In order to increase the cost of the attack, they need to migrate users private keys out of the browser. This is not a trivial process. It's ultimately up to the user to make that move. Users who believe key mgmt in the browser is ok are less likely to make that move.

@OCM_529 Many dangerous things are permitted as products. I don't want to watch said sports, think they're dumb. But also don't think it's rly the federal government's job to prohibit them.

You either live in the timeline where an ambulance chasing law firm owned by degens is self shilling their own pump and dumps or the timeline where an ambulance chasing law firm trying to form a class action against pump and dumps becomes a core focus of pump and dump metas Which way western man?

@MeanHash @basedkarbon Good. Inevitable.

The best Reddit could muster is Mike Brock? Really? Talk about fall from grace. Rip Aaron.

@theonevortex Then you agree with my observations, you just don't like the verdict they render.

Bitcoin's NGU resilience is fantastic, I'm not contending that at all, nor am I trying to argue that Bitcoin is not valuable or good. I'm arguing that "Bitcoiner" is a term that has come to be commonly synonymous with "oblivious fool", and largely due to the "Bitcoin Only" imperative.

Would you say that we're still in a situation where a large contingent of "bitcoiners" have a categorical failure in understanding the blockspace market and the consequences of using standardness as a form of market control? I think you probably would. Would those people have a greater ability to understand the consequences of ceding an illicit market to a minority of block producers if they had more of an understanding of the consequences of uncensorable markets?

@theonevortex They are not projected opinions. "Bitcoiners" at large are repeatedly and reliably incapable of understanding very rudimentary arguments on a number of subjects that ultimately revolve around the consequences of Bitcoin itself (free, uncensorable markets is a common one)

@theonevortex What it means to each of those people doesn't describe what it does.

@theonevortex I think I've made fairly specific points and you just keep defending it with ineffective claims. There rly isn't much to do other than just say "nope. wrong."

POSIWID: Purpose of Something is What it Does. What "Bitcoin Only" does is form a cult with a radically immature understanding of both Bitcoin and it's consequences, plus an actual inability to understand the consequences observed within contentious markets. You might be arguing what "Bitcoin Only" means to you. That's great. I'm arguing what "Bitcoin Only" is, as it can be observed.

@theonevortex wrong, manifestly wrong, demonstrably wrong, empirically wrong

@theonevortex “Bitcoin Only” manifestly prevents any such research. This is demonstrable by the widespread inability for “Bitcoiners” to understand concepts of both positive and negative consequence that people with a broader set of interests consider common sense.

Bitcoin is unconcerned with ethics. I am glad you have ethical standards. We all should have them. “Bitcoin only” is an ethical standard which repeatedly demonstrates a sense that Bitcoiners should suppress any reasonable understanding of or capacity to interact with contentious markets. Bitcoin cares about preserving itself and fulfilling its goals (some obvious, some open to debate). It accomplishes these goals better the more its participants understand the consequences of its existence. One of the consequences of its existence is shitcoins.

Sure. “Bitcoiners” should have comprehensive understandings of contentious markets. “Bitcoin only” is a directive which explicitly suggests that any understanding you may have of contentious markets must be suppressed to the extent that even if you knowledge forecasts certain intermittent success in that market, thou shalt not engage. Which is a shame. Bitcoin would be significantly better off and more well stewarded by people who both had such and understanding and exploited their understanding of it (which, btw, plenty do)

Shitcoining is most certainly ok to Bitcoin. It can be not ok to you, for whatever reasons. But it is, unavoidably, ok to Bitcoin. So, whatever objections you may or may not have to shitcoins must, unavoidably, come from some authority or sensitivity which is not Bitcoin and is unrelated to Bitcoin.

@theonevortex The existence of Bitcoin suggests that anything to which a market can be made is acceptable to Bitcoin. That does not mean it’s good. Bitcoin is not and cannot possibly be an ethical enforcement mechanism.

@theonevortex It’s not a justification of it.

"bitcoin"s greatest failure, by far, is that the common interpretation of "bitcoiner" is "unwilling to understand contentious markets", despite the very real and unavoidable fact that bitcoin, itself, asserts that contentious markets must be both real and tolerable, else bitcoin itself is invaluable