Finally got around to making a simple website that displays all of my latest visualizations. wickedsmartbitcoin.com

It would be interesting to witness a failed UASF attempt.

Final frame 🍻

Block by block, sat by sat...save and HODL bitcoin for a better future.

I have now fully open sourced the code which creates this on-chain BIP-444 futures contract! The contract starts with an atomic deposit into the contract address of 1 BTC each (to make sure both parties put in the same amount into the contract address). Context: BIP-444 makes the use of OP_IF & OP_NOTIF consensus INVALID upon activation. The contract is built as follows: The taproot address uses the NUMS point as described in BIP341, to provably show the key path is not active. We have two parties, a "YES" (444 activates) and "NO" (444 does NOT activate). YES and NO for short. The first leaf is a 2 of 2 multisig of both parties. This exists to be able to self send the UTXO AFTER BIP 444 activates. This is because BIP-444 just added a clause that UTXOs created before activation will NOT have the BIP-444 consensus rules applied to them. This self send removes that exception. The second leaf: has 2 ways you can spend with it, a 2 of 2 (YES and NO) multisig, just like the first leaf OR the NO party, with a time lock which is LESS THAN the third tap leaf. This is important because it uses OP_NOTIF The Third Leaf: The YES party can spend, after a time lock AFTER the second leaf. The order of the timelocks is important. If BIP-444 activates, the spending condition that can spend before you will be consensus invalid, so it doesn't matter if you believe 444 activates. So to summarize: - If BIP-444 DOES activate, the party who believes it will be able to use the second tap leaf to get 2 BTC out. - If BIP-444 DOES NOT activate, the party who believes that will use the third tap leaf to get 2 BTC out. Since each side is highly confident in their position, the fair market price is a 1:1 ratio, implying 50% likelihood. With 85 days until activation, this contract as written gives you an implied ~430% APY on your bitcoin! The risk is being incorrect on your opinion of BIP-444 activating. You could modify the collateral each side puts up to get different implied odds of the futures contract as well. Code and example address below 👇

The main problem Luke and Mechanic have is they can’t convince enough of us to feel threatened by spam. If you’re threatened by it, maybe ask yourself why the rest of us aren’t.

Do you feel threatened by spam on Bitcoin?

The NASDAQ 100 just edged out Bitcoin comparing their 4-year CAGR.

Bip444 is being designed behind closed doors. Bip444 is a state-sanctioned attack on Bitcoin. Good morning.

...those ideas have unfortunately spread among the latest cohort of bitcoiners, *many of whom are now running knots. I don't think most are knots supporters...loud as they may be on Twitter and YouTube.

2017 - miners and large corpos dont control bitcoin 2026 - an economically irrelevant but loud-on-twitter group of users dont control bitcoin

Too many bitcoiners got the wrong idea from the 2017 user activated soft fork (UASF) and those ideas have unfortunately spread among the latest cohort of bitcoiners, most of whom are now running knots. I actually think it would be healthy for them and the network as a whole if they forked off and failed so that we could all have a more grounded and evidence based understanding of why a smaller economically irrelevant group of users isn't able to hijack the network.

Moving to a taproot address DOES NOT make your bitcoin more quantum safe. Taproot actually exposes your public key and makes it LESS quantum safe. If you want to make your bitcoin maximally quantum safe, put it in a 3-of-5 native segwit multisig and don't reuse addresses.

Wait a second - this would mean the intent to fork was in motion well before @lopp and @peterktodd got on stage with @GrassFedBitcoin and @LukeDashjr in Lugano with @stephanlivera moderating. Would have been nice to discuss in a public forum!

So I’m guessing these exchanges will just default to whichever chain has the most proof of work (until explicitly stated otherwise). In the case of a chain split, this would be the legacy chain…not the fork. This would likely further cement its failure.

One of the most informative and productive Knots vs Core discussions I’ve heard in a while. I recommend listening to the whole 3 hours when you get a chance. Great job, fellas...had some good laughs too. @ToneVays @murchandamus @jimmysong

Bitcoin Knots vs Core v30 - Part IV w/ Murch x.com/i/broadcasts/1yoKMPeRV…

So far we got one response from an exchange loosely in favor of the legacy chain if there’s a contentious soft fork resulting in a split. Any other exchanges care to weigh in? @River @Strike @CashApp @BullBitcoin_ @SwanBitcoin @binance @coinbase @krakenfx @Gemini @RobinhoodApp

Had some pleb slop for lunch today. hbu?