pull down to refresh

102 sats \ 8 replies \ @optimism 11h \ parent \ on: The filter stupidity gets even more stupider bitcoin
Sure there has been talk of that. But it's a contentious hardfork to do so. So I propose to burn all satoshi coins on BCH because they love hardforking.
write
preview
169 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 10h
also, why would satoshi's coins be any different than anyone else's? They're satoshi's coins, not yours or mine, and therefore, the only person who should decide what to do with them is satoshi.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h
I'm of the opinion that they're exactly the same. Your coins, my coins, satoshi's coins, scammer's coins, thieves' coins, even Saylor's coins.
But if in the end Satoshi's coins will be frozen, let's just freeze Saylor's and Blackrock's too. Would be much funnier.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 10h
One of the conversations around this brought up the coins being stolen as the hypothetical scenario.
I still thought it was better to let the hacker have them.
reply
171 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 10h
Can't make a meme out of Vitalik "stopping all trading" and then do the same.
Edit: this meme:
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Murch 10h
It’s not clear to me why making Satoshi’s coins unspendable would be a hard fork. That seems like an obvious soft fork to me.
reply
102 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 10h
What if satoshi wants to spend their coins?
Not your keys, not your coins means that you don't get to make decisions over coins that you don't have the keys for. If you do have the keys, OP_RETURN is a great unspendable output, I hear.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 9h
You mean, Satoshi would propose a hard fork to reenable spending? Making them unspendable is a soft fork.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9h
No, a portion of Bitcoiners would. It will be toxic.
reply