Patton @[email protected]

@bigbrother1066 anyone can submit change proposals, called bips or something. so they would come up with some bs reason invoking bogus justice for raising the limit. i could see that happening.

heart says HEX is the store of value. the pulseex and pulsechain are better ethereums and uniswaps. so hex would be the bitcoin replacement.

@bigbrother1066 that is exactly what i think. and of course no one will mention jews. they stick to abstractions and claim no one has incentives to do X or Y bad thing. but the jews running the fed have pretty much every incentive in the world to prevent their criminal money being replaced with White (sound, hard) money. again, we're tripped up by people not even willing to use the correct nouns in discussing things. syncopate the semite, sideline the truth.

Heart says 50% of the value of the miner is the first two weeks of use. after that, difficulty rise makes it worth less. and you have to beg a middleman to send you the machine without too much "testing."

whereas, when bitcoin started, anyone with a computer could mine it for free.

"You know who owns bitcoin? A bunch of venture capitalists and scumbags." --Richard Heart

he makes point like 40% of bitcoin is in 2100 wallets.

if i have it right, heart argues bitcoin is TOP of the curve for PRICE, not bottom as most youtube BM bigshots claim. bitcoin is certainly not at the top for ADOPTION as a technology. so returns wont be as great as they have been up to now. i think that is what he's arguing. and he's saying other/newer coins like ethereum or hex will have much greater returns (as they have the last 2 years). i believe i have that right, anyone may correct me if i'm wrong.

Richard Heart:

"The answer is that you're going to change proof of work using social consensus, the same social consensus you used to increase the block weight to 1.4 MB for segwit , the same social consensus you used to put taproot in. you will stop a government attack using social consensus. And you could use that same awesome feature of bitcoin to reduce environmental harm and reduce negative price pressure by stopping proof of work mining now."

2:01 (2 hour 1 min)

"what happens when the government starts making Sha-256 miners? And what happens when they start rolling back transactions? And then what will you do?" --Richard Heart

other guy has no answer.

https://pulsechain.zone/bitcoin-vs-crypto-aleks-svetski-vs-richard-heart/

#Bitcoin

"it takes 9 months to on-ramp a new developer because bitcoin is spaghetti code"

"There's three parties that get to change the #bitcoin network: exchanges; people that accept it; the miners; and kinda the software guys. And these four guys argue about what's going to happen to the network."

q: how is michael saylor going to change the (bitcoin) network?

answer: oh simple. just have the people change their configs. they're socially enforced networks." --Heart

what i really object as a sort of over-objection is these jerks doing what the 'environmentalists' do - turning a technical matter into a morality play. this introduces drama that shouldnt be there, it clouds and confuses discussion.

we need money with a hard cap that cant be altered. how do we achieve that? has bitcoin in fact accomplished this? then why are plausible men arguing it has not? and why wont bitcoin champions address their arguments?

that's how i see it.

Heinz Linge - Hitler's Last Words

heart address precisely what matters later in 33rd minute, talking about how a saylor could change the bitcoin rules

https://pulsechain.zone/bitcoin-vs-crypto-aleks-svetski-vs-richard-heart/