Tauri | Bitcoin (XBT)

Hard to swallow pills 💊

Dear Saylor bootlickers, hear me out:

You can fight me, but you can’t stop me from being insane and unreasonable.

20,000 bitcoins of miner rewards gets unlocked in a few days and I’m not gonna miss this buying opportunity.

Not finished and I may have f’ed up the development process and may have to start from scratch. But still a nice sunset scene.

Never buying ANY pre-assembled hardware wallet again. Seedsigner way was the right way all along.

GN anon, no more separating money and state for today. 🙂‍↔️

Cypherpunks build more fiat rails to spend fiat? 🤣

The tragedy of 2026 is that you think you’re buying Bitcoin, but in reality, you’re getting Tether - the new sweetheart of the Deep State.

A centralised Bitcoin is the opposite of freedom money. It’s a CBDC in disguise, just waiting to show its ugly face.

Right now, there’s less than a 1% chance of turning this around with the other, much smaller Bitcoin. It’s a fragile chain in its infancy, fighting for its place under the sun. There’s real potential in it, but also plenty of things that could go wrong.

But you know what they say: it’s about the journey, not the destination. And this is going to be one heck of a journey, friends. Hang on to your socks!

By @SpectrGen

I’ve decided to support @GrassFedBitcoin’s proposal for a 6-month rolling coinbase maturity extension (CBME) until RDTS expiry, despite my preference for 1 year fixed. I want to explain why, because I don’t think this is nearly the concession it might appear to be.

The objective has always been to discourage short-term, profit-driven hashrate from exploiting the network. The question is how best to accomplish that, and I think the rolling design matters more than people are giving it credit for.

The original 1-year proposal had a fixed expiration tied to RDTS. That creates a significant weakness: a block mined the day before RDTS expires could mature the following day. As we approach expiration, the deterrent progressively weakens.

With 6 months rolling, every block mined while the rule is active carries the full 6-month maturity requirement, including those mined immediately before expiration. This creates a substantial overhang of immature rewards extending six months beyond RDTS, for an effective period of up to 18 months. It’s a shorter lockup per block, but a more consistent deterrent throughout the entire period.

Now consider the consensus problem.

There’s broad support for 1 year, but there’s a meaningful difference between ~55% support and 75% support. We can continue arguing over whether the additional six months of maturity would produce materially better outcomes, but the reality is that nobody has concrete evidence to settle that question.

Meanwhile, we risk deadlocking the 6-month and 1-year camps until the existing 45-day fixed extension expires, or 45-day rolling takes effect. That would be a substantially worse outcome than either proposal.

Six months rolling gives the 1-year camp much of what it wants while requiring the 45-day camp to accept a significant increase in maturity. And let’s be clear, six months is still brutal for short-term miners. It doesn’t gradually acclimate the leeches to the network by easing restrictions as expiration approaches. It maintains the deterrent right up to the end, effectively easing them out rather than easing them in.

I understand the hardliner position because I largely share it. But there’s a difference between compromising on the objective and compromising on the means of achieving it.

I’d rather secure a strong deterrent with broad consensus than risk losing the entire effort over a marginal difference in expected outcomes that nobody can reliably quantify.

We have other serious problems demanding our attention, particularly the growing amount of spam making its way into mined blocks. I’d like us to resolve this and get back to fighting those battles.

Interviewer: Do you think large mining pools control Bitcoin? Bob: No.

then goes into detail how big pools don’t control Bitcoin in theory, but they kinda do in practice 🤣

Never in my life was I tempted to visit Paris, but this is a compelling offer, NGL. 🤔

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2687119958405912/

The biggest attack on self-custody is centralised mining. Your keys mean nothing if a state-coerced mining cartel won't mine your transaction. It’s not an obvious attack and here lies the danger.

What a banger 💥

Super excited to test this.

On-chain, Lightning and Ark in one wallet. 👀

👀👀👀

The fall of

has been bizarre to watch. For three years he said nothing about spam, not even at the height of the spam war. Now he's suddenly up in arms against accounts with 50 followers, recycling the same strawmen the coretards have used all along.

His sound money crusade looks hollow now. Nothing about Spamcoin resembles sound money anymore, but I suppose a big audience buys more books.

Remember when Taleb argued Bitcoin's fundamental value was zero, and that it fails as a currency? Five years later, is making the same case. Funny how that works.

So here's a pitch for his next book: “Captured Protocols”. Get Saylor to write the foreword, then spend a few hundred pages explaining why the 5 pool nodes deciding what goes into 95% of blocks should care about thousands of plebs with 0.3 BTC each posting on Twitter, because that's how "Bitcoin" works.

People don't turn this dumb overnight. When someone flips this hard, this fast, it's fair to ask what changed in his incentives.

Test

This is amazing 🤩

Here’s something you will probably never see on a mountain. Moral of the story: spend more time in the mountains, folks.

Wen new book

?

Respectfully

The main argument for BIP-110 not having “enough consensus” was that no major exchanges, businesses, or developers supported it. If we can agree that these entities collectively hold the largest amount of BTC, then this is an admission that the more BTC you own, the more influence or veto power you have over protocol changes. This is literally the textbook definition of Proof of Stake, regardless of what assumptions we hold about the type of mining used.

If miners as a whole, emboldened by Big Bitcoin’s backing, can push through or veto protocol changes without first consulting the network, then this is literally not Bitcoin. At least, not what it was supposed to be.

Now we’re talking. This is how mining should look like.