The “security budget” idea suggests that miners need a cash flow incentive to support their role as a double spend protector. The logic here assumes miners are not also the users of Bitcoin as money, and instead are simply using their skill to acquire microchip and electricity contracts at size, as the highest bidder, regardless of the users purpose for the silicon and electrons. This worldview can be seen in all aspects of the fiat world, for example where children are treated as wards of the state and should learn the ways of the world not by their mother and father but instead by state sanctioned strangers of a public school system that assume people can just be programmed to do whatever the state thinks is best for them rather than what would actually be best for the children. And what is best is obviously teaching them (1) securing the means of production of the necessities of life for themselves and their community (ie food water shelter energy and fixed supply money) and (2) securing the means to fulfill their biological necessities (procreation). Instead these things are after thoughts because the state and its corporate interests need instead obedient tax cattle and mindless wage slaves, respectively. That is certainly one world view, but it is entirely at odds with the underlying world view of Bitcoin, which is that the users of money aught to have the ability to secure the means of their own monetary network as they see fit. And from this world view miners then are not an amoral security budget question but instead are a user driven security question, where the “cash flows” of operations is not derived from block rewards but rather from the monetary soundness of the protocol they enforce. The block rewards are simply a small technical seigniorage solution for the networks bootstrapping. And it is in this light that Andreas Antonopoulos so poetically and famously explained the necessity and equally important the capability of the network to hard fork into a new proof of work should such a circumstance arise requiring such a nuclear option to be executed. Hard fork Creasy explains the current mental state of the sha256’ers perfectly: “The emotional and physical investment in btc for years on end will not allow most to see the truth of how bitcoin just defended itself against centralization and executed its only path out of it via monetary maxis.” And in a recent video post you, JD, illuminated the community sentiment that supports this pow fork, and I’m paraphrasing, your video was fantastic, but if I could distill it down to three primary themes: (1) we are not here to negotiate, we are here to complete the task of building Bitcoin, a user based monetary network, regardless of the personal sacrifice required because (2) our eyes are wide open, we fully understand the job which we have taken upon which is the up ending of the fiat worldview, to supplant it with a righteous and just new means of cultural order, thus, obviously, we are going to therefore piss off the most powerful people in the most privileged positions of power as we completely undermine their way of business, namely the disjointed amoral business of treating people as objects for the purpose of generating cash flows for themselves through rent seeking via idea monopolization by the brutal and immoral means of violent coercion, and misguided high time preferenced stupidity. And finally because (3) the cost of building good things requires self sacrifice, that the quality of the goodness built is equal to the courageousness applied. And let me tell you something, my brothers, we’ve got a global legion of the most courageous and morally based people on the planet at our sides in this fight, and we won’t quit until the job is done. Strength and Honor. 🧡🫡

BlackRock flagged Bitcoin miners as a risk factor in IBIT's 10-K. The filing says lower block rewards "could result in less of an incentive for miners," which puts network security in question. Every halving cuts the subsidy that pays for Bitcoin's security. The operators still running afterward are the ones whose power costs work at the smaller reward, so hashrate ends up wherever energy is cheap and reliable. An IBIT share tracks the price of Bitcoin and adds nothing to the hashrate protecting it. A hosted miner adds hashrate and sends the Bitcoin it produces to a wallet its owner controls. We run 4+ EH/s across 9 owned Iowa sites at 95%+ uptime, on power rates we locked in before the last halving. BlackRock's lawyers are asking who keeps hashing when the reward shrinks again. We've planned the business around that question since 2021.

The Bitaxe Naja Duo & @hammerminer Thor P2 both run the same chips, but Naja Duo draws 43% more power at the wall than advertised, landing its real efficiency right where the Thor P2 already was. Measured fairly, the Thor P2 wins where it counts 🏆 🔌240W PSU ❄️~2x the cooling 📡WiFi + Ethernet 💡ARGB fan 🛡️2x the warranty Full breakdown 🔗 altairtech.io/bitaxe-naja-du…

USDT pair now open for BTCB2 neoxa.exchange/trade/BTCB2_U…

Mathematician Terence Tao: "we have to slow down AI. the pace is insane, and there's no reason to be this fast — no reason at all" It's amazing how willing we are to change everything without any idea what happens afterward These are extremely nonlinear dynamics

A quick update on platform security 🛡️ We've rolled out enhanced bitcoin security scoring across the platform. This is NOT a KYC/AML process. What changed is technical: Incoming bitcoin is now checked for serious red flags before a contract settles. If a bitcoin comes back with a genuinely bad score, we won't let that contract go through. No one wants to end up holding coins they can't move or cash out later - that's the scenario we're closing off. Most trades are unaffected. This only stops the rare, clearly problematic cases - and it protects both sides of every trade. We'll keep refining this to keep the platform safe without changing what makes it work.