Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Nothing in Bitcoin works without decentralization. If Bitcoin continues to grow towards centralization, its value as a MoV/SoV decreases. Nodes are the last firewall left. The Implimantation is perdominatly centralizied. The Mining has continued to grow more centralized. The biggest attack are the nodes. This is why I am...

UnderCoercion's profile picture

Lysander

8,156 subscribers

34,896 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

ФинансыНаука и технологииНовости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

"Where are the servers of Bitcoin located?” - Prof Jiang That single question from Jiang shows the misunderstanding immediately. Bitcoin does not run on one company’s servers, Bitcoin runs on a distributed network of nodes spread across the world, which is exactly why it is hard to censor, shut down, or control, plus the mining system on top of it to protect it with energy. When someone frames Bitcoin like a centralized system, they are not critiquing Bitcoin as it is. They are critiquing a version of Bitcoin that exists only in their own confusion.
0:33

"Where are the servers of Bitcoin located?” - Prof Jiang That single question from Jiang shows the misunderstanding immediately. Bitcoin does not run on one company’s servers, Bitcoin runs on a distributed network of nodes spread across the world, which is exactly why it is hard to censor, shut down, or control, plus the mining system on top of it to protect it with energy. When someone frames Bitcoin like a centralized system, they are not critiquing Bitcoin as it is. They are critiquing a version of Bitcoin that exists only in their own confusion.

MDB

579,648 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The Epstein files reveal that Israel hijacked control of the Bitcoin network over a decade ago. Israel was paying the salaries of 60% of Bitcoin’s core developers and offered highly elusive gifts behind the scenes. This is very suspicious. Epstein and Israel were also major investors in Blockstream, a company that works with Tether and exerts significant influence over Bitcoin. They can manipulate the price by issuing unbacked Tether, control the network’s code because they hired most of the developers, and own a majority of the nodes. This suggests Israel likely has direct access to and influence over Bitcoin. The idea of “decentralization” is clearly illusory, and it is deeply concerning that the network could be manipulated by a single state operating behind the scenes. "If you knew who was really behind bitcoin you would run as fast as you fucking could to sell it!" - Dan Pena
0:56

The Epstein files reveal that Israel hijacked control of the Bitcoin network over a decade ago. Israel was paying the salaries of 60% of Bitcoin’s core developers and offered highly elusive gifts behind the scenes. This is very suspicious. Epstein and Israel were also major investors in Blockstream, a company that works with Tether and exerts significant influence over Bitcoin. They can manipulate the price by issuing unbacked Tether, control the network’s code because they hired most of the developers, and own a majority of the nodes. This suggests Israel likely has direct access to and influence over Bitcoin. The idea of “decentralization” is clearly illusory, and it is deeply concerning that the network could be manipulated by a single state operating behind the scenes. "If you knew who was really behind bitcoin you would run as fast as you fucking could to sell it!" - Dan Pena

matrixbot

512,709 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Stop whatever you’re doing and pay attention: IF the US is being serious and decides to literally print $15T to “sell” to the open market in order to buy Bitcoin… and it starts “buying” Bitcoin -A FINITE CURRENCY- at the open market price You can cheat You can be smart Or You can be the first If the US does try to be the first… …to sell trillions of dollars… …with the openly stated mission of getting away from worthless paper and debt based currency… …to get a FINITE money that can only become more valuable over time… … …so, I’ll ask the question: why are so many in the markets still holding USD? Or, holding assets beholden to the USD? —If you know ***in advance*** the biggest player in the world is about to sell and needs Bitcoin ONLY… (Send this to all your Bitcoin friends and all your noncoiners. The clip is from the movie Margin Call, and the principal is the same)
2:29

Stop whatever you’re doing and pay attention: IF the US is being serious and decides to literally print $15T to “sell” to the open market in order to buy Bitcoin… and it starts “buying” Bitcoin -A FINITE CURRENCY- at the open market price You can cheat You can be smart Or You can be the first If the US does try to be the first… …to sell trillions of dollars… …with the openly stated mission of getting away from worthless paper and debt based currency… …to get a FINITE money that can only become more valuable over time… … …so, I’ll ask the question: why are so many in the markets still holding USD? Or, holding assets beholden to the USD? —If you know ***in advance*** the biggest player in the world is about to sell and needs Bitcoin ONLY… (Send this to all your Bitcoin friends and all your noncoiners. The clip is from the movie Margin Call, and the principal is the same)

Financial Physics

127,791 просмотров • 1 год назад

Bitcoin Mechanic on who actually controls Bitcoin: "Miners are employees of the network. That's the end of it. The nodes are the boss. People are very worried about what miners think, and not at all worried about what nodes think. But nodes are more important. They're higher up in the hierarchy. When miners get out of line, it's nodes that give them a slap. This was the fork wars. We let miners have a say in whether we got SegWit, and they said no. So we fought a war over it, we won, and we slapped the miners and put them back in their place. If miners are in control, if devs are in control, it just turns into a shitcoin. The people in charge have to be the users running their own nodes." Hardfork Mechanic on The The Bitcoin Matrix Podcast ⚡️ #198.
2:22

Bitcoin Mechanic on who actually controls Bitcoin: "Miners are employees of the network. That's the end of it. The nodes are the boss. People are very worried about what miners think, and not at all worried about what nodes think. But nodes are more important. They're higher up in the hierarchy. When miners get out of line, it's nodes that give them a slap. This was the fork wars. We let miners have a say in whether we got SegWit, and they said no. So we fought a war over it, we won, and we slapped the miners and put them back in their place. If miners are in control, if devs are in control, it just turns into a shitcoin. The people in charge have to be the users running their own nodes." Hardfork Mechanic on The The Bitcoin Matrix Podcast ⚡️ #198.

Cedric Youngelman ⚡️

11,296 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

People are overthinking the 32 BTC sale. “Why sell?” “Why not just buy less next week?” “Is this bearish?” Michael Michael Saylor already explained the logic: • If Bitcoin can’t be sold, critics say it has no value. • If it has no value, the balance sheet value is zero. • If the balance sheet value is zero, credit rating agencies ignore it. • So you sell a tiny appreciated portion to prove Bitcoin is liquid, valuable, and real.
2:28

People are overthinking the 32 BTC sale. “Why sell?” “Why not just buy less next week?” “Is this bearish?” Michael Michael Saylor already explained the logic: • If Bitcoin can’t be sold, critics say it has no value. • If it has no value, the balance sheet value is zero. • If the balance sheet value is zero, credit rating agencies ignore it. • So you sell a tiny appreciated portion to prove Bitcoin is liquid, valuable, and real.

Alex 👽

1,232,282 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

I think eventually owning 0.1 BTC will be enough This is because Bitcoin is the only asset that can serve as a medium of exchange, unit of account, AND store of value Today, the functions of money are absorbed by 6+ asset classes On a Bitcoin standard, Bitcoin will be the only money, so it can grow MUCH bigger than the current financial system
19:39

I think eventually owning 0.1 BTC will be enough This is because Bitcoin is the only asset that can serve as a medium of exchange, unit of account, AND store of value Today, the functions of money are absorbed by 6+ asset classes On a Bitcoin standard, Bitcoin will be the only money, so it can grow MUCH bigger than the current financial system

Rajat Soni, CFA

24,812 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Did Epstein influence Bitcoin core development? Short answer: No. This is not how Bitcoin works. Here’s what happened: Epstein donated to MIT Media Lab…who in turn supported MIT Digital Currency Initiative…which in turn funded Bitcoin developers. These devs used to be funded by The Bitcoin Foundation (which I used to run as volunteer Executive Director) there are many devs and no dev or team had power or control over Bitcoin. Under MIT’s patronage the devs had the same deal they had with us at The Bitcoin Foundation: that they could work on the code and not have direction from the org. More importantly — how Bitcoin works is that *even if* a dev was compromised then the nodes and miners would still have to run that code to make it included in Bitcoin. So for example if I had somehow asked the devs paid by Bitcoin Foundation to “add 1000 coins for Bruce” 1) they wouldn’t have done this / it would have been counter to our agreement 2) no miners would run that code & no nodes would recognize it. It would be a laughing stock and completely rejected. Does this mean code dev is not an attack vector? No. It’s still a risk. Particularly with nation state style actors and very careful efforts to co-opt which are much more sophisticated than “give Bruce coins” or something. This is one reason I’m cautious of Bitcoin core funding - especially from actors who’ve had bad judgment in the past. I think we should be cautious of who does the dev and view it as an attack vector. Bitcoin code is transparent and has lots of eyes on it. So in this case especially there isn’t even a solid accusation, let alone evidence that MIT directed nefarious code changes. If that was an allegation the first question should be: well what code specifically did MIT direct and what proof is there and how was it harmful? I think claims around this would collapse. There’s obviously plenty to criticize about Epstein and MIT working with him — and when it comes to digital assets MIT’s work with Gensler and especially its work on CBDCs is much more suspect than the chance that malicious code was pushed through on Bitcoin. Be cautious but this is a nothing burger
3:28

Did Epstein influence Bitcoin core development? Short answer: No. This is not how Bitcoin works. Here’s what happened: Epstein donated to MIT Media Lab…who in turn supported MIT Digital Currency Initiative…which in turn funded Bitcoin developers. These devs used to be funded by The Bitcoin Foundation (which I used to run as volunteer Executive Director) there are many devs and no dev or team had power or control over Bitcoin. Under MIT’s patronage the devs had the same deal they had with us at The Bitcoin Foundation: that they could work on the code and not have direction from the org. More importantly — how Bitcoin works is that *even if* a dev was compromised then the nodes and miners would still have to run that code to make it included in Bitcoin. So for example if I had somehow asked the devs paid by Bitcoin Foundation to “add 1000 coins for Bruce” 1) they wouldn’t have done this / it would have been counter to our agreement 2) no miners would run that code & no nodes would recognize it. It would be a laughing stock and completely rejected. Does this mean code dev is not an attack vector? No. It’s still a risk. Particularly with nation state style actors and very careful efforts to co-opt which are much more sophisticated than “give Bruce coins” or something. This is one reason I’m cautious of Bitcoin core funding - especially from actors who’ve had bad judgment in the past. I think we should be cautious of who does the dev and view it as an attack vector. Bitcoin code is transparent and has lots of eyes on it. So in this case especially there isn’t even a solid accusation, let alone evidence that MIT directed nefarious code changes. If that was an allegation the first question should be: well what code specifically did MIT direct and what proof is there and how was it harmful? I think claims around this would collapse. There’s obviously plenty to criticize about Epstein and MIT working with him — and when it comes to digital assets MIT’s work with Gensler and especially its work on CBDCs is much more suspect than the chance that malicious code was pushed through on Bitcoin. Be cautious but this is a nothing burger

Bruce Fenton

231,982 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

.Erik Voorhees: It’s actually good, from the Trojan horse perspective, that Bitcoin was traceable enough for traditional institutions to tolerate it. “When Bitcoin came out, everyone called it private, thought of it as private. It was referred to as anonymous in every news story. And in some ways, it is very private and very anonymous. But the truth is that it’s also extremely trackable and traceable. It is not private in reality. And the question is, should it have been from the start? And at first I thought, yes, it should have been more private. And that was a mistake in its design. However, I think if Bitcoin had been anonymous truly from the start, like a Zcash or a Monero, it would have had such antagonism from the state. I don’t know that the state could have snuffed it out, but they would have tried much harder. And I think it’s actually good, from the Trojan horse metaphor perspective, that it was traceable enough that the traditional institutions could tolerate it. They’ve never liked it, but they could at least tolerate it because there is some traceability. And that has allowed Bitcoin to grow. And I think in its shadow, that other crypto assets are actually anonymous is very healthy. The strength of cryptocurrency as a concept in society, I think, is served best when Bitcoin itself is not perfectly private, but other assets are. That is a very difficult thing, I think, for the state to combat. And that decentralization of attributes is really, really crucial. So, yeah, I’m very glad that there are other coins that are private. I want there to be more of them, and I want them to be more popular. And I think it’s okay that Bitcoin itself is not.”
2:11

.Erik Voorhees: It’s actually good, from the Trojan horse perspective, that Bitcoin was traceable enough for traditional institutions to tolerate it. “When Bitcoin came out, everyone called it private, thought of it as private. It was referred to as anonymous in every news story. And in some ways, it is very private and very anonymous. But the truth is that it’s also extremely trackable and traceable. It is not private in reality. And the question is, should it have been from the start? And at first I thought, yes, it should have been more private. And that was a mistake in its design. However, I think if Bitcoin had been anonymous truly from the start, like a Zcash or a Monero, it would have had such antagonism from the state. I don’t know that the state could have snuffed it out, but they would have tried much harder. And I think it’s actually good, from the Trojan horse metaphor perspective, that it was traceable enough that the traditional institutions could tolerate it. They’ve never liked it, but they could at least tolerate it because there is some traceability. And that has allowed Bitcoin to grow. And I think in its shadow, that other crypto assets are actually anonymous is very healthy. The strength of cryptocurrency as a concept in society, I think, is served best when Bitcoin itself is not perfectly private, but other assets are. That is a very difficult thing, I think, for the state to combat. And that decentralization of attributes is really, really crucial. So, yeah, I’m very glad that there are other coins that are private. I want there to be more of them, and I want them to be more popular. And I think it’s okay that Bitcoin itself is not.”

Arjun Khemani

23,056 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

.Bitcoin Isn't About You was the first person I remember coining the phrase “monetary use case of Bitcoin,” and it never sat well with me. To me Bitcoin is money, full stop. Framing it as a “use case” suggests it might be something else, which betrays its original purpose. In the white paper, Satoshi used the phrase “honest nodes” FIFTEEN times. At the time, nodes were also miners, so this can rightly be interpreted as “honest miners.” But to speak of honest miners is to imply the possibility of dishonest ones, those who would act against the intent and integrity of the monetary network. Attacks are real. Sometimes they are obvious, and sometimes they are obfuscated through relativism, but satoshi believed they were real and he laid out a blue print for how to thwart their attacks. Don’t be fooled by semantics to redefine Bitcoin and gaslighting that would suggest we all want the same thing. We have one chance to get this right, and the solution as laid out very clearly is hostility against any attempt to make Bitcoin anything other than a decentralized cryptocurrency.
0:25

.Bitcoin Isn't About You was the first person I remember coining the phrase “monetary use case of Bitcoin,” and it never sat well with me. To me Bitcoin is money, full stop. Framing it as a “use case” suggests it might be something else, which betrays its original purpose. In the white paper, Satoshi used the phrase “honest nodes” FIFTEEN times. At the time, nodes were also miners, so this can rightly be interpreted as “honest miners.” But to speak of honest miners is to imply the possibility of dishonest ones, those who would act against the intent and integrity of the monetary network. Attacks are real. Sometimes they are obvious, and sometimes they are obfuscated through relativism, but satoshi believed they were real and he laid out a blue print for how to thwart their attacks. Don’t be fooled by semantics to redefine Bitcoin and gaslighting that would suggest we all want the same thing. We have one chance to get this right, and the solution as laid out very clearly is hostility against any attempt to make Bitcoin anything other than a decentralized cryptocurrency.

Mark Artymko

76,888 просмотров • 1 год назад

Should Strategy proactively sell Bitcoin now to protect shareholders later? Kaleo makes the case for selling, and gets pushback Kaleo: "Issuing MSTR is good here. If they were able to just unload a few billion dollars worth of Bitcoin and say the price didn't move way too much, we are being proactive. If they were able to sell that $1.25 billion of Bitcoin, that's bullish" "You're advocating for destroying shareholder value now to protect shareholder value in the future. Why would we be worried about Strategy being a forced seller if we're not worried about voluntarily selling now? That point I just don't get" Kaleo: "Where else is that 10 to 12 billion dollars coming from? They right now have talked about they are willing to sell the Bitcoin. If they sell some at a higher price, it eases a lot more of the concerns than if we get to 30k and we're in the same situation and they haven't sold any" "I can't get anyone to give me an answer on how much Bitcoin he can sell and why. You have no idea what would happen if he did that. What if he does it and Bitcoin goes to 30 and people are like we're done, he's out? You've destroyed more shareholder value than if Bitcoin just goes to 30, stays there 18 months, and he's forced to sell a couple billion. The most likely scenario is at some point in the next 12 months Bitcoin goes up enough that this isn't a problem"
3:52

Should Strategy proactively sell Bitcoin now to protect shareholders later? Kaleo makes the case for selling, and gets pushback Kaleo: "Issuing MSTR is good here. If they were able to just unload a few billion dollars worth of Bitcoin and say the price didn't move way too much, we are being proactive. If they were able to sell that $1.25 billion of Bitcoin, that's bullish" "You're advocating for destroying shareholder value now to protect shareholder value in the future. Why would we be worried about Strategy being a forced seller if we're not worried about voluntarily selling now? That point I just don't get" Kaleo: "Where else is that 10 to 12 billion dollars coming from? They right now have talked about they are willing to sell the Bitcoin. If they sell some at a higher price, it eases a lot more of the concerns than if we get to 30k and we're in the same situation and they haven't sold any" "I can't get anyone to give me an answer on how much Bitcoin he can sell and why. You have no idea what would happen if he did that. What if he does it and Bitcoin goes to 30 and people are like we're done, he's out? You've destroyed more shareholder value than if Bitcoin just goes to 30, stays there 18 months, and he's forced to sell a couple billion. The most likely scenario is at some point in the next 12 months Bitcoin goes up enough that this isn't a problem"

The Wolf Of All Streets

46,399 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🔥THE WEALTHY ELITE ARE BUYING ALL THE BITCOIN - IS THIS A THREAT TO BITCOIN?!?🔥 The plebs thought Bitcoin was for the people… Then BlackRock showed up with a bazooka full of ETFs and bought the exit ramp. In this video, I dismantle the cope olympics happening across crypto Twitter: “If rich people own Bitcoin, it loses value!” 🤡 “We need more decentralization!” 🧘‍♂️ “This is late-stage capitalism!” 💀 No. This is proof-of-work crushing your utopian pipe dream with a 51-ton reality hammer. Watch as I obliterate the myth that ownership = control, torch the fantasy that Bitcoin was ever going to redistribute wealth, and explain why concentration isn’t a disaster, it’s a side effect of winning:
18:33

🔥THE WEALTHY ELITE ARE BUYING ALL THE BITCOIN - IS THIS A THREAT TO BITCOIN?!?🔥 The plebs thought Bitcoin was for the people… Then BlackRock showed up with a bazooka full of ETFs and bought the exit ramp. In this video, I dismantle the cope olympics happening across crypto Twitter: “If rich people own Bitcoin, it loses value!” 🤡 “We need more decentralization!” 🧘‍♂️ “This is late-stage capitalism!” 💀 No. This is proof-of-work crushing your utopian pipe dream with a 51-ton reality hammer. Watch as I obliterate the myth that ownership = control, torch the fantasy that Bitcoin was ever going to redistribute wealth, and explain why concentration isn’t a disaster, it’s a side effect of winning:

Adam Livingston

19,465 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Coinbase is now accepting hashrate as collateral. This is a massive signal for the mining industry. They call it "Flexible Collateral Packages." Up to 50% hashrate / 50% Bitcoin If you run a tight ship, your machines are finally being recognized as the financial instruments they are.
0:36

Coinbase is now accepting hashrate as collateral. This is a massive signal for the mining industry. They call it "Flexible Collateral Packages." Up to 50% hashrate / 50% Bitcoin If you run a tight ship, your machines are finally being recognized as the financial instruments they are.

Simple Mining

113,447 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Threadguy explains why the market won't let Bitcoin recover while Saylor's still in "If you put a gun to your head and asked what makes a real emphatic bottom for Bitcoin, it's Strategy deleveraging, forced selling of the Bitcoin, and Michael Saylor on trial for financial crimes. That's a bottom right there." "Strategy has $1.7 billion promised annually to the end of time. Out of 5,000 public companies in America, maybe 100 make $1.7 billion in profit a year, and Strategy owes that forever. They're only worth their balance sheet in Bitcoin and they can't sell the Bitcoin. The whole bit is earnings per share, but the only way they earn is by selling more Strategy, and that only works if Bitcoin goes up, which it can't while Saylor's still in. So the market is just saying say uncle."
2:17

Threadguy explains why the market won't let Bitcoin recover while Saylor's still in "If you put a gun to your head and asked what makes a real emphatic bottom for Bitcoin, it's Strategy deleveraging, forced selling of the Bitcoin, and Michael Saylor on trial for financial crimes. That's a bottom right there." "Strategy has $1.7 billion promised annually to the end of time. Out of 5,000 public companies in America, maybe 100 make $1.7 billion in profit a year, and Strategy owes that forever. They're only worth their balance sheet in Bitcoin and they can't sell the Bitcoin. The whole bit is earnings per share, but the only way they earn is by selling more Strategy, and that only works if Bitcoin goes up, which it can't while Saylor's still in. So the market is just saying say uncle."

Kai

52,699 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

THE CEO OF A BITCOIN MINING COMPANY JUST SAID BITCOIN'S DAY AS MONEY IS OVER Bitcoin bitcoin:native still works as a store of value, but he's pivoting MARA $MARA toward AI: - Bitcoin remains valuable as an asset held outside central control, portable, unless authorities shut off conversion to cash - MARA isn't accumulating more Bitcoin right now, since most miners are mining at a loss and he won't dilute shareholders to fund it - He's not less excited about Bitcoin, he's just moved it into a different box: his fiduciary duty is to convert MARA's land and power into AI, which delivers a much higher return
1:33

THE CEO OF A BITCOIN MINING COMPANY JUST SAID BITCOIN'S DAY AS MONEY IS OVER Bitcoin bitcoin:native still works as a store of value, but he's pivoting MARA $MARA toward AI: - Bitcoin remains valuable as an asset held outside central control, portable, unless authorities shut off conversion to cash - MARA isn't accumulating more Bitcoin right now, since most miners are mining at a loss and he won't dilute shareholders to fund it - He's not less excited about Bitcoin, he's just moved it into a different box: his fiduciary duty is to convert MARA's land and power into AI, which delivers a much higher return

WOLF Bitcoin

87,950 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

MARA CEO: Using Electricity for AI Is Far More Profitable Than Bitcoin Mining Fred Thiel Fred Thiel, CEO of MARA, one of the world's largest publicly listed Bitcoin mining companies, said in a July 23 interview with Natalie Brunell that electricity has become the industry's most critical resource, as the same amount of power can generate far greater returns when used for AI than for Bitcoin mining. This is why MARA and many of its peers are shifting toward AI data centers. However, MARA will continue mining Bitcoin, as it remains an effective way to utilize surplus electricity in regions where energy is free or inexpensive.
2:14

MARA CEO: Using Electricity for AI Is Far More Profitable Than Bitcoin Mining Fred Thiel Fred Thiel, CEO of MARA, one of the world's largest publicly listed Bitcoin mining companies, said in a July 23 interview with Natalie Brunell that electricity has become the industry's most critical resource, as the same amount of power can generate far greater returns when used for AI than for Bitcoin mining. This is why MARA and many of its peers are shifting toward AI data centers. However, MARA will continue mining Bitcoin, as it remains an effective way to utilize surplus electricity in regions where energy is free or inexpensive.

Wu Blockchain

21,834 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

THIS is Bitcoin's biggest weakness... The CEO of Bitcoin mining company, MARA, said that $BTC's biggest weakness is its inability to generate yield for holders in a recent interview, per Wu Blockchain. CEO Fred Thiel also added that AI data centers are able to generate much more revenue per unit of electricity expended than $BTC mining. For context, MARA has sold around 20,000 $BTC. Are the Bitcoin faithfuls leaving?!
0:20

THIS is Bitcoin's biggest weakness... The CEO of Bitcoin mining company, MARA, said that $BTC's biggest weakness is its inability to generate yield for holders in a recent interview, per Wu Blockchain. CEO Fred Thiel also added that AI data centers are able to generate much more revenue per unit of electricity expended than $BTC mining. For context, MARA has sold around 20,000 $BTC. Are the Bitcoin faithfuls leaving?!

BSCN

46,663 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🔁 REPOST, recorded June 2024. Everything Luke Dashjr warned about is happening right now. Luke Dashjr - Is Bitcoin In A Civil War? Three or four entities decide what goes into every Bitcoin block. Most "miners" don't even know what they're mining. And if too few of us run nodes, Bitcoin quietly becomes a CBDC. The Bitcoin Core developer who caught the accidental 2013 hard fork before it broke the network came on to explain why mining is dangerously centralized, why the spam wave is a coordinated attack, and why he built a pool to fight back. Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Core developer with 200+ contributions and maintainer of the BIPs, founder and CTO of Ocean, and the man who detected and helped stop the 2013 chain split, joins me to lay out the fight over Bitcoin's future in plain English: the difference between a real miner and a "hasher" who just sells compute, how three or four pools (really Bitmain) control what goes in every block, the invisible tax hiding inside FPPS, why he calls the spam wave a funded attack to destroy Bitcoin, why Bitcoin becomes a CBDC if too few of us run our own nodes, whether we are already in a civil war, and how Ocean is trying to hand block construction back to miners. Send this to anyone who thinks Bitcoin mining is decentralized. TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Intro 01:50 Who is Luke Dashjr 04:09 The rabbit hole: his first patch in 2011 06:06 When Bitcoin became essential (there's no plan B) 10:09 Eligius: the first non-custodial mining pool 12:13 Why he started Ocean 13:50 The real consequences of pool centralization 16:34 Hasher vs miner: who actually mines? 18:36 How FPPS pays you, and what it hides 20:05 Why big pools become proxies for Bitmain 22:35 The launch, and why "censorship" became the word 24:49 What Bitcoin is actually built for 26:40 How to define spam 33:06 "The people behind the spam are out to destroy Bitcoin" 34:47 How the attack gets funded by gamifying it 37:13 Is this an existential threat? 38:48 Run a node, or Bitcoin becomes a CBDC 40:09 Bootstrapping a mining pool from zero 45:40 What non-miners can actually do to help 46:31 Should Bitcoin ossify, or keep upgrading? 49:24 How censorship-resistant is Bitcoin today? 50:00 Is Bitcoin already in a civil war? 51:10 Would the good guys still win a block size war today? 55:53 Ocean's roadmap: decentralizing block construction 1:00:07 How Ocean got its name (Jack Dorsey's nudge) 1:01:53 Do we have a problem in Bitcoin culture? 1:03:22 What Bitcoin means to Luke 1:07:11 The clause: Ocean can do no harm to Bitcoin 1:08:10 Where to find Luke + OCEAN 🎧 Then watch the sequel with Hardfork Kratter, The The Bitcoin Matrix Podcast ⚡️ #279: "Bitcoin Core Has Gone Rogue." 🎧
1:10:09

🔁 REPOST, recorded June 2024. Everything Luke Dashjr warned about is happening right now. Luke Dashjr - Is Bitcoin In A Civil War? Three or four entities decide what goes into every Bitcoin block. Most "miners" don't even know what they're mining. And if too few of us run nodes, Bitcoin quietly becomes a CBDC. The Bitcoin Core developer who caught the accidental 2013 hard fork before it broke the network came on to explain why mining is dangerously centralized, why the spam wave is a coordinated attack, and why he built a pool to fight back. Luke Dashjr, Bitcoin Core developer with 200+ contributions and maintainer of the BIPs, founder and CTO of Ocean, and the man who detected and helped stop the 2013 chain split, joins me to lay out the fight over Bitcoin's future in plain English: the difference between a real miner and a "hasher" who just sells compute, how three or four pools (really Bitmain) control what goes in every block, the invisible tax hiding inside FPPS, why he calls the spam wave a funded attack to destroy Bitcoin, why Bitcoin becomes a CBDC if too few of us run our own nodes, whether we are already in a civil war, and how Ocean is trying to hand block construction back to miners. Send this to anyone who thinks Bitcoin mining is decentralized. TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Intro 01:50 Who is Luke Dashjr 04:09 The rabbit hole: his first patch in 2011 06:06 When Bitcoin became essential (there's no plan B) 10:09 Eligius: the first non-custodial mining pool 12:13 Why he started Ocean 13:50 The real consequences of pool centralization 16:34 Hasher vs miner: who actually mines? 18:36 How FPPS pays you, and what it hides 20:05 Why big pools become proxies for Bitmain 22:35 The launch, and why "censorship" became the word 24:49 What Bitcoin is actually built for 26:40 How to define spam 33:06 "The people behind the spam are out to destroy Bitcoin" 34:47 How the attack gets funded by gamifying it 37:13 Is this an existential threat? 38:48 Run a node, or Bitcoin becomes a CBDC 40:09 Bootstrapping a mining pool from zero 45:40 What non-miners can actually do to help 46:31 Should Bitcoin ossify, or keep upgrading? 49:24 How censorship-resistant is Bitcoin today? 50:00 Is Bitcoin already in a civil war? 51:10 Would the good guys still win a block size war today? 55:53 Ocean's roadmap: decentralizing block construction 1:00:07 How Ocean got its name (Jack Dorsey's nudge) 1:01:53 Do we have a problem in Bitcoin culture? 1:03:22 What Bitcoin means to Luke 1:07:11 The clause: Ocean can do no harm to Bitcoin 1:08:10 Where to find Luke + OCEAN 🎧 Then watch the sequel with Hardfork Kratter, The The Bitcoin Matrix Podcast ⚡️ #279: "Bitcoin Core Has Gone Rogue." 🎧

Cedric Youngelman ⚡️

20,425 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

JUST IN: MARA CEO Fred Thiel says AI pays more than Bitcoin mining. “Today, power is the thing, which is why ourselves and many of our peers have pivoted. Because you get a lot more money per electron if you're doing it for AI than for Bitcoin mining.” “We sit on an asset called land and power, which I can convert to AI, which gives me a much higher return.” Thiel says MARA will not shut down immediately: “We can mine Bitcoin up until the electrons have to be redirected to the data center.” "It starts getting pretty expensive to mine Bitcoin when the alternative use of energy is AI.”
0:58

JUST IN: MARA CEO Fred Thiel says AI pays more than Bitcoin mining. “Today, power is the thing, which is why ourselves and many of our peers have pivoted. Because you get a lot more money per electron if you're doing it for AI than for Bitcoin mining.” “We sit on an asset called land and power, which I can convert to AI, which gives me a much higher return.” Thiel says MARA will not shut down immediately: “We can mine Bitcoin up until the electrons have to be redirected to the data center.” "It starts getting pretty expensive to mine Bitcoin when the alternative use of energy is AI.”

Coin Bureau

42,130 просмотров • 1 месяц назад