Natin

The problem with Paul (or anyone else for that matter) making bold statements like these, is that they are literally (and provably) false. Which means one of two things: 1) Paul does not sufficiently research the area within which he positions himself as somewhat of an expert. 2) He does stay up to date, but for whatever reason, chooses to hide the existence of certain solutions from his followers. Neither of course are ideal. So, Paul wants you to believe that merged mining (aka relying on external networks to pay Bitcoin's miners) is the "only practical solution" to the security budget issue. Now, the reason such opinions are not immediately laughed out the room by most Bitcoiners today, is that the classic alternatives that have been presented over the years are truly, truly terrible! For example: A) Increase the 21M supply (lol) B) Introduce network-level taxation on unspent BTC (MEGA LOLZ) Within this context, it's easy to see how Paul's suggestion of driving additional revenue to miners from external networks could seem like a pretty good idea. 🤷 However, do you as a Bitcoin holder really want the security of the network, and therefore the value of your precious sats, to be reliant upon some other random network not only surviving, but its token price remaining high enough to make the merge-mining revenue stream worthwhile for miners? 👀 Personally, I couldn't think of many things worse than that. The fate of Bitcoin, the greatest network ever built, to have its very survival left in the hands of another network that is NOT Bitcoin?! 😬 To me, that is genuinely laughable Paul claims that merge-mining is the "only" solution. 🤔 I say (respectfully) that Paul is wrong. But not just wrong in my own, personal opinion. Verifiably wrong, as there has been a Bitcoin-native, supplementary block-subsidy being paid to miners for almost 2 years now, and it's called @natgmi. A solution that pays Bitcoin miners an additional block-subsidy WITHOUT requiring any: - changes to Bitcoin's code - forks - merge-mined networks - network-level taxation - BTC supply increases - claiming or opting-in. Just a Bitcoin-native asset paid directly to miners, which derives its issuance from Bitcoin's own Proof-of-Work data. Specifically, the 'nBits' field in each block header, which encodes the mining difficulty target. A non-invasive and incredibly elegant solution as a 2nd subsidy paid to miners' wallets alongside their standard rewards, via @tap_protocol. An asset that is already being distributed by major mining pools such as @SpiderPool_com and @f2pool An asset that has received onchain support from over 55% of Bitcoin's total hashrate. An asset named ethereum:0x249130f5e2dd4cf278180c0df8273f3592ad1247 ⛏️ So, @Truthcoin, if you truly believe that merge-mining is the "only practical solution" to the security budget problem, then I would like to formally extend a warm invitation to you, to come and discuss this on an X Space with both myself and the creators of @natgmi (@WilliamGomezJr & @iman_blockrun) 🎙️ At the very least, this would be a fantastic educational opportunity for the audience, as debates such as these are exactly what are needed to ensure this (very serious) security budget issue is understood by more Bitcoiners as soon as possible. 🚨