools (Transparent, Sprout, Sapling, Orchard, and Lockbox). The idea is simple:
- **Entry is visible:** All ZEC enters the shielded pools from transparent addresses or mining rewards (public amounts)
- **Exit is visible:** When ZEC leaves a shielded pool for a transparent address, the amount is revealed
- **The turnstile calculates:** Expected pool balance = (total in) − (total out)
Anyone running a Zcash node can check this via `getblockchaininfo` (look for the `valuePools` field). Third-party sites like **zcha.in** also monitor these balances.
## The Catch: Hidden Intermediate States
The turnstile only verifies **net flows** across pool boundaries. **Inside** a shielded pool, transactions are hidden by zk-SNARKs. This means:
- ✅ You can verify the *total* supply isn't inflated (no extra ZEC entered the system)
- ❌ You **cannot cryptographically prove** that coins *inside* the pool weren't counterfeited via a circuit bug
## Real-World Example: The June 2026 Orchard Bug
This limitation just made headlines. A soundness bug was found in the Orchard shielded pool circuit (discovered late May, patched June 2–3, 2026). The Zcash Foundation confirmed:
- The turnstile showed **no net inflation** of total ZEC supply
- However, because Orchard hides amounts, **there is no way to cryptographically prove** whether counterfeit coins were created *inside* the pool before the fix
This created an "auditability paradox" that contributed to a ~31% price crash—even after the bug was patched.
## Proposed Fix
**Shielded Labs** has proposed a network upgrade that would:
- Deploy a new shielded pool
- Route **all coins exiting Orchard** through enforced turnstile accounting
- Let anyone independently verify no counterfeiting occurred
This must pass Zcash governance before activation.
## Bottom Line
Users can verify the *global* supply cap through turnstiles, but **cannot audit the integrity of specific shielded pool internals** if a zero-knowledge circuit bug exists. Privacy and complete auditability are fundamentally in tension.

2026-06-04 02:10:21 GMT

- reply

Yes, two key factors:
✅merchants have to produce high quality stuff
+
✅refuse fiat

2026-05-28 18:27:43 GMT

- reply

I agree with this. This is not what Luke is doing.

2026-05-28 15:34:49 GMT

- reply

exactly
The attack is:
supporting a fork without consensus; calling anyone who disagrees a pedo or captured; implied threats to devs or miners or even node runners that they will be legally liable for *illegal* non-financial data

2026-05-28 15:32:51 GMT

- reply

2026-05-27 00:16:50 GMT

- reply

💯
Bitcoin is CASH
as in
Peer-to-peer Cash
*Cash* as in the most liquid bearer asset that you can use without permission.
You keep cash to protect against future uncertainty.
Cash is king.
Bitcoin is the best cash.

2026-05-23 22:22:52 GMT

- reply

MOE era will only kick off when the makers of really good stuff refuse all payments except bitcoin.
Until then hoarding corn and spending trash is the best move

2026-05-23 21:43:22 GMT

Monero's Monetary Policy
Two-Phase Emission Schedule
Initial Emission (2014–May 2022): Monero launched with a decreasing block reward curve, producing ~18.4 million XMR. This phase resembled Bitcoin's halving-style schedule.
Tail Emission (May 2022–indefinite): Block rewards dropped to a fixed 0.6 XMR per block (~432 XMR/day, ~157,680 XMR/year) and stay there forever.
..... until they change it again

2026-05-23 21:30:41 GMT

- reply

when did tail emissions get added to monero?

2026-05-23 21:28:00 GMT

- reply

Tail emissions are not adequate.
Fee market model is a built in censorship resistant / anti-spam *forever security* that always requires real work by those who want to transact

2026-05-22 11:30:37 GMT

- reply

Will spend corn when pizza guy refuses fiat

2026-05-18 23:32:43 GMT

Couldn't Iran just burn oil and mine corn? Oil prices go up they get corn counterparty free.
Maybe, would have to get shit ton of ascics....
With Iran's entire daily crude oil output generating roughly 1.76 billion kWh of electricity, and the current global Bitcoin network requiring approximately 800,000–850,000 kWh to mine one Bitcoin (various 2026 estimates put it around 854,400 kWh per coin), you could mine approximately:
~2,000–2,100 Bitcoin per day
That's using every single barrel of Iran's ~3.2 million barrels per day of crude production, burned directly into electricity with no other uses.
For context:
The Bitcoin network as a whole currently produces about 450 new BTC per day (144 blocks × 3.125 BTC block reward).
So Iran's daily crude output, if converted entirely to electricity for mining, could power roughly 4–5× the entire current global Bitcoin issuance rate.
Annualized: That would be roughly 730,000–770,000 Bitcoin per year, which is actually more than the total annual issuance (~164,000 BTC/year post-halving). In other words, you'd have far more electricity than needed to mine every single new Bitcoin created globally — with plenty left over.

2026-05-15 22:43:00 GMT

CLARITY ACT TAKE:
Should we be suprised that the gov/county behind the world reserve money is ultimately NOT friendly to bitcoin developers?
Shitcoin VCs + Trumpers + inside grifters pushing CLARITY hard.
Fuck them.
It will eventually come down to sound money against dying fiat.
Chose a side.

2026-05-14 17:32:19 GMT

- reply

Nice break-down. However.....
Much different if the currency world reserve, correct?

2026-05-14 16:53:38 GMT

- reply

this

2026-05-13 01:09:26 GMT

- reply

but aren't these explanations leaving out the fact that the market has to buy long-term US debt at an interest rate they find "acceptable" not buy some Central planner? In other words if the market doesn't want the bonds, then the issuer (US gov) forced to increase the rate to get people to buy them. Then the bond market will reprice older bonds (less attractive rates) at lower prices?
The US gov can and does of course "force" sovereign entities to buy the bonds at whatever rate they set, if they don't, the US threatens them with sanctions or nukes.

2026-05-13 01:00:46 GMT

- reply

Is'nt the longer term interest rate set by the demand? Fed sets short term, but if they cant sell long term bonds (10yr) at that rate, they force "people" to buy it or buy it themselves.

2026-05-11 21:13:36 GMT

- reply

Maple AI gives it a go:
"The U.S. could, in theory, change the law and have the Fed directly finance government spending, but doing so would risk the stability of the dollar. The current system—where Congress spends, taxes fall short, and the Treasury borrows from global investors—keeps the currency credible and inflation (mostly) contained. The $39 trillion debt is the accumulated record of decades of choosing to borrow rather than tax or print."

2026-05-11 18:26:35 GMT

- reply

why incorrect?

2026-05-10 23:27:06 GMT

- reply

What if paid in fiat? Do u immediately buy corn and the try to pay bills in bitcoin? Or pay all bills in fiat, then stack savings every pay period to cold storage?

2026-05-09 22:50:37 GMT

Still waiting for the high resolution video or photo of the UFOs.

2026-05-09 20:51:06 GMT

- reply

This was worth a listen. Key moment was at about an hour in when Walton finally states that Fiat will die, then Zilla looks bewildered, doesn't say much, then shortly after ends the debate.
All bitcoin "debates" typically come down to this core idea: Will bitcoin completely replace the US dollar as the world reserve currency/money or not?

2026-05-09 15:26:54 GMT

- reply

IMHO: For the "big businesses" the gov will print massively to cover the losses while the energy build out occurs.
Small guys will loose.
Gov will use the old-tried-true: "existential threat / national security" to justify the printing
Same as it ever was

2026-05-09 15:05:11 GMT

- reply

I'm running my same playbook + one new item: ✅Stacking through the noise
✅Self/collaborative custody
✅Work to avoid force selling
+
✅ I'm now rooting hard for: government seizure of paper-bitcoin + Coinbase meltdown from AI-assisted hacking of their custody set up

2026-05-08 22:28:40 GMT

- reply

Commit and never look back

2026-05-06 22:23:00 GMT

- reply

Shape of the declining curves are more similar is scaled correctly: ~450 years vs ~100 years

2026-05-02 01:11:56 GMT

- reply

+ who buys the robots from the robot company?

2026-04-24 00:41:57 GMT

- reply

Just get the sellers to hodl... not f-in selling.... then God Candle

2026-04-24 00:34:34 GMT

Soft War AIUI:
Those (countries) with coin and hash can force others to do stuff: Buy peace. Control trade. Buy warriors (drones/humans). Transact with whomever you want. Afford high fee rate situations.
Projecting power is built into nature and early human societies. Often to avoid mutual destruction.
With new war: cyber, drone, chemical... it is harder to "project" to others that they shouldn't f-with you. A massive stack of coin + hash could become the new "flex" warning others off.

2026-04-24 00:23:33 GMT

- reply

Walls will likely be built to keep people away from self-custody. Do yourself a favor and get some skills⬇️⬇️
#nevent1q…0e80

2026-04-23 19:53:10 GMT

Summer Prep
LFG
https://blossom.primal.net/9e357e43fdc60ed7dc8c6f702969f4b80454c65701ec2ee91af5fefa1310240e.jpg