Dean

Totally agree that avoiding KYC is about personal safety but unfortunately the tax man thinks Bitcoin is about tax evasion. So needing to purchase hashpower with Sats does present a problem.
Those sats were probably purchased on a KYC exchange. If you then spend them on hashpower the tax man is going to probably assume you still have them because you didn't sell them on a KYC exchange. Sure you will say you sold them but if audited you will show receipts for what you spent the sats on. There is no way they believe you don't have 100% and some more sats earned through the mining than you started with. In reality you have some small % less. So sure the new sats are in a wallet address that is not KYC'd but the taxman will assume you have as much or more bitcoin than you really have. So it might as well be KYC bitcoin.
Still a worthy endeavor for the cause but I would be interested in ideas to manage the presented issue.

2026-03-22 00:46:38 UTC

- reply

I feel like most of the actual social interaction via tech has moved to messenger apps, WhatsApp etc. In some ways thats good. But I do think that the more distant social connections, such as family that you are not as close too, old work colleagues etc are missed out. But perhaps that's as it should be. We are not meant to have an infinite social graph including everyone we ever met.

2026-03-10 10:01:16 UTC

- reply

But v30+ and LibreRelay exist and they need a response. Sitting on older versions of Core does not help or in any way assert a dissaproval of v30+

2026-02-19 07:19:29 UTC

- reply

Is it just me or it seems to be an increasing trend to dunk on boomers? I mean, criticise a behavior fair enough, but generalising it to an entire democratic is pretty cheap.
* not a boomer

2026-01-11 00:04:27 UTC

- reply

Did people really have an alternative prior to the internet?

2026-01-08 09:11:02 UTC

- reply

+1 for FUTO

2025-12-09 05:02:04 UTC

- reply

I probably was being a bit facetious by saying they burned them as they technically can still spend them (which is how they move the ownership of the inscription) but the transaction fee would already be more than the 1000 sats in the utxo so from a monetary sense they burned it but not from an NFT sense. If they really think someone attributes some value to owning the inscription that person might pay some money, making up for the high relative transaction fee. Same point stands though.

2025-12-08 04:35:53 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…30qs can you really call it stealing. No one becomes a new owner of those Sats and the original owner already burned them. What they think they own is the inscription data etc, but really they are expecting us all to pay for its preservation forever.

2025-10-15 09:39:51 UTC

- reply

This is an awesome evolution!

2025-09-21 10:53:33 UTC

Not even one page into @nprofile…ttc0 's 'Broken Money' and we have an an interaction between siblings Alice and Bobby, alluding to the cannonical characters of cryptography. Nice!

2025-09-09 06:37:40 UTC

- reply

Well this whole drama is making me finally pull my finger out and spin up a node. Just because it's not existing core users changing over to knots does not make them illegitimate. Running my own node was already an intention well before the drama, so I'm not solely motivated by this issue, however it is definitely a catalyst for doing it now.

2025-02-14 10:07:07 UTC

- reply

That was a classic line about Bitcoin not being 18 yo yet 🤣