jimbocoin
jimbocoin 🃏

The SUPERCYCLE guy.

Public Key

npub1v9qy0ry6uyh36z65pe790qrxfye84ydsgzc877armmwr2l9tpkjsdx9q3h

NIP-57 Address

jimbocoin@btcpay175473.lndyn.com

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsxzsz83jdwztcapd2qulzhspnyjvn6jxcypvrl0w3aahp40j4smfgpnfmhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0y5erqamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd3skuep0y5erqffjxpshvct5v9ez2v3swaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8w6twv5hj2v3sy5erqctkv96xzu39xgc8wumn8ghj7ur4wfcxcetjv4kxz7fwvdhk6te9xgc8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7ffjxpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hs2m7pye

Publishing to

nos.lol/%20wss://nostr.land/%20%20avatar%20wss://nostr.wine/%20%20avatar%20wss://purplerelay.com/%20wss://relay.damus.io/%20wss://relay.snort.social

relay.damus.io

@nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1v9qy0ry6uyh36z65pe790qrxfye84ydsgzc877armmwr2l9tpkjsdx9q3h

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-05-21 13:46:33

#Bitcoin #meme
https://image.nostr.build/6c9fc78e84d4d5ec52b6d26b57c56ddc2b29a84ad72ac2a84793836350a4b1ba.jpg

2025-05-21 09:49:55

S U P E R C Y C L E
#note15w2…znn0

2025-05-19 00:27:32

At $1M per whole coin, this is a no-brainer. It’ll happen when the exchanges and media outlets start pricing #Bitcoin at $0.01.
That’s when the *real* FOMO moon pump begins.
#note10af…8a87

2025-05-16 01:39:50

Fool me once, shame on you… a fool can’t get fooled again.
#note1k75…u39q

2025-05-13 20:31:31

H
#note14lt…3cgm

2025-05-13 00:22:36

- reply

Aww yisss

2025-05-12 02:13:17

Suppose the headline is correct, that filters work. What does this mean?
In a word, censorship. If filters work, it means that something other than fees determine what transactions get confirmed.
Do you want this? Is censorsble #Bitcoin desirable to you?
#note1wv2…3dq3

2025-05-11 03:37:02

- reply

What’s the gist?

2025-05-09 12:59:02

- reply

I want to say it was around 2009 for me. I saw a Reader’s Digest cover that said “Eat This and Lose Weight?” with a picture of bacon and eggs. I thought, hells yes I’d like to eat that and lose weight!
It was an interview with Gary Taubes about his recent book “Good Calories, Bad Calories”. I read the book, went keto and lost 30lbs.

2025-05-09 00:27:46

- reply

BTW, I am not personally in favor of a block size decrease. The risk of a failed soft fork is not worth it.
I’m just saying that if people were serious about combatting spam, the path is to make block space so valuable that spam isn’t worth it. That means constraining block size to increase fees.

2025-05-09 00:25:28

- reply

The definition of a soft fork is a further constraint. A narrowing of the consensus rules. The definition of a hard fork is relaxing a constraint. A broadening of the rules.
So expanding the main block size limit (Satoshi’s 1MB limit) is a hard fork because it relaxes the limit. Unupgraded nodes would NOT accept the new, larger blocks. It’s a hard fork because everyone must upgrade, or be left behind.
By contrast, reducing the block size is a soft fork. Unupgraded nodes will accept the new, smaller blocks just fine. It’s backwards compatible. People can opt to run old software and continue to use Bitcoin.

2025-05-08 22:49:05

- reply

Smaller blocks are still valid to legacy nodes enforcing the old (higher) limit. Upgraded nodes enforce the fork by rejecting blocks that are too large (which legacy nodes continue to accept).
This is really no different than any other soft-fork and much simpler actually.

2025-05-08 22:46:58

- reply

Legend

2025-05-08 20:27:35

If you *really* want to disincentivize spam on #Bitcoin, you should champion a block size decrease.
Making block space more scarce improves decentralization. It reduces the cost to start and run a node. And it will push fees up, making spam unaffordable.
That’ll show’em.

2025-05-06 03:20:28

S U P E R C Y C L E
#note1s04…4jl5

2025-05-05 20:04:38

PSA: It’s Whoppers Jr.
#note1ns5…tdmg

2025-05-05 17:52:24

- reply

You know you’re pushing it when FinCEN tells you to drop it 👀

2025-05-05 17:21:31

- reply

Just skimmed it. Seems good. The charts look too volatile to use for predictions at first glance. Might need log scale? Hard to say.

2025-05-05 16:48:03

- reply

I’m sure it’s researchable. Like computing the percentage full blocks over time as a line chart. From the shape of that curve we should be able to reasonably predict when we’ll hit, say, 95% or 99% full by some sliding window (monthly, weekly, yearly, etc.)

2025-05-05 16:45:48

No one will ever get their PhD in CSS, because they won’t be able to format the white paper.

2025-05-05 15:48:32

- reply

If you think SegWit was a mistake, have you lobbied to correct it? It could be rolled back with a soft fork.

2025-05-05 15:47:54

- reply

Balkanization away from Core would be a GoodThing, IMO. Let it focus on consensus. Let users decide policy. Like picking a Linux distro. They all run the same kernel, but make different packaging decision.
Complexity and responsibility are the price of freedom.

2025-05-05 15:40:56

- reply

If you want smaller blocks, then I encourage you to lobby for a soft-fork decrease. I’m not opposed to this. Bitcoin will be just fine either way.
For shitcoiners who want to inscribe pruneable garbage (and attach a UTXO), they’ve already got that with witness data. Dropping the OP_RETURN policy limit doesn’t change this, but it does provide an easier way not to bloat the UTXO set.
I don’t think it’s in the cards to expect empty/near empty blocks if Bitcoin is popular, which we all think it should be, if successful.

2025-05-05 15:07:44

- reply

It is what it is. 1MB or 4MB both grow at O(n) in time as long as we don’t do it again—and fortunately there seems to be no appetite for further increases.
O(n) is fine. Efficiency of bandwidth and storage outpaces total block space growth. There’s nothing needed to do here. We’re at no risk of an Ethereum-esque centralization.

2025-05-05 15:04:10

- reply

Clarification: dead and failure are different things. Sorry if I led you to think I meant both.
I am not saying that empty blocks in the future mean Bitcoin has “died”. Bitcoin will persist indefinitely. As long as one full node remains on the network, that’s all it takes. The node that matters is your own. A single CPU is sufficient for mining if there’s no one left with whom to compete. Bitcoin is the technological cockroach that survives any conceivable apocalypse.
When I say that sparse blocks mean failure, I mean “at the goal of becoming the world’s monetary system”. Bitcoin will have failed, IMO, if it does not become the established, predominant, premiere method of synchronizing transaction ordering worldwide.
Fiat currency is analog. Transactions are reversible and ultimately unbacked. Even if backed, backing requires a backer, and pegs were made to be broken.
The superiority of Bitcoin stems from the fact that Bitcoin is the thing itself, and natively digital. It’s not a promise like fiat. It is not a contract like stock. It is not physical like gold. In Bitcoin, ownership is knowledge. You either know the keys or you don’t.
My expectation is that the world will wake up to the fact that there’s exactly one thing no one can make more of (beyond agreed issuance), and that’s Bitcoin. Therefore I conclude that transacting this monumentally important, unique global asset will be incredibly valuable.
The value of Bitcoin transactions (capped by block space) should mean perpetually full blocks with market derived fees. If blocks are empty long term, that signals, to me, that Bitcoin has failed to fulfill its destiny at replacing inferior moneys. (Failure)

2025-05-05 14:02:10

- reply

Based

2025-05-05 13:58:49

- reply

In the fullness of time, Bitcoin’s success will be the replacement of fiat currency. The scale of human endeavors will easily consume a few megabytes of space per 10 minute increment.
Of course we’re not there today. Change takes time. But that’s the end state. There’s no future in which Bitcoin is simultaneously the world’s premier monetary system AND we maintain sparse blocks.
Those visions are mutually incompatible.

2025-05-05 11:35:13

- reply

None of what’s being discussed would increase block size. That limit is set.
More OP_RETURN cannot increase block size beyond the limit. If people use more OP_RETURNs, this would *reduce* the UTXO set size, not increase it (compared to non-OP_RETURN outputs).
The technical reality is that more OP_RETURN means less burden on nodes… IF you assume that Bitcoin succeeds (full blocks).
Arguments against OP_RETURN assume sparse/empty blocks. That is, that Bitcoin has failed.
If you believe in Bitcoin’s success, then it follows that more OP_RETURN is better. Same bytes transmitted, fewer stored.

2025-05-05 10:52:48

A lot of the #Bitcoin arguments lately have been about path dependence. That is, what path future history will take.
I find these arguments hollow. The path of future history is incredibly hard to predict. Social systems are reactive and dynamic. Volatile in the short term. If you believe in the eventual outcome, aim for that, and let future history figure itself out.
So, would dropping the OP_RETURN policy limit “send a message” to shitcoiners? Maybe? But I say, who cares?
If you have a technical argument, I want to hear it. Thinking about incentives (behavior) is fine. But then extrapolate to the end. What does the end state look like?
Because this is what matters. The long, long term. Having low time preference means focusing on the horizon. Not short-term politics.

2025-05-05 01:29:08

- reply

Yeesh

2025-05-04 17:59:28

- reply

European governments: “You can’t steal our subjects’ data! That’s our job!”

2025-05-04 17:11:10

Why do I have to talk to the deli worker? Why isn’t there a kiosk like Panera bread?
This is not hard, people. We have the technology.

2025-05-04 11:20:47

We’re at an inflection point in AI. Those who fail to adopt are being left behind, in real time.
But there’s good news for laggards. Future tools will be better, helping them close the gap.

2025-05-04 00:58:49

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/72a67673b3467e37f33c3d90dfd5f0e2e55739f041e68908aa3335efb933ba48.jpg

2025-05-04 00:55:18

2017: consensus wars (chain splits)
2025: policy wars (network splits)
It’s gonna be OK. #Bitcoin

2025-05-04 00:45:29

- reply

Nah

2025-05-03 20:00:34

The results of the Milgram experiments were shocking.

2025-05-03 03:18:48

- reply

https://media.tenor.com/OOqdya-AFOsAAAAi/big-brain-wojak.gif

2025-05-03 03:09:10

- reply

Hoppe for our future

2025-05-02 22:26:00

S U P E R C Y C L E
#note1sth…t3eq

2025-05-02 19:50:04

Jimbo’s take on the Bitcoin policy/inscription debate:
* Witness Data (inscriptions): Already prunable! Like OP_RETURN, it avoids permanent data bloat for non-archival nodes.
* Fees/Full Blocks = Success: High fees aren't failure, they mean Bitcoin is in demand. Get used to it if you believe in Bitcoin’s success.
* Market Over Policy: Fee market naturally prices out inefficient uses over time. Let it work. Stop trying to centrally plan block space via Core policy changes.
* Core should be Consensus ONLY: Bitcoin Core should focus exclusively on consensus rules. Stop the bikeshedding over non-consensus policy (like OP_RETURN limits) within Core development.
* Balkanize Policy: Node operators deserve choice! Let them pick mempool/relay policies like Linux distros. Embrace complexity/responsibility as the price of freedom.
* Decentralize More: Block building/template construction (Stratum V2+) also belongs outside Core, just like hashing hardware and wallets.
* Trust Emergent Order: Bitcoin self-regulates via incentives. Stop the central planning hubris; trust individual choices & the protocol's design. Current debates are opportunities to push more functions out of Core.
#Bitcoin

2025-05-01 13:17:24

Gold has doubled in fiat price over three years. Imagine being impressed by this. #Bitcoin

2025-05-01 13:01:37

- reply

This guy gets it

2025-04-30 09:20:00

- reply

My take on this extra data is unconventional. To me, the inscription garbage is just an extreme form of monetarily inefficient transactions.
#Bitcoin rewards monetary efficiency. The smaller you can make your transaction, the less it’s going to cost you. The larger your transaction, the more it costs in sats/vByte. This pressures users to adopt space-saving features, such as SegWit or Taproot.
Even so, some people choose less space-efficient formats because they value it for some reason. For example, multisig transactions are less space-efficient than single-sig. Those extra signatures take space. Multisig enjoyers are willing to pay the additional cost because they value the multisig feature.
But value is subjective. Whether multisig is “worth it” is entirely up to the individual. The way Bitcoin adjudicates these differences in preference is with the fee market. You express your desire for space-inefficient transactions by footing more of the security budget (fees to miners).
Inscriptions are merely the most extreme form of inefficient transaction. They’re still monetary transactions. Sats still moved. But they moved in a particular way that the sender assesses is worth the additional cost.
To me, there’s no *categorical* difference between legacy address transactions, single-sig SegWit, multisig, and inscriptions. They’re just differently efficient with respect to bytes and money movement.
The beauty of the Bitcoin fee market is that it rewards patience and punishes inefficiency. You can pay for scarce block space with either time or money. You can wait until the pool clears, or you can pay to be first in line.
Bitcoin is a self-regulating system that automatically ejects low-value use cases thanks to NgU. Satoshi Dice is no more because its design is no longer efficient due to the market value of block space. The same thing should happen to inscriptions in the fullness of time.

2025-04-30 01:24:25

- reply

80kg should be plenty for 5’7”

2025-04-30 01:20:04

- reply

100kgs is too damn high

2025-04-30 01:17:10

- reply

Oh i thought you meant the PR, but maybe you’re asking about the specific comment.
IMO, this is catastrophizing. It’s not that big a deal. Bitcoin will be fine either way. If people leave Core as a result, then Bitcoin will be all the stronger for it.

2025-04-30 01:04:58

- reply

IMO, this is fine, and probably better.
To understand why, it helps to start with why OP_RETURN exists at all. OP_RETURN offers a mechanism to add arbitrary data to a transaction that, crucially, can be safely deleted.
So, when you sync a fresh node, you still have to download all the data (including OP_RETURNs) in order to validate it. But you only have to keep the UTXOs. Your node can safely drop the OP_RETURN data, and your node will be able to validate new transactions just fine.
Without OP_RETURN, someone wanting to cram arbitrary data into a TX has to use some other means, such as nonsense addresses, or script content (inscriptions). Every node must maintain this information in perpetually in order to validate future transactions.
Removing the limit on OP_RETURN will allow people to put garbage into the block chain in a node-friendlier way than the status quo. In both cases (OP_RETURN or inscriptions) the sender has to pay for the block space by outcompeting other transactions in the mempool. But at least with OP_RETURN, nodes can delete this garbage after the initial download.
#Bitcoin

2025-04-29 12:08:20

- reply

Thomas Sowell often makes this point

2025-04-29 12:07:08

- reply

Have you tried it?

2025-04-29 12:06:46

- reply

https://media1.tenor.com/m/2ILKoCU65aIAAAAC/keyandpeele-i-didnt-realize-that-was-an-option.gif

2025-04-28 23:43:50

- reply

Gosh that’s so *weird*

2025-04-28 23:40:23

- reply

Battlefield Earth?

2025-04-28 21:02:32

S U P E R S O L A R
#note1gxx…ezna

2025-04-28 12:59:08

S U P E R
C Y C L E
#note1m63…nxru

2025-04-28 12:57:05

First time squatting in a month. Gotta get back to the routine! Cramping my hammies—this never happens. 🦵

2025-04-28 12:19:08

- reply

Freedom units

2025-04-27 20:05:35

- reply

Good ol Rug Paul

2025-04-27 17:24:34

- reply

I have only used Cline with Gemini, which requires its own API key from Google, so I don’t know.

2025-04-27 16:56:38

- reply

Using Cline, there’s a separation between Plan mode and Act mode and you can configure different models for each. A buddy of mine uses Gemini-2.5-Pro for Plan, and Claude-3.7-Sonnet to Act. I haven’t tried it, but it’s an option.

2025-04-27 15:07:07

- reply

Well, the thing about fraud is that it’s detectable by intelligence. So from your original post, it could be that middle-intelligence people can use AI to defraud others. But, IMO it won’t largely be successful on highly intelligent people, especially those who themselves adopt AI, if that makes sense.
There’s nothing stopping people from using AI to detect and combat fraud, just as people adopt AI to perpetuate fraud. In fact I would guess that the power dynamic would be in the defenders’ favor. It’s hard to convince an AI to help you commit fraud. It’s easy to convince them to help you detect and mitigate it.

2025-04-27 15:03:29

- reply

I’ve heard of cline. What are goose and codex?
Also, it very much matters the quality of the backend model. I recommend using the best one that you can afford. At the time of this writing, IMO that’s Gemini-2.5-Pro. Runner up is Claude-3.7-Sonnet.

2025-04-26 10:50:46

- reply

It would certainly remove the incentives.

2025-04-25 21:41:01

#asknostr
#note1qzh…vkc9

2025-04-24 18:42:19

- reply

Rekt

2025-04-24 09:03:02

- reply

I’m shopping U.S. You can change the locale in the menu and shop where it’ll ship to you.

2025-04-24 08:19:16

- reply

Check out this bad boy https://www.newegg.com/lenovo-thinkpad-14-0-fhd-touchscreen-intel-core-i7-8650u-32gb-memory-1-tb-ssd-intel-uhd-graphics-620/p/N82E16834840288

2025-04-24 08:15:27

1 BTC = 100,000,000 BTC
#note1a9t…h25g

2025-04-21 06:30:09

- reply

Gold priced in #Bitcoin, last 5 years:
https://image.nostr.build/712f990d6de2fa6d85aa43d31ae6e6cb7598851baea370fad217262b888dad39.jpg

2025-04-17 15:28:22

- reply

“Quasi-consensual”. What does that mean? The rapist agreed to the rape?

2025-04-17 10:39:26

- reply

You’re a fan of Jason Glowie?

2025-04-17 01:41:42

E N S L O P P I F I C A T I O N
#note1n22…5ez2

2025-04-16 18:53:23

- reply

That’s cool! Is that all it takes? Just hang a box on a tree?

2025-04-16 18:49:57

- reply

Seems like a step backwards in a way. Social media is the past, and AI is the future, etc.
But then again, would be a trove of first party data.

2025-04-16 09:41:36

- reply

Baller

2025-04-16 09:29:29

- reply

Should have paid for the higher tier of gas. Those other handles didn’t have screens in them.
Seems the same as ad supported vs paid video services.

2025-04-16 00:19:50

- reply

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to listen to this. Had enough of Cj’s shilling of Treasury bonds.

2025-04-12 17:41:26

- reply

Depends on the audience

2025-04-12 14:18:15

- reply

Explanation from Gemini-2.5-Pro:
Okay, let's break down how this CSMS bulletin affects Bitcoin ASIC imports from China for US buyers.
1. New Reciprocal Tariffs: The bulletin references new "reciprocal tariffs" imposed by recent Executive Orders (EO 14257, 14259, etc.), effective April 5, 2025. These are additional duties on top of any existing ones. EO 14259 specifically mentions applying updated duties to low-value imports from the People's Republic of China.
2. Exclusion List: The core of this bulletin is a list of HTSUS (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States) headings and subheadings that are excluded from these new reciprocal tariffs.
3. HTSUS Classification of Bitcoin ASICs: Bitcoin ASIC miners are generally classified HTSUS heading 8471 ("Automatic data processing machines and units thereof"). Sometimes, specific components like the ASIC chips themselves might fall under 8542 ("Electronic integrated circuits"), or parts/accessories under 8473.30 ("Parts and accessories...of the machines of heading 8471").
4. Impact Analysis:
The list of excluded HTSUS provisions in the bulletin explicitly includes 8471, 8473.30, and 8542.
This means that Bitcoin ASIC miners (classified under 8471), their parts/accessories (8473.30), and the integrated circuits themselves (8542), if imported separately, are EXCLUDED from the new reciprocal tariffs established by Executive Order 14257 and its amendments, effective April 5, 2025.
5. Important Caveat - Other Tariffs:
This bulletin only addresses the exclusion from the new reciprocal tariffs mentioned (those reported under Chapter 99 HTSUS codes like 9903.01.25, 9903.01.43-62, 9903.01.63, etc.).
It does NOT affect any pre-existing tariffs, most notably the Section 301 tariffs that have been applied to many goods imported from China. Bitcoin ASICs (under 8471) have typically been subject to a 25% Section 301 tariff. This bulletin does not remove that existing 25% tariff.
6. Action Required by Importers: To benefit from this exclusion from the new tariffs, importers must:
Correctly classify their goods (e.g., under 8471).
Report the secondary HTSUS classification 9903.01.32 on their import entries. This specifically declares the exception to the new reciprocal tariffs.
If entries were made on or after April 5, 2025, without claiming this exclusion, importers should file corrections (Post Summary Correction or Protest) to potentially get refunds for any new reciprocal tariffspaid in error.
In Summary:
This bulletin is good news regarding the new reciprocal tariffs introduced in April 2025. It confirms that Bitcoin ASICs, classified under HTSUS 8471 (or their parts/chips under 8473.30/8542), are exempt from these specific new duties when imported from China (or elsewhere).
However, it's crucial to remember that this does NOT eliminate the existing Section 301 tariffs (likely 25%) that already apply to ASICs imported from China. Those tariffs remain in effect unless specifically addressed by other USTR actions or exclusions related to Section 301 itself.

2025-04-11 12:41:36

- reply

WordPerfect™

2025-04-09 18:33:10

- reply

Astounding

2025-04-09 18:31:29

In this moment, I am euphoric

2025-04-09 15:22:25

- reply

What does it mean?

2025-04-09 01:05:51

- reply

LFG

2025-04-08 20:39:48

#meme
https://image.nostr.build/e4bf258201aa108ab516435282457dd1461e770773619722198f0506a6121e74.jpg

2025-04-08 20:35:28

- reply

https://media1.tenor.com/m/jP6j6-NqEW4AAAAd/phenomenal-ashley-banjo.gif

2025-04-08 01:52:47

- reply

#winning

2025-04-07 22:25:42

- reply

Wow, it’s so long.

2025-04-07 21:50:43

- reply

Haven’t read it, haha

2025-04-07 13:30:51

- reply

Quite so! I just finished reading through the “Race” ending. As usual, I find that authors are happy to apply superexponentiation to some things but not others.
For example, in the essay, they imagine AI being turned to fuel faster AI research (plausible). And they posit similar booms in medicine and business (plausible).
But they also posit that the AI couldn’t get out in front of pollution? Seems like an easy problem. And none of the research went into morality, ethics, philosophy? That’s where it loses me.
Humanity is “the environment” of AI, in much the same way that nature is “the environment” for humans. It seems logical to me that superintelligent AI would angle for a controlled symbiosis, much as people seek regenerative and sustainable (but controlled) relationships with nature.

2025-04-07 12:14:18

- reply

This seems particularly apt:
“The public conversation is confused and chaotic. Hypesters are doing victory laps. Skeptics are still pointing out the things Agent-3-mini can’t do. Everyone knows something big is happening but no one agrees on what it is.”

2025-04-07 12:10:11

- reply

Yeah same. I’m about 70% through, grinding it out. What I’ve read so far sounds plausible, like near-term hard sci-fi.

2025-04-07 11:14:19

- reply

Reading now, but boy this is long. May toss it at an agent to save some time.

2025-04-07 10:33:25

- reply

https://media1.tenor.com/m/5fTXcbu5_x0AAAAd/please-disperse.gif

2025-04-06 23:31:40

- reply

A HODLer HODLs #Bitcoin. A Maximalist HODLs nothing else.

2025-04-06 16:16:50

- reply

Classic https://media.tenor.com/D_F--PvRH4wAAAAi/pepe-listening-to-music.gif

2025-04-06 16:15:59

- reply

Baller

2025-04-06 16:14:34

- reply

Depends on the audience, IMO

2025-04-06 15:10:20

Q: How do you know?
A: There are four ways:
1. Direct Experience — Supreme, first-hand knowledge.
2. Replication — Getting the same answer from independent sources.
3. Audit — Look under the hood, behind the curtain.
4. Trust — Delegate verification to someone else.
The more certainty you want, the further up the list you want to go. #epistemology

2025-04-06 14:47:12

- reply

It happens