Jackthemimic
JackTheMimic

Hoch die anarchie. Bomb throwing champion.

Public Key

npub1m50e65pv09ga73lglrkjgh5tlgj006pv9rce8xdg7rn5kps38gssh2glzq

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsd68ua2qk8j5wlgl503mfyt69l5f8haqkz3uvnnx50pe6tqcgn5ggpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerfw36x7tnsw43qj0j555

Publishing to

relay.ditto.pub

Author Public Key

npub1m50e65pv09ga73lglrkjgh5tlgj006pv9rce8xdg7rn5kps38gssh2glzq

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-18 05:05:27 UTC

- reply

That has no bearing when the incentives align. Fiat can be very persuasive to any jurisdiction. But whatever, bury your head in sand about it, I don't care anymore. 11 years of experience and technical experience but sure, the mantras influencers say are your rebuttal. It couldn't happen because game theory between nations (as if nations don't work together all the time).
All good man, don't worry about it.

2026-08-17 13:21:14 UTC

- reply

Remind who? The exchanges and the mining pools that control Bitcoin now? Knowing your cypherpunk roots disallows those establishments to take a foothold in the first place. Once they have a foothold, there's no removing them. Cool? Lol

2026-08-17 11:52:23 UTC

- reply

I'm not going back to trading rocks for stuff.
Also, the foot guns that you're mentioning are entirely avoidable, even in the most retard-proof way. Seed QRs or having seed cards are a way that even retards can hold their money securely.
And I don't know if you've ever studied history here, but taking on the government head on is actually never the way things work out for the revolutionaries. They always start with subterfuge and backroom meetings so they don't immediately get stamped out.
Bitcoin's capture is simply because the revolutionaries forgot their purpose.
I always gave Monero shit because some of the economic policies are kind of retarded. But because of the cypherpunk ethos being first and foremost, they never forget what their purpose is.
That, it turns out, is the much more valuable aspect of a good cryptocurrency.

2026-08-16 15:12:46 UTC

- reply

We just saw the evidence with BIP110. How many nodes outside of the BIP110 crowd said "Hey, the miners ignored them, that's not good. We should fire them and change the proof of work!"
Nearly 0%. So now how many BIP100 nodes defected after the chainsplit? A few. So now less than 20% of the network is just going to start again on a hardforked chain.
My emphasis is on the "just" fire the miners. The JUST is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

2026-08-15 13:08:33 UTC

- reply

Then she died

2026-08-12 21:41:22 UTC

- reply

Well, the last sentence is the real crux. "Refuse upgrades without needing anyone's permission"
That becomes no with the mining centralization and "economically dense" nodes working in concert (as they did on Saturday). I wrote up an easy way they could push a new rule without social consensus and force everyone's compliance, here:
#nevent1q…87e6

2026-08-12 11:24:54 UTC

- reply

Why isn't there a gore warning on this video? I almost threw up.

2026-08-12 11:23:15 UTC

- reply

Not true (hilariously I found a video series right after I posted that that doesn't mention Bitcoin at all)
But all you have to do for reference is explain from the ground up how a blockchain works, how proof-of-work works, how stealth addresses work, how ring signatures work, how ring CT works, how to produce wallet addresses, how seed words translate to private keys.
As a technically minded person, I like to build my systems knowledge from the ground up and not rely on some comparative structure about how "a tent is kind of like a building," except not at all.

2026-08-12 11:06:12 UTC

Challenge Level: IMPOSSIBLE
Make an informational video about how Monero works and it's technical details WITHOUT mentioning:
- Bitcoin
- How it differs from Bitcoin
- How it's not just for criminals.

2026-08-11 18:45:19 UTC

- reply

Curious why you didn't consider Monero mining. Lotta CPUs can run on sun.

2026-08-11 18:44:23 UTC

- reply

You need the doomers to check your unfettered optimism for holes. #BlessTheDoomers

2026-08-11 18:29:19 UTC

- reply

RandomX wasn't even considered? Even with their conception of centralization?

2026-08-11 18:27:29 UTC

- reply

I think PoW change has to be an absolutely catastrophic miner centralization MASF scenario like I point out here, to even consider doing:
#nevent1q…87e6

2026-08-11 17:56:51 UTC

- reply

See, this is kind of what I mean. I'm not for his proof of work change or the hard fork. I wasn't even for BIP 110, I just wasn't against it. I don't see Luke or mechanic as leaders although mechanic is much more reasonable than luke is. But because I wasn't calling them a bunch of retards, suddenly I'm in their camp or something.

2026-08-11 17:33:43 UTC

- reply

Well, to be fair, I was having rational discourse, but I was being lumped in with people calling others pedophiles or whatever just because I didn't think BIP 110 was the worst thing in the world.
So I really think this might have been a pot and kettle situation that didn't help any of us.

2026-08-11 16:50:08 UTC

- reply

Desperation is a lot more acceptable than realizing the fact that miner centralization is a real threat vector.

2026-08-11 16:19:42 UTC

- reply

Ahh, I always had a blind spot for the difficulty thing when it came to hard forks in the past.

2026-08-11 16:16:01 UTC

- reply

I've never really looked into this, but does the difficulty reset somehow or have a starting value? Because I don't see why the difficulty threshold would change just because the algo did.

2026-08-11 16:03:50 UTC

- reply

I know, I'm just wondering what the incentive is for people who mine in a pool when it's actively discouraged. And at least by my estimation, the juice isn't really worth the squeeze when you could get the entire subsidy for yourself often enough with modern hardware.

2026-08-11 15:50:18 UTC

- reply

The only thing I don't understand about Monero is why anyone would join a mining pool. I mean splitting .6 Monero every block instead of taking your shot at the whole thing plus fees, it's kind of wild to me.
With Bitcoin, you have ASICs and different pool distribution mechanisms, but in Monero, that's highly discouraged, algorithmically.

2026-08-11 15:39:26 UTC

- reply

A fork?

2026-08-11 15:30:31 UTC

- reply

That's what I just said, but they will never be mined into a block because they don't have a valid signature according to SegWit.
UTXOs in SegWit addresses technically can be spent by anyone using a legacy node. The only reason none of those transactions make it into a block is because the miners enforce valid witness signatures due to version bit 2.

2026-08-11 15:24:22 UTC

- reply

What happens when I try to spend a SegWit address that I don't have the private key for? I won't get into a block, right?
On a legacy node, that is a completely valid transaction because the legacy node has no conception of the witness data.
Is Segwit a hard fork then?

2026-08-11 12:26:14 UTC

- reply

That picture is hilarious.

2026-08-11 11:24:31 UTC

- reply

You know what, I'll give this to the bad actors for free because I am kinda tired of being called hyperbolic or paranoid or told "You don't understand how this works." How's this....
I'll outline an attack that Kraken, Coinbase, Foundary, Antpool, F2pool, and MARA, could implement TOMORROW, subjugating regular node operators and effectively showing you that there actually IS a problem here.
The "Mandatory Transaction Routing" Miner Activated Soft Fork
This would implement a new consensus rule requiring all transactions above a certain value threshold to be processed through registered "liquidity hubs" (I.E. exchanges).
Technical Implementation:
1. New Script Operation: Add `OP_ROUTE` that directs high-value transactions through specific entities
2. Threshold Mechanism: Transactions above 0.1 BTC must include routing data
3. Hub Registration System: Create a permissioned registry of approved routing hubs
4. Fee Redistribution: Routing fees automatically distributed to miners and registered hubs
Code Changes Required:
1. Script Interpreter (script/interpreter.cpp):
cpp
// Add new opcode for transaction routing
case OP_ROUTE:
// Verify routing signature is from registered hub
// Extract routing fee and distribute
2. Validation Logic (validation.cpp):
cpp
// Check if transaction meets routing requirement
if (nValue > ROUTING_THRESHOLD && !HasValidRouting(tx)) {
return state.Invalid(false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-routing");
}
3. Block Template Creation (miner.cpp):
cpp
// Prioritize routed transactions
if (tx.HasRouting()) {
// Apply routing fee bonus
nFee += GetRoutingFee(tx);
}
Winners:
1. Miners:
- Receive additional routing fees
- Get preferential treatment from exchanges
- Can operate their own routing hubs
2. Exchanges:
- Capture mandatory routing fees
- Gain monopoly over high-value transactions
- Receive data advantage on large movements
- New revenue stream from mandatory fees
- Increased transaction volume through their systems
Losers:
1. Regular Node Operators(plebs):
- Increased verification requirements
- Loss of transaction privacy
- Higher resource requirements for full validation
2. Regular Users(plebs):
- Additional mandatory fees
- Forced intermediation
- Reduced financial privacy
3. Small Businesses(also plebs):
- Increased transaction costs
- Dependency on registered hubs
Why It's a Soft Fork:
1. Only adds new validation rules without breaking existing ones
2. Old nodes would see new blocks as valid
3. Can be activated via miner/ exchange node signaling alone
Implementation Strategy:
1. STEP 1: Deploy as opt-in feature with fee incentives
2. STEP 2: Make mandatory for transactions above threshold
3. STEP 3: Lower threshold to capture more transactions
4. STEP 4: Implement additional restrictions on non-routed transactions
Defense Mechanisms:
This would be difficult to stop because:
1. Miners would directly benefit from implementation
2. Exchanges would control user access to the network
3. Regular nodes would face higher costs to maintain independence
4. The change could be framed as "consumer protection" or "regulatory compliance"
The beauty of this attack from an adversarial perspective is that it doesn't immediately break anything—it gradually introduces dependencies that make it increasingly difficult for regular nodes to remain relevant without adopting the new system. AKA The boiling frog technique.

2026-08-11 00:15:29 UTC

- reply

Brutal right? Something was reveal about the nature of the power dynamics of Nodes and miners and Luke's take away was "But MY altcoin will work." No brother, that doesn't solve the problem.

2026-08-10 21:38:15 UTC

- reply

Because the difficulty adjustment keeps increasing as more machines are aquired to keep up with the previous difficulty.
Yes, I know quite a few that have no clue what the network is doing. They just worry about loads, networking, and maintenance. No one I have spoken to on the industrial scale cares about the protocol. Anything that allows them to sell the corn to exchanges and get their money.
The fee example is a softfork that could be pushed without a large consensus and ENTIRELY possible because the Pools control what rules are valid not the majority of nodes.
My argument is that with what happened last Saturday the miners KNOW that they are in control.
All good, I am not out to convince anyone here. This is obviously just speculation. I truly hope I am wrong. I just haven't heard an argument outside of "Hashrate would move" which is also just speculation.

2026-08-10 19:56:21 UTC

- reply

Imagine setting minimum fee rate to 200 sats/Vb. Those with hash want that. Users without hash wouldn't. Who could stop it? There's less than 100 nodes that rejected this UASF via miners. Things that benefit miners would get unanimous support from miners even if every user hated it.
Hashers have no principles, they are failing buisnesses trying to keep money coming in.

2026-08-10 18:33:33 UTC

- reply

Okay, you have more trust than verify in this situation. Everyone seems to think 80% of the network just rejected a softfork, no. The were complacent. The miners IGNORED 20% of the network because they had no fear of anyone moving their hash anywhere.

2026-08-10 17:52:07 UTC

- reply

We literally just saw that. So, yes. Also, don't change the terminology. I'm talking about mining pools. Hasher sentiment is irrelevant because they only care about money and they don't get paid unless somebody organizes the payments via a pool.

2026-08-10 16:31:38 UTC

- reply

Is something that requires N time to solve and a problem that takes N-1 time to cause cascade failure an emergency?

2026-08-10 16:30:00 UTC

- reply

The only thing Steve fails to realize is that a minor activated software can force the users to use a miner's softfork even if users disagree with it. Because without any hash power, there's no enforcement. And given that five companies control all the hash power, that means Bitcoin is controlled by five companies.

2026-08-10 16:25:50 UTC

- reply

When the witness carries a 75% discount, it's nearly impossible to price out spam if that's their main mechanism for data entry.

2026-08-10 15:54:43 UTC

- reply

Maybe I misunderstood then. What does "they went all crazy with BIP 110." mean?
because if somebody has an opinion that doesn't mean the entire mining pool shares that opinion or even supports it. That would be crazy.

2026-08-10 15:43:38 UTC

- reply

... I don't know if you are intentionally lying or if you genuinely don't know but, OCEAN mined one of the legacy chain blocks during the first hour of the chain split which means OCEAN the pool had no stance on BIP 110.

2026-08-10 15:40:55 UTC

- reply

These 8,346 transactions right here.
https://blossom.primal.net/d960d2fd43411f393bbc4526de7cf2d3bafddf46871db4faf9ae0a665b35c9a0.jpg

2026-08-10 15:33:02 UTC

- reply

Did you really just give me the, "nothing's happening to me so it must be fine" argument?

2026-08-10 15:31:52 UTC

- reply

I would agree with you if there were foundational principles that were adhered to regardless of the culture being adopted. But that no one is upset at the fact that your node does not matter is a very big red flag for the network in general.
To reiterate, unless your node complies with the five biggest mining companies, your node will be ignored. That's kind of a big deal.

2026-08-10 15:23:32 UTC

- reply

Hodlonaut is correct. Luke is not.
Not everything is a monolith.

2026-08-10 00:56:03 UTC

- reply

For now.

2026-08-10 00:32:43 UTC

- reply

👍

2026-08-09 16:49:51 UTC

- reply

If using a meme from this movie wouldn't you more likely use the thing Aldo Raine said?
"I expect you're gonna want to take off that BIP110 tag in you bio. I'mma give you a little something you can't take off." And it's a bookmarked Nostr note or something.
Jussayin'

2026-08-09 14:37:24 UTC

- reply

That sounds accurate but not in the way you meant it.

2026-08-09 14:31:55 UTC

- reply

Because that has nothing to do with Bitcoin. John Nash also thought he had CIA wires implanted in his arms.
But I doubt there's anyone quite as talented at mathematics as Mr. Nash.

2026-08-09 14:27:44 UTC

- reply

Yes, he doesn't understand.
So what is Luke's excuse? Very talented Dev. Definitely understands Softfork, network, and miner dynamics. WAS around for the Blocksize wars.
What's the explanation there? And I would caution against using the "He's just crazy" rationale.

2026-08-09 02:32:49 UTC

- reply

Consensus valid fork = Agreement
What part about that is unclear? I'm not "saying" it, that's how it works. If it didn't work that way, older versions of the code wouldn't be interoperable. You'd have to be on the latest version or you work get forked off.
Keep trying to reframe a logical argument as emotional, I don't care. It's untrue.

2026-08-09 02:22:14 UTC

- reply

I don't care about spam on Bitcoin anymore. Shit's captured.

2026-08-09 01:15:50 UTC

- reply

I'm not pretending anything. BIP110 REDUCED the validity (didn't add new rules). 80% had NO OPINION on the BIP. Apathy means you go along with the miner produced blocks.
And the "Economic Majority" means what? What did they signal? Did they secretly run a URSF?
It went like this:
20% said "We want this Softfork"
80% said "We don't care if the Softfork activates or not."
The miners said fuck the 20% and the 80%, not caring either way, went along with the miners.

2026-08-09 00:43:25 UTC

- reply

Dude, what is emotional? These are facts. A majority of Bitcoiners think Twitter and Nostr opinions are rejections of a Softfork. I wasn't even Pro-BIP 110. I thought it was fine. But when I saw that no one wrote a URSF, I said "Gee, I guess most of the nodes don't care if BIP 110 activates." But then Miners defied the network and imposed their own ruleset. Those are facts.
Think about this, if the miners mined on BIP110 what would everyone be saying?
Well, you didn't oppose it, so, why not?
The point is it could have gone either way and who decided? Miners, not Nodes.

2026-08-09 00:23:39 UTC

- reply

Right, you sort of hopped into a conversation I was having with @nprofile…3cch , he said that.
All good, it was a misunderstanding.

2026-08-09 00:13:46 UTC

- reply

The point is "X coin can only go up" is a lie. Because the network magnitude is more relevant to the usage, price, and ubiquity. I wasn't actually comparing Monero to Fartcoin. I was pointing out that other cryptos make that baseless claim.

2026-08-08 23:44:07 UTC

- reply

I might come over soon, I need to learn more but also tail emissions are such an economic blunder it's hard for me to reconcile.

2026-08-08 23:41:59 UTC

- reply

BIP 91 was a miner-coordinated mechanism that activated SegWit on Bitcoin in August 2017 by signaling support (90% hash power) to prevent a chain split with BIP-148 (UASF), though it did not directly activate SegWit itself.

2026-08-08 23:40:37 UTC

- reply

No, the Blocksize wars proved that UASFs SHOULD be respected absent a URSF by miners or the Reorg threat would be very detrimental to miners. (BTW there was already PoW code written if the Segwit UASF failed).
The whole reason Miners started running BIP91 was because most of their blocks were being rejected. And the MASF failed at less than the 95% threshold.
Roughly 20,000 but there's a bunch of reasons node count is hard to determine.

2026-08-08 23:29:05 UTC

- reply

I feel like you are misconstruing my point on purpose. Miners rejected the BIP110, not core nodes. In my previous analogy are you under the impression that even a 1% UASF SUPPORTED BY MINERS would fail like BIP 110? Or would running non-URSF be sufficient to reject?

2026-08-08 23:23:47 UTC

- reply

Are you a bot? You have to tell me if you're a bot.

2026-08-08 23:19:49 UTC

- reply

Lol, who needs a bank when Antpool and Foundry can do it.

2026-08-08 23:17:42 UTC

- reply

The way you tell the network you don't want a softfork is a User Rejected Softfork. If you let the miners reject a UASF, you implicitly tell the miners they control bitcoin not the Nodes. The threshold could be 1% if the miners agree with it and the other 99% don't run a URSF.

2026-08-08 23:15:14 UTC

- reply

It was never proven before. It was speculation until there was a MRSF.

2026-08-08 23:13:42 UTC

- reply

Because the other 80% was neutral... So, that's why.

2026-08-08 23:12:48 UTC

Just like the rest of the population, it turns out Bitcoiners don't know when they've been fucked over until it's way too late. And they often cheer on their own destruction.
Only God is the truth, the light, and the way.

2026-08-08 23:02:15 UTC

- reply

Sure, but Ocean is not the underlying FedCoin. It seemed to be the most honest actor in the Mining space.

2026-08-08 23:01:13 UTC

- reply

So, you don't understand what a Miner Rejected Softfork means, gotcha. Have fun with your Tail emmisions or Larger blocks, whichever MASF they push first.

2026-08-08 22:56:08 UTC

- reply

Ocean? They showed they weren't in on the capture. They literally pushed a block on both chains.

2026-08-08 22:41:43 UTC

- reply

That's fine Nero, keep fiddling.

2026-08-08 22:39:43 UTC

- reply

Yes it does.
80% of the network said "Either way is fine" 20% said "We want this"
The miners chose to say "fuck the 20%, we only care about people with the most money."
If that is the system you want, go for it.
Just know that means the Mining companies can push a MASF and the network will not resist. Good luck with that.

2026-08-08 22:36:16 UTC

- reply

Exactly I was under the misapprehension too. Today proved otherwise.

2026-08-08 22:35:41 UTC

- reply

That doesn't mean anything but "Only people who have money matter" good luck with your FedCoin.

2026-08-08 22:28:22 UTC

- reply

That means miners control the network. If the most powerful miners are those with the most electricity and machines, what entity has the most machines and electricity? The government. Bitcoin just proved it is a FedCoin.

2026-08-08 22:24:50 UTC

- reply

Miner rejected softforks are death sentences for networks.

2026-08-08 21:58:17 UTC

- reply

I literally wouldn't have said yes before this moment but, Now I have to learn a whole new network. Maybe I will.

2026-08-08 21:54:12 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin is captured man, the game is over.

2026-08-08 21:21:22 UTC

Cool, looks like 5 companies control Bitcoin. Real great money you've got there.

2026-08-08 20:43:00 UTC

- reply

That's not how DATUM works.

2026-08-08 20:34:16 UTC

- reply

Always had been.

2026-08-08 17:38:09 UTC

- reply

But that's kinda my point. Communism is thoroughly debunked and those who still believe it works don't need to be talked about. Reality will show them that they are wrong.
The only reason to continue talking about them is if you secretly think they are right or if you have nothing useful to say.

2026-08-08 16:14:27 UTC

- reply

I know. It always seems bizarre to people who can't extrapolate subtext from statements. Similar to when you ask "How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?"
The person responding "But, I ate breakfast this morning." Tells you a lot more about their consciousness than would appear on the surface.
I mean, OOooHh I'm being CRYPTIC!

2026-08-08 16:05:12 UTC

- reply

Yo, if you think Asians are tall, you're crazy.
But, also, I wasn't being cryptic at all. I was calling you an NPC in a way that you couldn't understand but other people could.

2026-08-08 15:36:55 UTC

- reply

Well, there are better ways to create seed entropy than the BIP39 word list (such as electrum SHA512 word hashing). But BIP39 is the only way to standardize such a process.

2026-08-08 15:34:54 UTC

- reply

The spam that gets through the rate limiter (node policy) and Filter (Consensus) is an outlier not the rule. Pointing to the outlier is like mentioning that you know a tall woman.

2026-08-08 15:10:15 UTC

- reply

Lol, or maybe you are strawmanning my point. 🤔

2026-08-08 02:10:21 UTC

- reply

Everyone is incompetent these days. When great power is possible without the need for discipline, you get mass incompetency.

2026-08-07 19:55:30 UTC

- reply

Lol, what a pedantic assertion. Crypto space and cryptography space are synonyms.
Oooooh spooky spy nodes!? What next Monero backdoored wallets (because you need like 4 different compsci and math degrees to read the code?)
And I didn't make the post, I commented on it. I never post about Monero. I simply respond to others. So, the lady doth'nt protest too much here.

2026-08-07 19:47:19 UTC

- reply

Does the display board HAVE to have the controller as well, seems like a bit of an oversight.

2026-08-07 19:43:19 UTC

- reply

What is it about that display that is so unique and can't be replicated with another?

2026-08-07 19:40:12 UTC

- reply

"Defending from attacks" how would you know? How do you know which attacks are successful? How do you know that Monero has been focused on a nation state level? I have literally never had a non-autistic person talk to me about Monero. That is how you know the scale of magnitude is too small to matter. Talk to me when some government makes an initiative to stop Monero. Bitcoin has had several and continues to be inundated with glowies, bad actors, and demonizing. Monero is only dismissed by people who are in the crypto space to begin with, outside of that, no one even cares it exists.

2026-08-07 19:13:57 UTC

- reply

People being able to identify an outlier from the mean.

2026-08-07 18:34:07 UTC

- reply

Yes, I've heard that crypto-bro line before. "FARTCoin and only go up from here!"
It's just like people who don't understand entropy, don't understand the magnitude of numbers. Monero is 188 times smaller than Bitcoin.

2026-08-07 18:28:30 UTC

- reply

Cute.

2026-08-07 18:24:16 UTC

- reply

Yeah, irrelevant things be like that. People don't attack your network if they don't care about it.

2026-08-07 16:49:03 UTC

- reply

Hey, do you know a tall woman or Asian guy?

2026-08-07 15:11:33 UTC

- reply

A large OP_Return is still possible during signal period.

2026-08-07 14:46:20 UTC

- reply

GPUs write cycles are burning a hole in your pocket so you can have a fake NVK insult you.
What level of hell is this?

2026-08-07 14:22:33 UTC

- reply

If they run BIP110, it would be prudent to close their channel. That's not pushing fear. Their chain literally won't recognize a force close that is included in a block with a Non-compliant txn.

2026-08-07 14:16:44 UTC

- reply

Wrong about what? A fork and a chainsplit are literally different things.
Also, hard forks are not backwards compatible, so you are using the wrong term. That would be a softfork chainsplit (which has never happened before).

2026-08-07 14:09:41 UTC

- reply

The title is a fact tho. A split and a fork are two different things, you know that right?

2026-08-07 14:08:01 UTC

- reply

Pulling out all the stops in the 11th hour, nice.

2026-08-06 17:29:43 UTC

- reply

K. I don't need to watch some 35 hour documentary to know that the german state murdered millions of russians, poles, and french. Also, no National Socialism is stupid.

2026-08-06 17:20:06 UTC

- reply

Neo-nazi, probably. If someone LARPs as a 1920's gangster I am not going to say they are part of Capone's gang.
I guess I have a strong aversion to calling similar ideological bents specific groups from history. Modern socialists aren't Bolsheviks. Racist skinheads aren't Nazis. Violent Catholics aren't Crusaders.
Mostly because of the major difference between talking shit and literal murder.

2026-08-06 16:50:33 UTC

- reply

I just think the moniker Nazi should be reserved for the genocidal regime and not some stupid racists online. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯