Bitcoin Price Action : Avg: 104912 USD Min: 104492 USD Max: 105376 USD #bitcoin #crypto #trade

📰 XRP Market Update Traders Brace for Action as Key Levels Tighten XRP is presently priced at $3.13, commanding a market capitalization of $180 billion and a 24-hour trading volume of $2.53 billion. Its intraday price movement has fluctuated narrowly within the bounds of $3.11 and $3.14, reflecting measured activity. XRP On the one-hour chart, XRP exhibits a period of consolidation, with prices oscillating within the constrained […] #bitcoin #crypto #news https://news.bitcoin.com/xrp-market-update-traders-brace-for-action-as-key-levels-tighten/

👁️ https://video.nostr.build/a2f90ad5004083882ecaafcc711593e993b9c06c75f844d6ed95493db2c8da3c.mp4

👁️ https://video.nostr.build/a2f90ad5004083882ecaafcc711593e993b9c06c75f844d6ed95493db2c8da3c.mp4

👁️ https://video.nostr.build/a2f90ad5004083882ecaafcc711593e993b9c06c75f844d6ed95493db2c8da3c.mp4

i was thinking that. i dont remember a more dry January.

i was thinking that. i dont remember a more dry January.

i was thinking that. i dont remember a more dry January.

Life is too precious to spend it figuring out why Pi-Hole isn’t working with my VLAN setup

Life is too precious to spend it figuring out why Pi-Hole isn’t working with my VLAN setup

Life is too precious to spend it figuring out why Pi-Hole isn’t working with my VLAN setup

NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable "Damaged" https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-sweden-latvia-high-alert-after-baltic-undersea-data-cable-damaged

NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable "Damaged" https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-sweden-latvia-high-alert-after-baltic-undersea-data-cable-damaged

NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable "Damaged" https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-sweden-latvia-high-alert-after-baltic-undersea-data-cable-damaged

{"content":"So we're regularly noticing how unacceptably large Foundry has gotten and it would be good if Bitcoiners in general understand why we are where we are.\n\nFirst, let's talk about what it is pools actually do, starting from the theoretical going all the way the practical.\n\nIn theory they make no difference to anything - they simply reduce variance.\n\nInstead of earning $.X per year, you earn $.X\/365 per day.\n\nThis is far more consistent and makes day to day operations easier and it's clear why someone would want to do this - assuming they're a smaller miner who is not capable of finding block frequently enough without pooling and splitting rewards with others.\n\nThis might be desirable to the point where you'd even pay a split to the coordinator (pool) because it's that valuable of a service.\n\nTo take it further, the absolute hands-down most common payout model for a pool to use is FPPS - this doubles down on the supposed benefit that is so compelling here. It stands for Full Pay Pay Share which -in theory - means that miners get paid on a share to share basis (something they're submitting multiple times a minute) a highly predictable amount.\n\nThis means you not only have you abandoned dealing with lotto-variance (waiting until you find a block) or even standard pool variance (waiting until someone on the pool finds a block) but instead you're mining with a pool that grants you earnings multiple times per minute regardless of if the pool is finding any blocks or not.\n\nThis is variance reduction to such an extreme that the product becomes unbelievably expensive because pools have now put themselves in a position where they must pay miners for blocks that might - and very often don't - happen.\n\nThis was demonstrated beyond doubt when OCEAN (non-FPPS) released its numbers and they outperformed FPPS by over 30% in some cases during its first year of operation.\n\n*Note: This is NOT a \"You should mine on OCEAN\" post. I am simply trying to explain why miners are making the decisions they are because it seems to be eluding almost everyone.\n\nSo miners are apparently opting for variance reduction to the point where they want to get paid no matter what for blocks that may or may not even exist with resolution all the way down to the share level.\n\nBut here's the part where the disconnect between theory and reality comes in.\n\nNearly all the miners on Foundry have absolutely zero need for this kind of variance reduction - or indeed any at all.\n\nThe publicly traded miners that make use of Foundry all have the ability to find multiple blocks a day without any third party whatsoever which is way more than enough.\n\nAs mentioned already, FPPS is an extremely expensive product that logically would only be required by a miner faced with 24 hourly energy bills who only has 100 Petahash or so. Again, the typical Foundry miner is 100 times the size of this coming in at almost 10 Exahash at the smaller end.\n\nSo if Foundry solves a particular issue - variance - and charges a fortune to do it, and its main customer is miners that could lotto-mine and find multiple blocks a day without incurring the costs of FPPS then what on Earth are they doing?\n\nThe naive answer is that they haven't done the maths. In some cases I actually know this to be true. You're an enormous miner and you do a deal with Foundry - they charge you 0.1% fee and you think that's equivalent to if you cut out the middle man entirely pretty much so it becomes worth it.\n\nBut with FPPS the fee is never the fee. That is the airport currency exchange sign that says \"0% COMMISSION\" and gives you something about 14% worse than market rate. Where is the money going?\n\nI don't think most miners are actually making that mistake, at least not all of them.\n\nIt's time to explain the real reason here.\n\nCompliance by proxy.\n\nAnd this is what's key to understand.\n\nHistory: Once upon a time a pool called GHash(.)io got above 40% of the hashrate (which Foundry is doing repeatedly at this point) and the miners all fled out of instinct to protect the network. You simply cannot have any single entity making 50% of the blocks that get added to the chain or anything approaching that.\n\nSo why aren't miners doing it today? Are they that addicted to variance reduction when the calibre of miner that uses Foundry is perfectly capable of reducing their own variance anyway even though it's costing them a fortune?\n\nAgain the entire space needs to understand why history will not be repeating itself here and this where I find the greatest amount of self-delusion and dishonesty in this space.\n\nCompliance by proxy was not a thing in 2016. At least not for miners.\n\nSince then, someone has come along and turned what is completely unacceptable to the powers that be - Bitcoin mining - and turned it into a completely sanitized, censorship prone shell of its former self - and *that* is the true motivation for \"miners\" paying these exorbitant fees.\n\nCompliance is new. And it isn't a factor people are taking into consideration.\n\nWhenever we point out how precarious the situation has become, there is the typical response - \"If Foundry ever do <bad thing> then their miners will just leave\".\n\nIt's time to put this cope-strategy to bed.\n\nIf a miner is perfectly capable of reducing their own variance to the tune of reliably finding multiple blocks per day themselves - why are they using a pool at all? Especially if that pool costs a fortune?\n\nOr more crudely - If losing a tonne of money for no apparent reason isn't compelling enough to leave Foundry, then jeopardizing Bitcoin isn't going to be either.\n\nThe true motivation is all that matters, and its overwhelmingly just compliance. \"Miners\" of substantial size increasingly do not want anything to do with Bitcoin and want all their hashrate transformed from raw Bitcoins coming fresh out of the blockchain into a nice clean product that their accountants and lawyers can tolerate regardless of the cost.\n\nTo take the counter position to my argument here, there are of course costs to rough-housing it and grappling with Bitcoin directly as MARA does and I don't want to pretend otherwise but I don't think they come anything like close to justifying the enormity of the revenue lost due to the extreme over-kill that is FPPS.\n\nThis is the only area in which I will take pushback from someone in one of the relevant companies as it's possible I am just wrong.\n\nThe following companies - BitFarms, Hut8, RIOT, WULF, HIVE, Cleanspark and a couple of handfuls of others are all - to the best of my knowledge - paying a fortune for the combined benefit of variance reduction (which they absolutely have no need of) and compliance by proxy.\n\nIf anyone from any of those companies can explain to me why I am wrong and that if\/when Foundry's size results in them engaging in censorship or any other abuse of the network (heck, already requiring KYC and regular inspections of mining facilities is unacceptable and that's already been the case for Foundry miners for years) then why should anyone believe you would move to another pool or go the Mara route?\n\nAt present I believe that Foundry could continue its inexorable ascent to the 51% magic number we're all afraid of and the new cope will be \"Well they haven't done <bad thing> yet\" and we'll just keep moving the goal posts about what constitutes a bad thing.\n\nAt the moment \"It's just KYC\", \"It's just mandatory inspections\" and \"It's just lost revenue.\"\n\nAll of that is unacceptable. \"It's just transactions associated with Russia\/Iran\" comes next and the shareholders of publicly traded Bitcoin miners are unlikely to view censorship based on that criteria as being anything to worry about. \"Why do you hate America??\"\n\nThe old cope of \"another miner will just include them and their business will survive while the censoring miners die\" is complete and utter delusion.\n\nAlmost 100% of revenue from the chain is subsidy. Transaction fees are neither here nor there. And if we think the US Pubcos are all going to voluntarily go admit bankruptcy because they lost a few hundred bucks a week from mining blocks that censored blacklisted UTXOs then we are deluding ourselves.\n\nI reiterate - miners are with Foundry because compliance is increasingly all that matters. This has resulted in enormous centralization of template construction that becomes a genuine attack vector at ~30% and has been consistently way above that for a long time now. 51% is a meme, and imo not a powerful enough one to inspire change if it actually comes to that. The frogs are already boiling and no one cares.\n\nLet's be honest. None of the miners on Foundry are leaving any time soon but the variance reducing product they offer that can be so trivially replicated elsewhere is not why any of them are doing what they are doing.\n\nFoundry is the sole occupant within the regulatory moat that is Bitcoin mining in America and I don't see that as trivial to replicate at all. \n\nAnd the reason I wish to sound the alarm 10,000 louder than I have been before this point is that the current US administration has run a campaign that specifically talks about centralizing Bitcoin in the US.\n\nThe phrase \"We will make all the Bitcoins in America\" is exactly the worst possible thing you could want to hear given everything I've talked about in this post and not only is it not being rejected by Bitcoiners, it is being celebrated as a good thing.","tags":[],"created_at":1737917613,"id":"f25e8058b1de583d0055b6385737e50b276ce6ed3053552aa9340ad12eaa6244","kind":1,"pubkey":"74ffc51cc30150cf79b6cb316d3a15cf332ab29a38fec9eb484ab1551d6d1856","sig":"f42de1df52e9804d45758bc1ec2d6dc3d6f63cf4bef96711ff52bdf43ec868f15085669d4616f3d7fb5ae1ab3ed264af5ae47ca0451e40ddf5119c0af6d117c8"}

{"content":"So we're regularly noticing how unacceptably large Foundry has gotten and it would be good if Bitcoiners in general understand why we are where we are.\n\nFirst, let's talk about what it is pools actually do, starting from the theoretical going all the way the practical.\n\nIn theory they make no difference to anything - they simply reduce variance.\n\nInstead of earning $.X per year, you earn $.X\/365 per day.\n\nThis is far more consistent and makes day to day operations easier and it's clear why someone would want to do this - assuming they're a smaller miner who is not capable of finding block frequently enough without pooling and splitting rewards with others.\n\nThis might be desirable to the point where you'd even pay a split to the coordinator (pool) because it's that valuable of a service.\n\nTo take it further, the absolute hands-down most common payout model for a pool to use is FPPS - this doubles down on the supposed benefit that is so compelling here. It stands for Full Pay Pay Share which -in theory - means that miners get paid on a share to share basis (something they're submitting multiple times a minute) a highly predictable amount.\n\nThis means you not only have you abandoned dealing with lotto-variance (waiting until you find a block) or even standard pool variance (waiting until someone on the pool finds a block) but instead you're mining with a pool that grants you earnings multiple times per minute regardless of if the pool is finding any blocks or not.\n\nThis is variance reduction to such an extreme that the product becomes unbelievably expensive because pools have now put themselves in a position where they must pay miners for blocks that might - and very often don't - happen.\n\nThis was demonstrated beyond doubt when OCEAN (non-FPPS) released its numbers and they outperformed FPPS by over 30% in some cases during its first year of operation.\n\n*Note: This is NOT a \"You should mine on OCEAN\" post. I am simply trying to explain why miners are making the decisions they are because it seems to be eluding almost everyone.\n\nSo miners are apparently opting for variance reduction to the point where they want to get paid no matter what for blocks that may or may not even exist with resolution all the way down to the share level.\n\nBut here's the part where the disconnect between theory and reality comes in.\n\nNearly all the miners on Foundry have absolutely zero need for this kind of variance reduction - or indeed any at all.\n\nThe publicly traded miners that make use of Foundry all have the ability to find multiple blocks a day without any third party whatsoever which is way more than enough.\n\nAs mentioned already, FPPS is an extremely expensive product that logically would only be required by a miner faced with 24 hourly energy bills who only has 100 Petahash or so. Again, the typical Foundry miner is 100 times the size of this coming in at almost 10 Exahash at the smaller end.\n\nSo if Foundry solves a particular issue - variance - and charges a fortune to do it, and its main customer is miners that could lotto-mine and find multiple blocks a day without incurring the costs of FPPS then what on Earth are they doing?\n\nThe naive answer is that they haven't done the maths. In some cases I actually know this to be true. You're an enormous miner and you do a deal with Foundry - they charge you 0.1% fee and you think that's equivalent to if you cut out the middle man entirely pretty much so it becomes worth it.\n\nBut with FPPS the fee is never the fee. That is the airport currency exchange sign that says \"0% COMMISSION\" and gives you something about 14% worse than market rate. Where is the money going?\n\nI don't think most miners are actually making that mistake, at least not all of them.\n\nIt's time to explain the real reason here.\n\nCompliance by proxy.\n\nAnd this is what's key to understand.\n\nHistory: Once upon a time a pool called GHash(.)io got above 40% of the hashrate (which Foundry is doing repeatedly at this point) and the miners all fled out of instinct to protect the network. You simply cannot have any single entity making 50% of the blocks that get added to the chain or anything approaching that.\n\nSo why aren't miners doing it today? Are they that addicted to variance reduction when the calibre of miner that uses Foundry is perfectly capable of reducing their own variance anyway even though it's costing them a fortune?\n\nAgain the entire space needs to understand why history will not be repeating itself here and this where I find the greatest amount of self-delusion and dishonesty in this space.\n\nCompliance by proxy was not a thing in 2016. At least not for miners.\n\nSince then, someone has come along and turned what is completely unacceptable to the powers that be - Bitcoin mining - and turned it into a completely sanitized, censorship prone shell of its former self - and *that* is the true motivation for \"miners\" paying these exorbitant fees.\n\nCompliance is new. And it isn't a factor people are taking into consideration.\n\nWhenever we point out how precarious the situation has become, there is the typical response - \"If Foundry ever do <bad thing> then their miners will just leave\".\n\nIt's time to put this cope-strategy to bed.\n\nIf a miner is perfectly capable of reducing their own variance to the tune of reliably finding multiple blocks per day themselves - why are they using a pool at all? Especially if that pool costs a fortune?\n\nOr more crudely - If losing a tonne of money for no apparent reason isn't compelling enough to leave Foundry, then jeopardizing Bitcoin isn't going to be either.\n\nThe true motivation is all that matters, and its overwhelmingly just compliance. \"Miners\" of substantial size increasingly do not want anything to do with Bitcoin and want all their hashrate transformed from raw Bitcoins coming fresh out of the blockchain into a nice clean product that their accountants and lawyers can tolerate regardless of the cost.\n\nTo take the counter position to my argument here, there are of course costs to rough-housing it and grappling with Bitcoin directly as MARA does and I don't want to pretend otherwise but I don't think they come anything like close to justifying the enormity of the revenue lost due to the extreme over-kill that is FPPS.\n\nThis is the only area in which I will take pushback from someone in one of the relevant companies as it's possible I am just wrong.\n\nThe following companies - BitFarms, Hut8, RIOT, WULF, HIVE, Cleanspark and a couple of handfuls of others are all - to the best of my knowledge - paying a fortune for the combined benefit of variance reduction (which they absolutely have no need of) and compliance by proxy.\n\nIf anyone from any of those companies can explain to me why I am wrong and that if\/when Foundry's size results in them engaging in censorship or any other abuse of the network (heck, already requiring KYC and regular inspections of mining facilities is unacceptable and that's already been the case for Foundry miners for years) then why should anyone believe you would move to another pool or go the Mara route?\n\nAt present I believe that Foundry could continue its inexorable ascent to the 51% magic number we're all afraid of and the new cope will be \"Well they haven't done <bad thing> yet\" and we'll just keep moving the goal posts about what constitutes a bad thing.\n\nAt the moment \"It's just KYC\", \"It's just mandatory inspections\" and \"It's just lost revenue.\"\n\nAll of that is unacceptable. \"It's just transactions associated with Russia\/Iran\" comes next and the shareholders of publicly traded Bitcoin miners are unlikely to view censorship based on that criteria as being anything to worry about. \"Why do you hate America??\"\n\nThe old cope of \"another miner will just include them and their business will survive while the censoring miners die\" is complete and utter delusion.\n\nAlmost 100% of revenue from the chain is subsidy. Transaction fees are neither here nor there. And if we think the US Pubcos are all going to voluntarily go admit bankruptcy because they lost a few hundred bucks a week from mining blocks that censored blacklisted UTXOs then we are deluding ourselves.\n\nI reiterate - miners are with Foundry because compliance is increasingly all that matters. This has resulted in enormous centralization of template construction that becomes a genuine attack vector at ~30% and has been consistently way above that for a long time now. 51% is a meme, and imo not a powerful enough one to inspire change if it actually comes to that. The frogs are already boiling and no one cares.\n\nLet's be honest. None of the miners on Foundry are leaving any time soon but the variance reducing product they offer that can be so trivially replicated elsewhere is not why any of them are doing what they are doing.\n\nFoundry is the sole occupant within the regulatory moat that is Bitcoin mining in America and I don't see that as trivial to replicate at all. \n\nAnd the reason I wish to sound the alarm 10,000 louder than I have been before this point is that the current US administration has run a campaign that specifically talks about centralizing Bitcoin in the US.\n\nThe phrase \"We will make all the Bitcoins in America\" is exactly the worst possible thing you could want to hear given everything I've talked about in this post and not only is it not being rejected by Bitcoiners, it is being celebrated as a good thing.","tags":[],"created_at":1737917613,"id":"f25e8058b1de583d0055b6385737e50b276ce6ed3053552aa9340ad12eaa6244","kind":1,"pubkey":"74ffc51cc30150cf79b6cb316d3a15cf332ab29a38fec9eb484ab1551d6d1856","sig":"f42de1df52e9804d45758bc1ec2d6dc3d6f63cf4bef96711ff52bdf43ec868f15085669d4616f3d7fb5ae1ab3ed264af5ae47ca0451e40ddf5119c0af6d117c8"}

{"content":"So we're regularly noticing how unacceptably large Foundry has gotten and it would be good if Bitcoiners in general understand why we are where we are.\n\nFirst, let's talk about what it is pools actually do, starting from the theoretical going all the way the practical.\n\nIn theory they make no difference to anything - they simply reduce variance.\n\nInstead of earning $.X per year, you earn $.X\/365 per day.\n\nThis is far more consistent and makes day to day operations easier and it's clear why someone would want to do this - assuming they're a smaller miner who is not capable of finding block frequently enough without pooling and splitting rewards with others.\n\nThis might be desirable to the point where you'd even pay a split to the coordinator (pool) because it's that valuable of a service.\n\nTo take it further, the absolute hands-down most common payout model for a pool to use is FPPS - this doubles down on the supposed benefit that is so compelling here. It stands for Full Pay Pay Share which -in theory - means that miners get paid on a share to share basis (something they're submitting multiple times a minute) a highly predictable amount.\n\nThis means you not only have you abandoned dealing with lotto-variance (waiting until you find a block) or even standard pool variance (waiting until someone on the pool finds a block) but instead you're mining with a pool that grants you earnings multiple times per minute regardless of if the pool is finding any blocks or not.\n\nThis is variance reduction to such an extreme that the product becomes unbelievably expensive because pools have now put themselves in a position where they must pay miners for blocks that might - and very often don't - happen.\n\nThis was demonstrated beyond doubt when OCEAN (non-FPPS) released its numbers and they outperformed FPPS by over 30% in some cases during its first year of operation.\n\n*Note: This is NOT a \"You should mine on OCEAN\" post. I am simply trying to explain why miners are making the decisions they are because it seems to be eluding almost everyone.\n\nSo miners are apparently opting for variance reduction to the point where they want to get paid no matter what for blocks that may or may not even exist with resolution all the way down to the share level.\n\nBut here's the part where the disconnect between theory and reality comes in.\n\nNearly all the miners on Foundry have absolutely zero need for this kind of variance reduction - or indeed any at all.\n\nThe publicly traded miners that make use of Foundry all have the ability to find multiple blocks a day without any third party whatsoever which is way more than enough.\n\nAs mentioned already, FPPS is an extremely expensive product that logically would only be required by a miner faced with 24 hourly energy bills who only has 100 Petahash or so. Again, the typical Foundry miner is 100 times the size of this coming in at almost 10 Exahash at the smaller end.\n\nSo if Foundry solves a particular issue - variance - and charges a fortune to do it, and its main customer is miners that could lotto-mine and find multiple blocks a day without incurring the costs of FPPS then what on Earth are they doing?\n\nThe naive answer is that they haven't done the maths. In some cases I actually know this to be true. You're an enormous miner and you do a deal with Foundry - they charge you 0.1% fee and you think that's equivalent to if you cut out the middle man entirely pretty much so it becomes worth it.\n\nBut with FPPS the fee is never the fee. That is the airport currency exchange sign that says \"0% COMMISSION\" and gives you something about 14% worse than market rate. Where is the money going?\n\nI don't think most miners are actually making that mistake, at least not all of them.\n\nIt's time to explain the real reason here.\n\nCompliance by proxy.\n\nAnd this is what's key to understand.\n\nHistory: Once upon a time a pool called GHash(.)io got above 40% of the hashrate (which Foundry is doing repeatedly at this point) and the miners all fled out of instinct to protect the network. You simply cannot have any single entity making 50% of the blocks that get added to the chain or anything approaching that.\n\nSo why aren't miners doing it today? Are they that addicted to variance reduction when the calibre of miner that uses Foundry is perfectly capable of reducing their own variance anyway even though it's costing them a fortune?\n\nAgain the entire space needs to understand why history will not be repeating itself here and this where I find the greatest amount of self-delusion and dishonesty in this space.\n\nCompliance by proxy was not a thing in 2016. At least not for miners.\n\nSince then, someone has come along and turned what is completely unacceptable to the powers that be - Bitcoin mining - and turned it into a completely sanitized, censorship prone shell of its former self - and *that* is the true motivation for \"miners\" paying these exorbitant fees.\n\nCompliance is new. And it isn't a factor people are taking into consideration.\n\nWhenever we point out how precarious the situation has become, there is the typical response - \"If Foundry ever do <bad thing> then their miners will just leave\".\n\nIt's time to put this cope-strategy to bed.\n\nIf a miner is perfectly capable of reducing their own variance to the tune of reliably finding multiple blocks per day themselves - why are they using a pool at all? Especially if that pool costs a fortune?\n\nOr more crudely - If losing a tonne of money for no apparent reason isn't compelling enough to leave Foundry, then jeopardizing Bitcoin isn't going to be either.\n\nThe true motivation is all that matters, and its overwhelmingly just compliance. \"Miners\" of substantial size increasingly do not want anything to do with Bitcoin and want all their hashrate transformed from raw Bitcoins coming fresh out of the blockchain into a nice clean product that their accountants and lawyers can tolerate regardless of the cost.\n\nTo take the counter position to my argument here, there are of course costs to rough-housing it and grappling with Bitcoin directly as MARA does and I don't want to pretend otherwise but I don't think they come anything like close to justifying the enormity of the revenue lost due to the extreme over-kill that is FPPS.\n\nThis is the only area in which I will take pushback from someone in one of the relevant companies as it's possible I am just wrong.\n\nThe following companies - BitFarms, Hut8, RIOT, WULF, HIVE, Cleanspark and a couple of handfuls of others are all - to the best of my knowledge - paying a fortune for the combined benefit of variance reduction (which they absolutely have no need of) and compliance by proxy.\n\nIf anyone from any of those companies can explain to me why I am wrong and that if\/when Foundry's size results in them engaging in censorship or any other abuse of the network (heck, already requiring KYC and regular inspections of mining facilities is unacceptable and that's already been the case for Foundry miners for years) then why should anyone believe you would move to another pool or go the Mara route?\n\nAt present I believe that Foundry could continue its inexorable ascent to the 51% magic number we're all afraid of and the new cope will be \"Well they haven't done <bad thing> yet\" and we'll just keep moving the goal posts about what constitutes a bad thing.\n\nAt the moment \"It's just KYC\", \"It's just mandatory inspections\" and \"It's just lost revenue.\"\n\nAll of that is unacceptable. \"It's just transactions associated with Russia\/Iran\" comes next and the shareholders of publicly traded Bitcoin miners are unlikely to view censorship based on that criteria as being anything to worry about. \"Why do you hate America??\"\n\nThe old cope of \"another miner will just include them and their business will survive while the censoring miners die\" is complete and utter delusion.\n\nAlmost 100% of revenue from the chain is subsidy. Transaction fees are neither here nor there. And if we think the US Pubcos are all going to voluntarily go admit bankruptcy because they lost a few hundred bucks a week from mining blocks that censored blacklisted UTXOs then we are deluding ourselves.\n\nI reiterate - miners are with Foundry because compliance is increasingly all that matters. This has resulted in enormous centralization of template construction that becomes a genuine attack vector at ~30% and has been consistently way above that for a long time now. 51% is a meme, and imo not a powerful enough one to inspire change if it actually comes to that. The frogs are already boiling and no one cares.\n\nLet's be honest. None of the miners on Foundry are leaving any time soon but the variance reducing product they offer that can be so trivially replicated elsewhere is not why any of them are doing what they are doing.\n\nFoundry is the sole occupant within the regulatory moat that is Bitcoin mining in America and I don't see that as trivial to replicate at all. \n\nAnd the reason I wish to sound the alarm 10,000 louder than I have been before this point is that the current US administration has run a campaign that specifically talks about centralizing Bitcoin in the US.\n\nThe phrase \"We will make all the Bitcoins in America\" is exactly the worst possible thing you could want to hear given everything I've talked about in this post and not only is it not being rejected by Bitcoiners, it is being celebrated as a good thing.","tags":[],"created_at":1737917613,"id":"f25e8058b1de583d0055b6385737e50b276ce6ed3053552aa9340ad12eaa6244","kind":1,"pubkey":"74ffc51cc30150cf79b6cb316d3a15cf332ab29a38fec9eb484ab1551d6d1856","sig":"f42de1df52e9804d45758bc1ec2d6dc3d6f63cf4bef96711ff52bdf43ec868f15085669d4616f3d7fb5ae1ab3ed264af5ae47ca0451e40ddf5119c0af6d117c8"}

NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable "Damaged" NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable "Damaged" The third severing of an undersea cable in just three months occurred on Sunday, this time between Latvia and Sweden in the Baltic Sea. The incident has prompted a criminal investigation and heightened concerns of potential sabotage by Russia or China. BREAKING: An undersea fiberoptic cable connecting Latvia and Sweden has been destroyed. Foul play is suspected and 2 vessels are viewed as potential culprits. A large NATO operation has been launched in the Baltic Sea today https://t.co/K5klmj6SIg — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1883542648885231773?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Latvia's State Radio and Television Center, a data transmission provider, released this https://www.lvrtc.lv/jaunumi/jaunumi/bojats-lvrtc-zemudens-optisko-skiedru-kabelis/ about the damaged cable connecting Ventspils in Latvia and Sweden's Gotland island: In the early morning of January 26, the submarine fiber optic cable of the Latvian State Radio and Television Centre (hereinafter – LVRTC) in the Baltic Sea was damaged. The LVRTC Data Transmission Monitoring System recorded disruptions in data transmission services on the Ventspils – Gotland (Fårösund) section. LVRTC continues to provide services using other data transmission routes. Currently, there is a possible delay in data transmission speed, but it does not affect end users in Latvia for the most part. Prime Minister Evika Silina commented about the incident on X: Early morning today we received information that the data cable from Latvia to Sweden was damaged in the Baltic Sea, in the section that is located in the Exclusive economic zone of Sweden. We are working together with our Swedish Allies and NATO on investigating the incident, including to patrolling the area, as well as inspecting the vessels that were in the area. Authorities have intensified information exchange and started criminal investigation. Early morning today we received information that the data cable from Latvia to Sweden was damaged in the Baltic Sea, in the section that is located in the Exclusive economic zone of Sweden. We are working together with our Swedish Allies and NATO on investigating the incident,… — Evika Siliņa 🇱🇻🇺🇦 (@EvikaSilina) https://twitter.com/EvikaSilina/status/1883532150932484160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Sweden, Latvia, and NATO are on high alert: There is information suggesting that at least one data cable between Sweden and Latvia has been damaged in the Baltic Sea. The cable is owned by a Latvian entity. I have been in close contact with my Latvian counterpart, Prime Minister Evika Siliņa, during the day. Sweden,… — SwedishPM (@SwedishPM) https://twitter.com/SwedishPM/status/1883521723716214949?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Over the past 18 months, three alarming incidents have been reported in which commercial ships traveling to or from Russian ports are suspected of severing undersea cables in the Baltic region. https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/2025-01-22_09-26-30.png?itok=rrKtViTz Washington Post recently cited Western officials who said these cable incidents are likely https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/wapo-undersea-cable-damage-baltic-sea-result-accidents-not-russian-sabotage - not sabotage by Russia and/or China.  Undersea Cable Damage In Baltic Sea The Result Of Accidents, Not Russian Sabotage; WaPo https://t.co/EQro9CmqSy — zerohedge (@zerohedge) https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1881620277987066143?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Due to all the cable severing risks, intentional and unintentional, a report from late November via TechCrunch said Meta planned a new "W" formation undersea cable route around the world to "https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/meta-plans-10-billion-undersea-global-fiber-network-w-formation-avoid-sabotage ."  https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 16:55 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-sweden-latvia-high-alert-after-baltic-undersea-data-cable-damaged

NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable "Damaged" NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable "Damaged" The third severing of an undersea cable in just three months occurred on Sunday, this time between Latvia and Sweden in the Baltic Sea. The incident has prompted a criminal investigation and heightened concerns of potential sabotage by Russia or China. BREAKING: An undersea fiberoptic cable connecting Latvia and Sweden has been destroyed. Foul play is suspected and 2 vessels are viewed as potential culprits. A large NATO operation has been launched in the Baltic Sea today https://t.co/K5klmj6SIg — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1883542648885231773?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Latvia's State Radio and Television Center, a data transmission provider, released this https://www.lvrtc.lv/jaunumi/jaunumi/bojats-lvrtc-zemudens-optisko-skiedru-kabelis/ about the damaged cable connecting Ventspils in Latvia and Sweden's Gotland island: In the early morning of January 26, the submarine fiber optic cable of the Latvian State Radio and Television Centre (hereinafter – LVRTC) in the Baltic Sea was damaged. The LVRTC Data Transmission Monitoring System recorded disruptions in data transmission services on the Ventspils – Gotland (Fårösund) section. LVRTC continues to provide services using other data transmission routes. Currently, there is a possible delay in data transmission speed, but it does not affect end users in Latvia for the most part. Prime Minister Evika Silina commented about the incident on X: Early morning today we received information that the data cable from Latvia to Sweden was damaged in the Baltic Sea, in the section that is located in the Exclusive economic zone of Sweden. We are working together with our Swedish Allies and NATO on investigating the incident, including to patrolling the area, as well as inspecting the vessels that were in the area. Authorities have intensified information exchange and started criminal investigation. Early morning today we received information that the data cable from Latvia to Sweden was damaged in the Baltic Sea, in the section that is located in the Exclusive economic zone of Sweden. We are working together with our Swedish Allies and NATO on investigating the incident,… — Evika Siliņa 🇱🇻🇺🇦 (@EvikaSilina) https://twitter.com/EvikaSilina/status/1883532150932484160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Sweden, Latvia, and NATO are on high alert: There is information suggesting that at least one data cable between Sweden and Latvia has been damaged in the Baltic Sea. The cable is owned by a Latvian entity. I have been in close contact with my Latvian counterpart, Prime Minister Evika Siliņa, during the day. Sweden,… — SwedishPM (@SwedishPM) https://twitter.com/SwedishPM/status/1883521723716214949?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Over the past 18 months, three alarming incidents have been reported in which commercial ships traveling to or from Russian ports are suspected of severing undersea cables in the Baltic region. https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/2025-01-22_09-26-30.png?itok=rrKtViTz Washington Post recently cited Western officials who said these cable incidents are likely https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/wapo-undersea-cable-damage-baltic-sea-result-accidents-not-russian-sabotage - not sabotage by Russia and/or China.  Undersea Cable Damage In Baltic Sea The Result Of Accidents, Not Russian Sabotage; WaPo https://t.co/EQro9CmqSy — zerohedge (@zerohedge) https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1881620277987066143?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Due to all the cable severing risks, intentional and unintentional, a report from late November via TechCrunch said Meta planned a new "W" formation undersea cable route around the world to "https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/meta-plans-10-billion-undersea-global-fiber-network-w-formation-avoid-sabotage ."  https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 16:55 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-sweden-latvia-high-alert-after-baltic-undersea-data-cable-damaged

NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable "Damaged" NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable "Damaged" The third severing of an undersea cable in just three months occurred on Sunday, this time between Latvia and Sweden in the Baltic Sea. The incident has prompted a criminal investigation and heightened concerns of potential sabotage by Russia or China. BREAKING: An undersea fiberoptic cable connecting Latvia and Sweden has been destroyed. Foul play is suspected and 2 vessels are viewed as potential culprits. A large NATO operation has been launched in the Baltic Sea today https://t.co/K5klmj6SIg — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1883542648885231773?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Latvia's State Radio and Television Center, a data transmission provider, released this https://www.lvrtc.lv/jaunumi/jaunumi/bojats-lvrtc-zemudens-optisko-skiedru-kabelis/ about the damaged cable connecting Ventspils in Latvia and Sweden's Gotland island: In the early morning of January 26, the submarine fiber optic cable of the Latvian State Radio and Television Centre (hereinafter – LVRTC) in the Baltic Sea was damaged. The LVRTC Data Transmission Monitoring System recorded disruptions in data transmission services on the Ventspils – Gotland (Fårösund) section. LVRTC continues to provide services using other data transmission routes. Currently, there is a possible delay in data transmission speed, but it does not affect end users in Latvia for the most part. Prime Minister Evika Silina commented about the incident on X: Early morning today we received information that the data cable from Latvia to Sweden was damaged in the Baltic Sea, in the section that is located in the Exclusive economic zone of Sweden. We are working together with our Swedish Allies and NATO on investigating the incident, including to patrolling the area, as well as inspecting the vessels that were in the area. Authorities have intensified information exchange and started criminal investigation. Early morning today we received information that the data cable from Latvia to Sweden was damaged in the Baltic Sea, in the section that is located in the Exclusive economic zone of Sweden. We are working together with our Swedish Allies and NATO on investigating the incident,… — Evika Siliņa 🇱🇻🇺🇦 (@EvikaSilina) https://twitter.com/EvikaSilina/status/1883532150932484160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Sweden, Latvia, and NATO are on high alert: There is information suggesting that at least one data cable between Sweden and Latvia has been damaged in the Baltic Sea. The cable is owned by a Latvian entity. I have been in close contact with my Latvian counterpart, Prime Minister Evika Siliņa, during the day. Sweden,… — SwedishPM (@SwedishPM) https://twitter.com/SwedishPM/status/1883521723716214949?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Over the past 18 months, three alarming incidents have been reported in which commercial ships traveling to or from Russian ports are suspected of severing undersea cables in the Baltic region. https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/2025-01-22_09-26-30.png?itok=rrKtViTz Washington Post recently cited Western officials who said these cable incidents are likely https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/wapo-undersea-cable-damage-baltic-sea-result-accidents-not-russian-sabotage - not sabotage by Russia and/or China.  Undersea Cable Damage In Baltic Sea The Result Of Accidents, Not Russian Sabotage; WaPo https://t.co/EQro9CmqSy — zerohedge (@zerohedge) https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1881620277987066143?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Due to all the cable severing risks, intentional and unintentional, a report from late November via TechCrunch said Meta planned a new "W" formation undersea cable route around the world to "https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/meta-plans-10-billion-undersea-global-fiber-network-w-formation-avoid-sabotage ."  https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden Sun, 01/26/2025 - 16:55 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nato-sweden-latvia-high-alert-after-baltic-undersea-data-cable-damaged

This has been the longest stretch of dry weather in the winter that I can remember. I was able to get the mulberries, plums, and apples pruned today. 😎

This has been the longest stretch of dry weather in the winter that I can remember. I was able to get the mulberries, plums, and apples pruned today. 😎

This has been the longest stretch of dry weather in the winter that I can remember. I was able to get the mulberries, plums, and apples pruned today. 😎

Hope to see more of your notes here

Hope to see more of your notes here