Loading…
Published 30 Jul 2026, 11:46 UTC · fetched 3 Nov 2026, 13:48 UTC
Tone Vays
@ToneVays
Quoting · 2 Jul 2026, 20:41 UTC · context given to the AI
Bitcoin OG @ToneVays gives his full unfiltered take on the BIP-110 controversy: "People have been convinced that just because you're able to spin up a node, that somehow you should be in control of the Bitcoin network, and that's a very dangerous precedent." https://t.co/XD0PrAz8lhIn reply to · 30 Jul 2026, 01:48 UTC · context given to the AI
@ToneVays I listened to @SimonDixonTwitt recent podcast twice, 50 minutes per listen, giving reasoning for him supporting bip110. Yet I still don’t hear a coherent argument for it, it literally doesn’t make a blind bit of sense. I don’t think he can see the wood for the trees on this oneSimon is a geopolitical commentator.... He probably has no idea his Bitcoin would trend to 0 if bip110 succeeds.... Or maybe does not care if it does. - I love the argument like "we need to save the planet by shutting down the electric grid", great you saved the planet that didn't need saving, but killed 90% of the people to do it, great job! - I explained it all here, but I don't suggest using AI to summarize it: https://t.co/z4phbk1G4rView original on X ↗
Deterministic: the same prices and policy always give the same result
r = 63738.74 / 64707.18 − 1 = -1.5%d × r = +1.5% (neutral only if the price is unchanged) → correctOnly the end-of-horizon price counts. A brief move followed by a reversal is not a success. Read the methodology
Uses only text available at publication time
Think the interpretation or outcome is wrong? Sign in with X to request a correction, so reviewers know who is asking.
Sign in to request a correction