Saylor Selling Slippery Slop (More BIP-110 Pearl Clutching)

[00:00:00]This is Matthew Kratter's Bitcoin University. Today I want to talk about Michael Saylor selling slippery slop. Be Michael Saylor, don't participate substantially in the spam and BIP 110 discussion of the past 12 months, and then at the last minute, just a few weeks before activation, when all the debate has already happened, come down from on high and grace us with thine ex cathedra pronouncement, as he did a couple days ago. I made a video about it, Michael Saylor speaking ex cathedra about BIP 110. And then when you get called out for that, take a giant Brandolini dump on the internet, which is what Michael Saylor did yesterday.

[00:00:35]110 reasons BIP 110 is a bad idea. A huge dump of slop that includes that includes complete howlers like this. Number 21, "Seven separate consensus changes are bundled together.

[00:00:48]Participants cannot support one restriction and reject another. They must accept or reject the package."

[00:00:54]Well, that is true, that's how the soft fork is put together. It's put together in a very deliberate way to close all these data fields or narrow data fields that have been used for spam or C spam or that could be used. So, there's a reason for this. There's a reason that Dathan Ohm chose these seven consensus changes. The two big ones are just large op returns, which no one wants or needs and never wanted or needed. And then there's the op if in Taproot, which is all the inscriptions and BRC-20 token stuff, which has bloated the UTXO set.

[00:01:22]So, that's one of these bogus concerns in this AI slop-driven article. Number 23 was another howler as well. The 83-byte op return policy becomes consensus. That converts a configurable relay and mining preference into a block validity rule. Well, that's exactly what we're trying to do. We're taking relay policy and we're locking it down at the consensus level. This is basically just restating what the BIP does. It's not a criticism of the BIP in itself, and it fails to understand the whole context of it, of course, because this is AI. But this is this is funny because this shows us some people pointed out this shows that Saylor didn't even bother to read this in any depth. He just had AI or one of his assistants generate it for him.

[00:02:00]And I would say this reflects badly on Saylor as he writes in this post and Bitcoin influence is earned through work, not at not ambition. Well, doing AI slop like this when other people have been making hundreds and hundreds of videos and doing this debate for 12 months, that's not doing the hard work.

[00:02:14]As Flaming Hoddle points out here, this is called laundry list persuasion, one of the least persuasive kind. He made a claim that then he had to manufacture 110 reasons. Good thing the original Bit for 44 was renamed or we would have to read 444 reasons. I thought that was a great comment as well as BTC Bello. Sorry, Saylor, I don't need to ask ChatGPT why Core raising Bitcoin's upper turn limit from 83 to 100,000 bytes is a bad idea.

[00:02:38]I can think for myself and you should do the same. BTC Bello back with another zinger. So, the guy who says you need his stock to turn Bitcoin into money and says that Bitcoin needs to be regulated by the state to be accepted and adopted is against BIP 110. Color me shocked.

[00:02:53]This is Saylor being part of big Bitcoin as we like to call it. And then Hoddlonaut with a great point as well to Saylor. Why don't you address the reason BIP 110 is a thing in the first place?

[00:03:02]The complete and utter cut governance breakdown in Core resulting in the uncapping of upper turn despite four to one community opposition. And Mechanic weighing in on a serious note once again, if you're writing low effort AI generated nonsense that will convince exactly zero people to not run BIP 110, then your motivation is something else.

[00:03:21]That's a very subtle and good point, I think. I would guess it's in-group signaling. Essentially, this is some requirement for maintaining good favor with a certain group within the Bitcoin space. It's clearly a chore, not a passion is my point. It's a chore for Saylor. It was unfortunate to see Samson Mow congratulating Saylor on his slop.

[00:03:37]This is one of the more embarrassing things that I've seen and that's the reason I just unfollowed Samson. Samson writing, apart from in addition to the fact that Samson seems to have no trouble no problem taking pictures hanging out with Andy Back and other despicable characters like that. Samson writes here, "We're quite fortunate to have Saylor in this timeline. He took the time to understand the current situation situation around BIP 110 and is writing about the importance of Bitcoin staying neutral and permissionless." Just unbelievable post, Samson. Come on. This was a reminder, of course, that Saylor used AI to design his failed preferred stock project, which is stretch, as he said in this interview, "When we did stretch, I did it all with AI. I couldn't have done it myself." Well, if he had consulted someone who knows about these things, as I said in a previous video, I've never in 25 years seen on Wall Street a high-yield product product that was meant to stay close to par that didn't end up completely breaking down because that's just not how high-yield things high-yield things trade, especially junk bond things. So, stretch is still broken, another AI-generated slop. So, again, Saylor, you should be putting in the work. You shouldn't be relying on AI for these things because in this case, your BIP 110 AI slop didn't cause any damage cuz no one really is going to read that and be be persuaded by but using AI for stretch is clearly wrecked a lot of retail investors, which is which the where the product is being targeted. And then I I tweeted at Saylor yesterday, "Which Bitcoin node implementation and version do you run at home to verify your own Bitcoin transactions?" This would be a way to weigh in on the debate. It'd be very interesting. You can make these abstract pronouncements, but but when it comes down to what node do you actually run and for what philosophical reasons, you know, that's called having skin in the game. That's called explaining the reason for your point of view. But it looks like Saylor's just going to return to what he does best, which is financial engineering. He's an MIT engineer who, unfortunately, like many mathematicians and engineers, basically went the financial engineering route instead of building bridges and doing the stuff we need to rebuild our civilization. He's an aeronautical aero- aerospace engineer, so he could certainly contribute in a way like Elon Musk has, but he chooses instead to do financial engineering. Looks like he's going to dilute shareholders again. over the weekend. We can see that the yield, the BTC yield for MicroStrategy, for strategy, it peaked in early June at 13% year-to-date and is now down for the quarter because of all the dilution that's happened. They're now down 1.6% on the quarter and down from what did we say? 13 13% all the way down to 6.6% Bitcoin yield year-to-date. And what's happening is the common shareholders are needing be diluted in order to try to bail out the stretch holders. So, this is a complete disaster. I would encourage Saylor to stay in his lane. If he doesn't have anything substantial to say about it, don't don't waste our time debunking piles of AI slop. That's real laziness in my opinion. If you enjoyed this video, be sure to hit the subscribe and like buttons. Hit the notification bell if you want to be notified when I publish my next video and let me know your questions and comments in the comment section below.

[00:06:41]Thanks all for watching and I'll see you in the next video.