1/ In the event of a global internet shutdown, would that lead to a temporary halt of all transaction processing, with everything going back to normal as the internet is "switched back on"?
2/ During the shutdown, miners would still mine on their own local networks, and you would essentially get thousands of chain splits occurring as each miner mined its own chain separately.
3/ As the internet comes back on, all the “lighter” (less pow) chains would be wiped out in favour of the “heavier” (more pow) chain.
4/ A transaction could also still occur during the internet shutdown as long as a user could find some way of delivering that transaction data to all the miners or the few miners they considered have the greatest chance of building the heaviest chain.
5/ Sharing transaction data isn't as hard as it sounds—tx data is very small and suited for low-bandwidth, non-internet transmission methods like SMS and radio.
6/ Smaller miners would also be highly financially incentivised to find one or more ways of communicating their block production to one another, so that they can compete with the larger independent mines. No one wants to miss out on those block rewards.
7/ Sharing block data is harder than it sounds, because the block data is a lot more bandwidth-intensive than transaction data, so is not suited for most non-internet networking solutions—yet another reason to keep bitcoin blocks small!
8/ Nevertheless, the incentives might lead to a majority of miners finding a way to connect connected in some form or another even without the internet. Radio, wifi, mesh, satellite, sneakernet—some very powerful economic forces would be a big motivation.
9/ In a global internet shutdown, the bitcoin network would be hampered significantly for sure, and the world may have bigger problems, but bitcoin still has the potential to keep truckin' those blocks.
10/ A global internet shutdown might seem laughably impossible, but bitcoin is supposed to withstand those edge cases.
11/ And in this age of increasingly globalised financial regulation and compliance, perhaps the idea of a global, coordinated blacklist or whitelist on internet traffic doesn't seem so far-fetched, and could have a similar effect on bitcoin as an outright shutdown.
1/ The WEF’s “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy” is going further than we first realised.
At the foundation of private property, in any interpretation, is the ownership over oneself. The vaccine mandates are a culmination of the attack on this principle.
2/ A sacred wall has been broken, a new precedent set, in a carefully coordinated manner.
Your body is no longer absolutely your property, it is instead considered by the public and your rulers as a public good. A resource that people can fight over what to do with it.
3/ With that precedent set, you can be sure there will be plenty more debates over what to do with you and your body in society’s interest, to respond to a rolling series of crises in the future.
i. Price hits a minimum $100k+ peak.
ii. Western governments introduce unprecedented emergency regulations, such as withdrawal bans, turning off the buy button, and investor restrictions...
2/
...
iii. Price dumps, most of the new corporate investors panic sell.
iv. Repeat the usual halvening cycle, as hodlers of last resort hold the line at a higher low and the industry adapts, evolves, routes around the new regulations. Life, uh, finds a way.
3/ Some have likened Tesla's entry into bitcoin as a watershed moment of bitcoin finally mainstreaming. Well, with the mainstreaming, the real games begin, and bitcoin's proper enemies (not amateur-hour big blockers) rear their ugly, fanged heads.
1/ So much of the debate is around how deadly COVID is, or the effectiveness of the lockdowns, or the magnitude of the collateral damage.
But that immediately concedes the frame to the tyrants, both large and small.
2/ The implication of arguing in this fashion is that if the disease was actually that deadly, or the lockdowns were effective, or the collateral damage harmed fewer than it helped, then all this control and oppression might be acceptable.
3/ The implication is that imprisoning peaceful people, mandating what they wear, when they can do business, who they can meet, forcing people to die alone, and all the other evil stuff going on around the world right now *could* be okay *if* the disease was dangerous enough.
1/ The assault against open-source software that emerged recently will not be resolved by self-hosting alone.
One of the authorities’ obvious next steps, after GitHub has “harmonised” its platform, is to demand licenses to host any software and maybe even licenses to produce it.
2/ These new rules will be implemented in the name of “ensuring new technology fits with the values of society” and “guaranteeing that everyone has a democratic stake in how technology affects our lives.”
3/ The urgency of the regulations will be accelerated by two things:
(i) Bitcoin’s threat to the increasingly fragile and controlled fiat monetary system.
(ii) The emergence of decentralised, self-hosted communication apps that circumvent the censorship and encryption bans.
1/ "What happens when the internet gets switched off?" Despite the best hopes of many salty nocoiners, a surprising number of great engineers have been thinking about how to keep bitcoin running in offline environments.
2/ Bitcoin is as much a hardware revolution as it is a software revolution. If your private keys are on someone else's device, the bitcoin are not yours. If your full node is in the cloud, it's not you verifying transactions.
3/ And if you're totally dependent on someone else's network hardware for access to the bitcoin network, then you're at risk of being cut off when things go wrong. Some reasons you might want to transact "offline" include...