#139 - Simon Dixon - How the Financial-Industrial Complex Runs the World

👏

A great podcast. If you want to understand the Core vs. Knots topic, this is a must-listen.

Thanks for the interview. I largely agree with Jimmy on almost all points, which is precisely why his final conclusion is hard to reconcile. He clearly understands the reasons for pursuing a fork and even acknowledges the upside of what is often framed as the strongest criticism of the BIP: that it makes future changes to Bitcoin harder. A stricter consensus reduces the risk of frequent or careless modifications and helps protect Bitcoin’s long-term stability. The only serious counterargument he raises is the risk of a network split. But Bitcoin is a long-term project, not a political compromise. If we believe something strengthens Bitcoin over the long run, short-term risks should not automatically prevent action. Doing nothing is also a choice. Clear signaling matters: the more people openly signal their position instead of waiting on the sidelines, the clearer the real consensus becomes and the stronger Bitcoin will be in the future.

Very good perspectives. Especially about finding out about minority fork, makes me still a bit uneasy thinking about that 😄 Seems Walker also came around from unconditionally following Core opinion. Biggest take: there is often nuance and seldomly just black and white.

There is a big difference if you signal shitcoins are welcome or you focus on money and discourage non-monetary use cases. There are plenty of shitcoins they can play on. Nodes and users are important otherwise it deceases to be Bitcoin and becomes captured and centralized.

What bs are you talking abou Rizzo, lol.

I have never heard that knots supporters argue that they don't believe that a fee market establishes in the future. Hmm, why you think Luke is for 300kb blocks 🤔

Andere Kritikpunkte stimme ich zu.

Super Argument Dennis. Tom blendet Kernproblematik aufgrund von Indizien-DoS ab und kommt zu falschen Rückschlüssen. Ganz ohne technisches Verständnis kann man halt leider keine Rückschlüsse auf Validität der Indizien und Schutz vor Zentralisierung ziehen, sorry Tom.

Genau andersrum, Ver und Co waren die großen Player (Exchanges, Miner, ..) die ihre Geschäftsmodelle schützen wollten und via Blockgröße einfachste Lösung durchdrücken wollten (Zentralisierung). Mining Pools würden mit Bigblocks noch mehr zentralisiert sein weil schwerer Nodes zu betreiben. Pools ist ein Problem, Lösung Stratum v2, Ocean/Datum um Blocktemplates zu dezentralisieren. Ver/Bigblocks hätte nichts daran geändert bzw. verschlimmert. Blocksizewar als neutralere Quelle lesen.

💯

Great interview. Samson Mow has gained a lot of integrity in my eyes. He is one of the few developers who fairly and accurately weighs the arguments of those opposing Core.

Very good discussion of the whole situation. 👏

Whic pr?

Thanks for the insights. 👏

👏

Great content from @npub1klkk3vrzm…, thanks for reading. 🤙

Thats also an issue with core devs, they get paid a lot and maybe feel the urge to do something instead of nothing

👏

Sehr interessante Blickwinkel, Danke.

👏

Bitcoin is a monetary network and we can't give an inch to make it become a garbage storage. It would make Bitcoin indistinguishable from any random shitcoin.

BTCPay und Wasabi Wallet nutzen nbxplorer und der hatte ein problem mit dem blockheader des besagten blocks, daher beide projekte betroffen.

Puh, wenig Insights in die Problematik. Die op_return filter datacarrier und datacarriersize sollen auch entfernt werden, also nicht mehr konfigurierbar. op_return kostet 4x fees daher wird weiter über witness gespamt werden, und noch paar andere Punkte die das Ganze kontrovers machen.

🧡

Sehr interessante Gedankengänge.

Super insider infos. Bestätigt dass Jiurnalismus quasi Tot ist, jedenfalls in Massenmedien. Es wird nur noch das vorgegebene Narrativ propagiert.

LFG!

Strong interview with very interesting points.The fact that financial service providers must always chase higher returns just to keep capital, otherwise it moves to competitors, makes you question whether this system has any real winners. In the end, it feels like there are only two options: no money at all, or money based on debt and controlled through debt. Bitcoin finally offers a way out of this. Thank you, Peter. It’s clear that you truly want to make things better and that you are actively working toward change.

Excellent episode. Very informative and well spent two hours. Thank you.

After watching that episode, I couldn’t stop thinking about it all day. Our entire perspective on the economy is built on a flawed premise. Our unit of measurement isn’t constant. Bitcoin will change this forever. Thank you, it was truly fascinating!

Okay, this is a very interesting point. We still do not fully know how Bitcoin ultimately behaves in upgrades involving consensus, because these dynamics only become fully visible during real conflict situations. However, the Blocksize Wars already gave us important insight into how Bitcoin behaves under pressure. It is often said that changing Bitcoin consensus rules is extremely difficult. In theory, that is true. In practice, however, the dynamics could look very different. If users attempt to activate new rules through a User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) and enough nodes begin signaling support for those rules, miners come under pressure. Miners have a strong incentive to avoid producing blocks that could later be rejected by the relevant part of the network. Because of this miners may tend to adopt the new rules, or at least produce blocks that remain compatible with the change, even when the initial active support is relatively small. That would mean Bitcoin may, in practice, be more changeable than we assumed. The key question would then no longer be how changes are activated, but how they are prevented. Because stopping a UASF would not simply happen through passive inaction. It would require an active counterfork with opposing rules that is consciously supported by nodes, users, and miners. And this is where it becomes especially interesting: Not all existing nodes determine the outcome, only the active participants do. Nodes and miners must proactively support, or oppose a proposed direction. Those who do not participate are effectively treated as neutral. Many people do not want to engage with every technical debate. Some do not have the time, others may not fully understand the arguments, or simply consider both outcomes acceptable. In this model, passive participants are not automatically interpreted as opposition. As a result, changes would primarily be decided by those willing to actively take responsibility and participate. At the same ti…

Very interesting podcast, I’ve never looked at it that way before. Bitcoin will likely stay open to everyone, but fast guaranteed inclusion could become a premium service mainly used by professional actors like exchanges, banks, large businesses, or critical infrastructure. Normal users can still use Bitcoin, but may wait longer in busy situations, pay higher fees compared to the average, or rely more on Layer 2 solutions. For miners, subscription or contract-based blockspace could also create more stable and predictable income than relying only on volatile fee spikes. There are benefits and disadvantages to this model, but overall I agree and see it as a necessary evolution for Bitcoin. It may be one of the only ways to enable larger companies and countries to fully build large-scale financial infrastructure on Bitcoin.

Support your local rancher.

Imho generische opcodes (e.g. op_cat) sind zu risikoreich und unvorhersehbar. Bei spezifischen opcodes muss möglichst sichergestellt sein dass sie nicht missbraucht werden können. Jede noch so kleine Lücke (oder Kombination von mehreren kleinen Lücken) wird von KI gefunden und ausgenutzt werden. Blockgröße ändern war immer Option aber erst wenn alles andere voll ausgenutzt und Blöcke über Jahre(?) voll. Änderungen/Features (ausser 0-day) müssen daher in Jahren oder sogar Jahrzehnten gedacht werden. Ziel: Protokoll soll 1000+ Jahre bestehen. Marke no mistakes.