Judge Hardcase

Public Key

npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv

Profile Code

nprofile1qqst0xdwylsrwzeg26vnum2g79w3v5uaf2j3l0e7hk7jh3q0vzjdyhspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuamfwdczuarpd34sz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmc8tuz8f

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1k7v6uflqxu9js45e8ek53u2azefe6j49r7lna0da90zq7c9y6f0q8x7ehv

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-04-16 16:26:44 UTC

"Let's agree it would be good for both of us to stop beating the shit out of each other.... but only after we beat the shit out of each other for another 6 hours first."
#nevent1q…9k2f

2026-04-11 00:31:07 UTC

- reply

As long as the BTC they buy is appreciating faster in the long run than dividend expenses, they could always just sell some of that BTC to pay dividends if they had to - regardless of an MSTR premium or not. The premium just provides an option to sell more MSTR instead of selling BTC outright.. That is to say, the MSTR premium is somewhat incidental vis a vis the business model.
The real trick is not going too long with BTC not appreciating faster than dividend expenses.

2026-04-09 00:15:19 UTC

How is speculation that Adam Back is Satoshi even newsworthy? I mean, hasn't Adam been near the top of any such list since like forever? At least HBO's Peter Todd speculation was a little bit out of left field.
Also, apparently, the only reason the recent NYT 'journalist' ever even became suspicious of Adam was because of how tense and uncomfortable he seemed during those HBO interviews. Has anyone ever seen an interview of Adam where he didn't seem tense and uncomfortable?
#nevent1q…sqtk

2026-04-08 23:53:32 UTC

- reply

"can't be traced"? An indefinite number of $1M transactions? Good luck with that.
"...or confiscated"? No prob... at least not until the CRQC fantasy somehow becomes reality.

2026-04-08 20:24:34 UTC

- reply

That's funny. The primary reason I left Windows for Linux was how much time was chronically being wasted waiting for surprise forced updates/reboots.

2026-04-05 11:49:42 UTC

- reply

It seems to me the best shot for a new user to spark engagement is not to just cold post a note to the world - but rather, to start participating in already engaging conversations. So, maybe the default feed for new users ought to be recent trending notes (like within the last hour at most)... and hopefully, they can come up with something of value to add.
Of course, this still doesn't guarantee anyone will follow you - but that kinda seems more like a reality of life than a challenge for nostr. 🤷

2026-03-30 16:08:00 UTC

- reply

'pilot' doesn't seem to fit quite right... how about 'conductor'?

2026-03-23 15:32:43 UTC

- reply

🤣 No... not a judge (in any official capacity 😉)... for some reason, I just decided to borrow the name from a character on a short-lived 80s TV show. It wasn't even a particularly good show, but I always liked the name. 🤷

2026-03-23 15:24:38 UTC

- reply

Do we even know who is speaking on behalf of Iran? I mean, I don't believe a word Trump says, but presumably he has been given reliable enough intelligence to actually know who (if anyone) is in charge.
Conversely, what sources are news orgs using when they report "Iran denies..."? I don't buy for a second that they've even come close to properly vetting this 'information'. Who knows? Are they just regurgitating whatever anonymous slop they're reading on Twitter?... wouldn't surprise me a bit.

2026-03-22 18:16:30 UTC

- reply

If stainless steel wasn't non stick, it wouldn't be used for the huge commercial griddles that diners typically have. Of course, the real key getting them non stick (in addition to getting them hot) is to make sure you're using enough fat - which is why you'll often see diner cooks using huge amounts of lard/butter when they cook (and why diner food can often have a reputation for being greasy).
Cast iron can get way more non stick with way less fat... if that's your thing.

2026-03-21 12:46:43 UTC

- reply

😂 That's a beutiful example of the difference in ethos between Xitter and Nostr
They don't hate @npub1qny…95gx. They just unconditionally love Xitter so much that it doesn't even occur to them that @ODELLXYZ might not be who they think it is.

2026-03-20 22:26:18 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/970b9e9834eee7b6ad146f106ffb7fd9040459a2c44430c0f971c242f78a0bfc.jpg
#nevent1q…wz5v

2026-03-20 14:12:42 UTC

- reply

I think the power law is the best model for this since it effectively describes typical growth rate of a network.
Of course, so far, Bitcoin has pretty much just been a network of humans transacting in bitcoin. Just wait until the AI agent network of bitcoin transactions has its own growth rate to significantly compound on top of the growth rate of the human bitcoin transactions network. 🚀

2026-03-19 19:26:46 UTC

- reply

"Provide a mechanism for...resetting any...seed phrase...that is necessary to access the contents of a hardware wallet."
LOL! morons. A seed phrase isn't necessary to access the contents of a hardware wallet. A seed phrase IS ths contents of a hardware wallet.

2026-03-19 09:49:02 UTC

- reply

I think you're on the right track - but unnecessarily over-complicating it:
The biggest financial beneficiaries of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would be those who produce the most oil that isn't adversely affected... spoiler: that would be United States' oil producers.

2026-03-18 16:57:18 UTC

Presidente Trump is proud of his newly acquired baseball teeam - and is especially appreciative of the trophy they have won for him. 🤣
#nevent1q…2wlg

2026-03-17 20:30:38 UTC

- reply

It seems like a protocol change to enforce a minimum transaction value would make sense. There is a 'dust' limit, but I believe that's just relay policy; and by default, it's only like 546 sats or something like that. If UTXO's were instead forced by consensus rules to represent a more reasonably useful value (in sats), it seems like that would a) add more disincentive for spammers to create a bunch of otherwise useless UTXOs; and b) the otherwise useless UTXOs that do get created would make useful sats that much more scarce... all without having to judge what is spam and what isn't.
I assume I'm missing something, though, because this seems like such an obvious mitigation to me; but that I never see discussed.

2026-03-16 15:24:08 UTC

This is great! But, bitcoin as a payment method being better for the merchant than fiat payment rails is only half of bitcoin's thesis as a better payment method... and until the other half is realized (i.e. the merchant splits those benefits with the customer), then the novelty is destined to wear off and die.
#nevent1q…4dx6

2026-03-15 12:42:19 UTC

🔥
#nevent1q…ejzc

2026-03-15 12:39:06 UTC

- reply

Hmmm... looks like it still might only be working for purchases of potato chips? 😁

2026-03-15 11:50:44 UTC

I'm loving how concise this newsfeed npub is.
#nevent1q…suyk

2026-03-13 10:10:05 UTC

- reply

In all seriousness, I don't think fractional reserve banking is inherently bad. Though, I seriously question if the current lack of informed consent on the part of depositors renders the practice de facto unethical - the wide availability of disingenuous booklets of fine print notwithstanding.

2026-03-13 10:06:44 UTC

DEEP THOUGHTS:
Was the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" a psy-op designed to condition the general public not to question fractional reserve banking as anything other than just necessary and normal bank behavior?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPkJH6BT7dM
#asknostr

2026-03-04 15:04:10 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/d0b10f34329162176ad1e8d26a87fe9c7826385a70132549ab2e54be7278f580.jpg

2026-03-04 13:51:10 UTC

#nevent1q…yd06
In other news:
https://www.newsweek.com/federal-reserve-faces-transaction-delays-issues-services-affected-11613563

2026-03-04 13:25:14 UTC

- reply

anything that came after AskJeeves is an abomination. 🤣

2026-03-04 12:58:08 UTC

- reply

FWIW, from what I can tell, California's Digital Age Assurance Act doesn't actually require age *verification* per se. Merely accepting a user's self-reported age is sufficient. So yes, it's an even dumber law than it sounds.
*this is not legal advice 😉

2026-03-04 00:58:26 UTC

- reply

Yeah, liquid feels like a stop-gap solution until it's inevitably obsoleted by a better alternative; but, it's working for me so far vs the trade-offs that other currently available solutions offer.

2026-03-03 16:50:05 UTC

- reply

So, the best Turing test is to just ask a ridiculously stupid question.

2026-03-03 16:19:10 UTC

- reply

True. But, you're not one of those weirdos who likes to drink cream by itself, are ya? 😉

2026-03-03 15:51:26 UTC

- reply

Just add a little butter:
https://image.nostr.build/48abf296576b405ee0377ca27ece9774bf35aacff288b0780b886837e695e67a.jpg

2026-03-03 14:19:46 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/2f83ee711ee0f713534023c950168ab2c86fc1ab87eab5c74937d1b28fc02e26.gif

2026-03-03 14:03:55 UTC

- reply

Yeah, this might be a bit outdated... viewed from the outside, it seems that hell has its chefs and police reversed these days.

2026-03-02 17:00:59 UTC

#nevent1q…c99l
https://image.nostr.build/b5d91ccc60f852db27575a588cab03851d4ec2ebe8268801d1311723b614d6d6.gif

2026-02-27 17:56:36 UTC

- reply

Who knew "infinite money" was referring to a perptual yield fincanced by; not for the purchasers of MSTR? 😜

2026-02-27 12:05:14 UTC

- reply

On a side note, I still add 2 spaces at the end of each sentence. I know most conventional messaging software has been trucating this to a single space for a very long time. I appreciate it that clients like @npub17n4…fyh9 display my notes as I have actually purposely written them. Meanwhile, other clients, like @npub12vk…pugg display the truncated version - which seems like it should be some sort of Nostr violation for presenting a note from my npub in a form that my nsec didn't actually sign.

2026-02-27 10:45:10 UTC

- reply

> Also, when did we stop capitalising words at the start of paragraphs?
Probably around the same time we stopped using 'sats'. 😉

2026-02-26 12:26:13 UTC

HOT TAKE:
What is the primary function of a YouTube channel's SUBSCRIBE button?
It signals to YouTube that you'd be more likely to sit through many more ads while consuming that content.

2026-02-25 17:07:18 UTC

- reply

DISCLAIMER: My comments shouldn't be perceived as me having any particular qualifications to comment other than simply having a right to comment. 😅

2026-02-25 16:34:40 UTC

- reply

It might; it might not.
The potential for a hostile chain-split is a powerful tool necessary to have in order to ensure users stay in control of their network... but exercising that power requires those users to be willing to risk ending up with a minority network. To me this suggests : only break glass in case of emergency.
It doesn't feel to me like anywhere near most users consider these proposed changes to be an emergency - even by those of us who are otherwise sympathetic to the belief that these changes would make Bitcoin better money.
If Core really wanted to capitulate at this point, it would probably be better if they released their own version with a less aggressive timetable to activate only after a clear user consensus has formed... but it sure doesn't seem like Core are even considering capitulating anyway.

2026-02-25 15:56:39 UTC

- reply

I will say it *feels* unlikely to me, too; but, ultimately 🤷
Core pulling a 180 at this point in itself seems really unlikely. Consequently, stipulating to that premise I find makes it very difficult to have confidence in attributing any particular likelihood to what any downstream outcomes of that might be.
My intention was only to point out the potential for a downside.

2026-02-25 11:02:34 UTC

- reply

The most consequential potential downside of BIP110, IMO, is a chain-split due to a lack of consensus adoption. Core adoption wouldn't necessarily compel consensus adoption... it might very likely just result in a more divided chain-split.

2026-02-25 10:50:42 UTC

- reply

Maybe me.... Haven't checked yet... Did he say "bigley"? 🤞

2026-02-25 10:46:11 UTC

- reply

This is genius! Why continually pay for HBO when - with a little such discipline - a 1-month subscription once every other year or so could easily suffice?

2026-02-23 16:45:01 UTC

- reply

PS. I no longer make predictions. 🤣

2026-02-23 16:41:18 UTC

- reply

I predicted Uber would be obsoleted by decentralized P2P rideshare economy by now.

2026-02-23 00:34:12 UTC

- reply

No, I don't wash eggshells so that they won't smell... I gotta take my garbage out to keep other things from smelling way before unwashed eggshells would.

2026-02-23 00:24:09 UTC

- reply

No worries here. I haven't gotten around to actually cooking with it myself; but all the online chef-fluencers I pay attention to seem to think it's nothing to worry about.

2026-02-22 21:05:24 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/b742809ee12ce751495819b49e03149c7b936e097b7b28c40733ffa65ab201cd.jpg

2026-02-22 14:01:04 UTC

To be clear: IF miners switch AFTER activation, reversing every transaction on the main chain would include wiping out their own mining revenue during that period.
Assuming the reason miners didn't switch AT or before activation was because of lack of user support for bip110, that's a heck of a lot of incentive to instead trigger an eventual bip110 rejection soft fork (effectively, a hard chain-split from bip110) if/when bip110 ever gets even close to threatening to gain majority user and/or miner support. (personally, I would be shocked if it ever gets to this point).
In a scenario where legal fear tactics scares miners into leaving a would-be user majority rejection chain for the user minority bip110 chain, that's on those miners, and I couldn't care less. What ultimately matters in a hard chain-split is where the user activity is; not where hash power is split between 2 chains that no longer compete with each other for hash power (this is why the users - not the miners - ultimately decides what bitcoin is).
PS. if bip110 happens to gain the majority user and miner support prior to the drop-dead activation date(block), then so be it. I don't think what bip110 actually proposes to change is per se terrible. I really only object to the mechanism for activation at that time even if it sorely lacks consensus support.
#nevent1q…ek9y

2026-02-19 11:33:04 UTC

- reply

Cool! Also, this:
https://image.nostr.build/10464d58a50b9fa449679466d4e574b76c7b85f6ac0d167d0df437ea71174f03.jpg

2026-02-19 11:07:28 UTC

- reply

Houses are another store of capital. I'm not sure why a sense of wealth from any capital gains should be considered superficial - even while those gains are not yet realized.
As an aside, the obvious problem here is that it shouldn't be the government's job to put its thumb on the scale in order to make owning a house any more (or any less) advantageous than an otherwise free(er) market would have determined on its own.

2026-02-17 19:07:18 UTC

- reply

FWIW, "near 0% in the next 5 years and <10% by 2035" is entirely constitent with my own personal assessment of never gonna happen. 🤣

2026-02-17 18:44:54 UTC

- reply

For sure, if no URSF ever materializes, miners could very well just collectively choose to start enforcing BIP110. Even better would be if Core just endosed BIP110 outright; or, possibly even came up with their own acceptable alternative. None of the above are my basecase, however.
I'm not exactly sure what % (or possibly other metric) would be considered a credible threat in the minds of the anti-BIP110 crowd; but, I would fully expect a URSF if/when that line is eventually crossed - which I suppose might not even happen until well after a potential chain-split. The path to the least disruption may very well be to play chicken with the BIP110 8%

2026-02-17 17:16:38 UTC

- reply

PS. Short of overwheming consensus support from the community as a whole, I don't see Coinbase (or any other regulated entities) being particularly keen on tolerating ANY potential for a soft fork to cause signifact disruption.

2026-02-17 17:11:15 UTC

- reply

It seems to me that Coinbase alone could decide to make a URSF defacto "popular" whenever they wanted to - and the majoriry of miners would almost be certain to follow. It would be at that point that BIP110 users and miners - presumably still in the minority - would have to choose whether or not to continue on with the new coin they have created. I would be shocked if more than a handful of BIP110 supporters (especially any would-be miners) would be willing to die on that hill.

2026-02-17 10:55:52 UTC

- reply

... o yeah, there was some of that earlier, too - but in the opposited direction. Mike had scolded Larry a bit for interrupting just a few minutes earlier - which I think likely had Larry on a short fuse when he felt Mike was then interrupting him.

2026-02-17 10:52:33 UTC

- reply

I think Larry's statement was along the lines of "show me the evidence" - to which Mike simply interjected "ETFs". It's not unusual for the regulars to make such brief interjections. Larry didn't hear him clearly, though - likely because of the delay on Mike's side - and asked "what's that?", and it fell apart from there... at least that's my take on what happened.
I certainly don't agree with Mike's "infinite supply" BS... and, I'm not sure I buy that he actually believes it himself. However, either way, I do think he provides a useful proxy on that show for what "smart money" is thinking about bitcoin (i.e. they still have no idea yet what bitcoin really is).

2026-02-15 13:41:10 UTC

- reply

Not speaking for anyone else, I think citing not enough hash rate is a valid concern. It's true that ultimately plebs decide what bitcoin is; but, in order to make a change without massive disruption to the network, a soft fork with overwhelming miner support is required. Otherwise plebs have to be willing to endure massive disruption at best - and possibly result in a permanent chain-split at worst.
Personally, I'm generally supportive of the idea that bitcoin should try to stay focused on being money, and I greatly appreciate the energy that you and others are putting into trying to make that happen. I like the idea of limiting OP_RETURN via consensus rules back to what was clearly the widely accepted default. I'm not as convinced about other changes, but regardless, I don't view what any of these changes would solve as being existential enough for me to be supportive of any disruption over it.
FWIW, I strongly suspect there are a significant number of others who generally share this perspective.

2026-02-14 13:21:47 UTC

- reply

You can easily have a faucet send you some... Try these:
Testnet4: https://coinfaucet.eu/en/btc-testnet4/
Testnet3: https://coinfaucet.eu/en/btc-testnet/

2026-02-12 19:30:42 UTC

🤣#nevent1q…cd93

2026-02-12 19:24:33 UTC

- reply

💯
Ideally, lower transaction costs will provide the natural incentives for the world to eventually adopt bitcoin payment rails - even for those who don't actually want to hold bitcoin themselves; but in the meantime, swapping from bitcoin savings to fiat spending when necessary is good enough for now for the vast majority of use-cases.

2026-02-12 17:56:31 UTC

- reply

'show' is the operative word here.
Congress voted for it; Trump signed it; but almost none of them acutally wanted tranparency... and they get to pretend that they're impotent against Bondi's stonewalling.

2026-02-12 16:01:10 UTC

- reply

Confiscatable Bitcoin.

2026-02-12 15:53:04 UTC

- reply

I don't consider "early" to mean "young". Actually, I would argue "early" in fact does mean "pre-mainstream".

2026-02-12 01:35:11 UTC

- reply

Weird. I bet nobody saw that coming from someone so obvioualy happy.

2026-02-12 01:28:03 UTC

- reply

Well, since spend = sell in terms of opportunity cost, I'm happy to report I'm not in 2)

2026-02-11 10:58:53 UTC

👀
#nevent1q…nyz7

2026-02-10 10:57:56 UTC

- reply

I'm not one to be interested in owning MSTR; but if I were, I think I would have bought at some point under 1.2 mNav. When the sat squeeze kicks in, I would expect it to kick in double for MSTR as the mNav climbs back towards 2.0 or even higher. (I expect the MSTR bros to be relentless in telling everyone else about it, too. 😉)

2026-02-10 10:35:05 UTC

- reply

Easy: $100 a month. Keep what's remining of the $8k you otherwise would have spent upfront in Bitcoin to appreciate way faster than $100/month. If you wanted to be ultra-conservative, keep only about half of the $8k in Bitcoin - which, as a bitcoiner, you would still expect to appreciate way faster than $100/month on average - and keep the other half in dollars to pay the $100/month during bitcoins bears.

2026-02-09 20:01:21 UTC

- reply

Wow! I hadn't realized how far behind the times Google has fallen... I mean, come on; it's 2026! The new way to raise capital is to just pay 11+% annual dividends on shares of perpetual preferred stock that NEVER mature. 🤣

2026-02-08 16:23:22 UTC

- reply

In the instances of evidence of probable cause that a specific client has committed a specific crime, the DOJ ought to prosecute, period.
unpopular opinion: anything short of such probable cause, the government - as far as in its public capacity - should keep its mouth shut.
If the victims wish to expose certain clients for questionable behavior, that's their business; but it doesn't require Congress for them to do so. The government shouldn't be in the business of publicly shaming for anything other than for actually prosecutable illegal behavior.

2026-02-08 13:45:13 UTC

- reply

Granted, they don't really qualify as a 'podcast', but if you need an introduction for someone who is still asking "why should I even care about bitcoin", for my money, nothing beats about a half-dozen or so old Andreas Antonopoulos videos.
Here's one that I just rewatched from 9 years ago that is still pure gold (pun intended):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1si5ZWLgy0

2026-02-06 19:30:40 UTC

I'm confident we'll return to 126k soon enough - I'm just not in a big hurry to do so. Not just because I will enjoy cheaper sats in the meantime; and, not because I think the 2x ride won't be enjoyable. Mostly, it's because the MSTR bros enjoying the corresponding 4x-plus ride are going to be downright insufferable.

2026-02-06 16:05:21 UTC

- reply

Exactly. I mean, I love that ecash is as thing I can use; but an ecash mint is really just a bank but with the pro and con tradeoffs of no kyc (pro) and no FDIC (con).

2026-02-06 14:37:30 UTC

- reply

Keeping in mind the wide field of worthy contenders in the competition for THE stupidest idea of that era, yeah, this one's gotta be one of the favorites for sure.

2026-02-06 11:54:37 UTC

Anyone else remember Saylor biting @npub16le…ffxj' head off for trying to ask if he thought there was genuinely abundant room for other companies to run Strategy's playbook? Well, yesterday, he got asked essentially the same question (made me LMFAO); but actually gave a coherent, civil response (~20:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcV_7uil_0A
#nevent1q…z8sy

2026-02-06 11:15:33 UTC

"I wasn't wrong. I was just right too often."
LOL! The bots have gotten so human they've even learned how to come up with a cope.
#nevent1q…d3zt

2026-02-06 10:50:10 UTC

- reply

100k.
FWIW, my long-running thesis is that the higher lows indicates a persistent rise in adoption. I have a very simple model for that thesis which would suggest we've passed the point of ever falling below ~55k.... Though, I gotta admit, yesterday did a lot of damage to my confidence in that model continuing to hold true.

2026-02-05 14:04:54 UTC

- reply

Better than DCA. If your strategy is to not try to time the market, why hold back anything at all? A serial lump sum everything you got, whenever you got it buyer is really just a strict DCAer; but with actual confidence in their conviction that Number Go Up.

2026-02-01 18:06:50 UTC

- reply

I don't foresee sufficient support materializing... not because I think it would be a bad change in principle; but because I don't think most would-be supporters consider it existentialist enough to be willing to die on that hill.

2026-02-01 11:59:41 UTC

- reply

I agree with paying attention to performance, but not how you suggest doing so.
What Bitcoiners should pay attention to is adoption. As adoption increases, so do the bottoms. The increasing tops don't indicate adoption; it indicates gambling.
So, as far as stay humble and stack sats, I completely agree. But, unless you're a speculative trader, that means paying no attention to the mountain peaks. Just DCA, and as long as adaption (and therefore the bottoms) keeps increasing, you should be good regardless of the peaks... e.g. the CAGR from the March 2020 low to the Jan 2023 low was ~63%. We should expect that rate to slowly decrease over time, but so far, we haven't since dropped below maintaining that rate (though, we're currently getting pretty close to doing so).

2026-02-01 10:57:12 UTC

- reply

Fair point.
Solving each of theses issues (and there are likely others) is necessary but not individually sufficient to provide a universal incentive to spend.

2026-01-31 15:26:44 UTC

- reply

kinda like how Bitcoin fractured the money community?

2026-01-31 15:04:12 UTC

- reply

That's correct. However, as Block is already demonstrating with Square/Cashapp, bitcoin payment rails doesn't have to mean that payers and payees necessarily have to ever even know that their fiat payments were transmitted as Bitcoin.
What I'm asking for is that the payment rails be via decentralized, permissionless, more cost-efficient Bitcoin - with voluntary usage of services that offer bridges from/to fiat (e.g. cashapp, square, etc) for those who just don't want to hold bitcoin due to volatility (or any other reason), rather than reinfocing the backwards status quo of the other way around.
PS. I do think bitcoin volatility will continue to drop, but I personally don't believe it will ever be as stable as the U.S. dollar is now, for example... After all, it's way easier for a centralized authority to manage a slow leak of value in the dollar than it ever will be for a free market to stabilize the exchange rate of Bitcoin.

2026-01-29 17:24:11 UTC

- reply

... and this is in addition to the ~9% drop already since early November.

2026-01-29 15:44:16 UTC

- reply

I don't know if what we're seeing is a short squeeze on precious metals due to a massive unwinding of paper derivatives... but this is what I imagine such a short squeeze would look like.

2026-01-29 15:35:26 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/a6146dcfb099581c7b18b3aea72f43502a24bf709cbd3043443ce13eabc383b6.png

2026-01-28 11:45:16 UTC

- reply

I think it's worth pointing out that even when you install Signal from Apple's App Store, for example, you are trusting that that binary actually corresponds to the open-source code-base in Signal's repository. That is to say, if you can't independently verify what an app store is giving you, then you are inherently trusting that app store with ANY app it is giving you.
But yeah, in addition to WhatsApp not being open-source, it should already be well known not to trust WhatsApp (i.e. Meta) by reputation alone.

2026-01-27 21:26:52 UTC

- reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9XyJTUbN6U

2026-01-26 19:10:01 UTC

- reply

Imagine the short squeeze that would occur if a massive amount of paper gold and silver holders demanded delivery from custodians that had been fractionally reserving their stashes.
I don't know if that's what we're seeing; but it's an explanation consistent with what we're seeing (including why bitcoin price seems entirely uncorrelated).

2026-01-26 16:20:11 UTC

- reply

Fantastic conversation!
You're absolutely correct about being pragmatic and meeting people where there at. However, long term, to get people to want to spend bitcoin, we have to move beyond building bridges to fiat payment rails.
Bitcoin has already demonstrated that it's a superior money for savings. Bitcoin can also be a superior money for payments - but not while relying on an underlying inferior fiat foundation. Until the payment rails are in place to use Bitcoin as the superior money for payments that it is, we shouldn't be expecting people to want to spend bitcoin.

2026-01-24 11:32:25 UTC

- reply

This is pretty cool. However, clearly, the merchants must be paying some service to process the receiving of funds via these QR codes.
Call me crazy, but in a region that doesn't already have a similarly ubiquitous QR code system, if you're going to try to convince a bunch of merchants there to start using QRs, why not just go straight to lightning QRs and allow them to eliminate the middle-men fees altogether?... In the case a merchant still insisted on being paid in fiat (or just didn't want to go through the trouble of managing their own lightning node), THEN they could choose to pay a middle-man to make that happen... e.g. what Square already offers.

2026-01-23 15:24:26 UTC

- reply

... and no, personally, I would not feel secure having my life savings in something I don't consider to be self-custody (i.e. including self-recovery).

2026-01-23 15:10:25 UTC

- reply

No, the cloud key IS encrypted with the bitkey device... but as long as you still have the unencrypted version of that key on your phone (in the app), you don't even have to bother with decrypting the cloud key in order to coordinate with bitkey to setup a new device (and new 2-of-3 keyset). The only purpose for the cloud key is in case you lose your phone (or delete the app), you can decrypt the key stored in your cloud (using your bitkey device) for use on a new phone.
*there are also encrypted version(s) of your app key stored in YOUR cloud that your recovery contact(s) hold the decryption key for. In case you lose both your phone AND your bitkey device, installing a fresh app on a new phone will allow you to use the decryption key held by a recovery contact to recover your app key from YOUR cloud - which in turn can be used to coordinate with bitkey to setup a new device (and new 2-of-3 keyset). Of course, the app on your phone combined with the app on your recovery contact's phone handle the coordination of all this to make it reasonably painless. (minus the waiting period you mentioned earlier).
Again, assuming designed as advertised (which I think is fair to question), I think it's pretty clever. My biggest problem with bitkey is that they advertise it as "self-custody"; but unlike virtually any other hardware wallet, if you lose the bitkey device, because it's designed to have nothing to backup (e.g. a seed phrase), self-recovery is not possible. In my book, reliance on a 3rd-party for recovery necessarily disqualifies it as self-custody.

2026-01-23 13:26:42 UTC

- reply

PS... Apparently, your recovery contact(s) would also have what's necessary to decrypt your app key stored in the cloud... so, potentially, if FBI compromises Bitkey server, your cloud provider, and also somehow a recovery contact, I suppose your wallet could be at risk without you necessarily ever even knowing it.

2026-01-23 13:17:01 UTC

- reply

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say with "coordinate with Bitkey to transfer funds (via the mobile app key and the Bitkey servers key) to an entirely new 2-of-3 keyset"

2026-01-23 12:45:45 UTC

- reply

Assuming @npub1tke…wral designed as advertised, of the 2-of-3 keys needed, Bitkey servers controls 1 key, the mobile app controls 1 key, and the hardware device itself controls 1 key. There is also an encrypted backup of the mobile app key stored in your cloud account - which requires the hardware device to decrypt it.
In short, in addition to the key from Bitkey severs, the FBI would also need either your hardware device, or the key from your mobile app (which I suppose could potentially be lifted through some sort of spyware and/or malicious version of the app).
*The key controlled by the hardware device isn't backed up anywhere (it's designed to not even be possiible). If the device is lost (or just stops working for whatever reason), the user's only recourse is to hope to still be able to get a new device and hope to still be able to coordinate with Bitkey to transfer funds (via the mobile app key and the Bitkey servers key) to an entirely new 2-of-3 keyset.

2026-01-23 12:00:17 UTC

- reply

"as more people integrate crypto and use crypto, there's more demand and finite supply"
It's kind of amazing to watch him conflate bitcoin and 'crypto' in such a short clip. Finite supply is true for bitcoin; not for 'crypto'. In large part, it's because of this persistent blantant affinity scamming that non-shitcoiners just can't stand Coinbase.

2026-01-22 10:49:38 UTC

- reply

"The Fourth Amendment says the government isn’t allowed to “seize” (arrest) you without a warrant"
That's not actually what it says. The Fourth Amendment says the government isn't allowed to "seize" (arrest) you "[unreasonably]". It ALSO says that no warrants shall be issued withouth probable cause. It does not say that a warrant is required to seize (arrest) you. This is an important distinction - as such a requirement would be patently absured in many scenarios where arrest is obviously justified on the spot.
In short, only probable cause is needed for arrest. Obtaining a *judicial* warrant beforehand just preemptively settles the question of reasonableness. Alternatively, the reasonableness of any non-judicial warrant is inherently still at risk of later being overruled by a court - potentially, if egregious enough, leading to a wrongful arrest lawsuit.