<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qxd8wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9ujnyvrhwden5te0dehhxarj9ekxzmny9ujnyvp9xgcxzanpw3shyffjxpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7ffjxqjnyvrpweshgctjy5erqamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wfjkccte9e3k7mf0y5erqamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7te9xgc8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnndehhyapwwdhkx6tpdsg2pc8a

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

relay.primal.net

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

Last Notes

2026-03-01 12:51:31 CET

- reply

Anyone vs anything. Big difference

2026-02-27 02:29:12 CET

- reply

The other restrictions prevent the same issue. OP_RETURN is not the only contiguous region that can be abused. There is no "different issue" addressed by RDTS.
There's also no evidence an OP_RETURN-only variant would get more support, and someone even proposed that a while back and effectively proved it doesn't.
This has only just become an attack vector 4 months ago with the release of Core30. And reversing that harm is the only thing RDTS accomplishes.

2026-02-27 02:26:12 CET

- reply

1) The RDTS limit is 256 _bytes_, not kilobytes.
2) Those are unjust laws, and people should fight them.
3) That being said, 3D files still don't belong on Bitcoin, and fear of unjust prosecution would likely still be fatal to Bitcoin in this way.

2026-02-26 08:27:33 CET

- reply

It takes time to think through, implement, and review a more complicated long term change.
In that time, anyone can just destroy Bitcoin irreversibly.
RDTS protects Bitcoin while we do that longer term R&D

2026-02-25 05:29:00 CET

- reply

No, it acknowledges BitVM issues are a tradeoff and that is part of why it expires in a year.
BitVM is unlikely to be ready for production within a year anyway.

2026-02-25 05:26:51 CET

- reply

60% is what recent data shows. Feel free to do your own analysis.

2026-02-25 05:26:00 CET

- reply

There's ways to do it, but the spammers _want_ to force you to download and distribute it, so they intentionally use the harmful ways.

2026-02-22 09:42:02 CET

- reply

If you oppose preventing CSAM, you objectively do support CSAM.
It's only hostile to pedophiles and scammers.

2026-02-22 09:38:15 CET

- reply

It doesn't, this is just the latest Epstein narrative being parroted over and over to try to brainwash people.

2026-02-21 22:12:06 CET

- reply

Liar

2026-02-21 08:21:26 CET

- reply

There is only one chain, soon with RDTS rules enforced for 1 year.

2026-02-21 08:13:28 CET

- reply

What "fix"? RDTS isn't broken...

2026-02-21 07:51:46 CET

- reply

You don't know what you're talking about

2026-02-21 07:49:38 CET

- reply

Liar

2026-02-21 07:44:34 CET

- reply

Consensus is 100%, not a majority.
And ~60% support RDTS.

2026-02-21 07:40:49 CET

- reply

Softforks almost never have consensus.
RDTS has more than sufficient support, though.

2026-02-20 22:40:37 CET

- reply

BIP444 aka BIP110
Reverses the data storage / CSAM vulnerability added by Core30's malicious changes.

2026-02-20 22:36:28 CET

- reply

Wrong, RDTS brings us back to where we were before Core30.

2026-02-20 21:32:30 CET

- reply

It has nothing to do with me, troll

2026-02-20 21:31:56 CET

- reply

No, it makes CSAM completely impossible.
Decentralization is not sacrificed at all either. RDTS only helps improve decentralisation.

2026-02-20 21:19:12 CET

- reply

1) Bitcoin's security depends on a supermajority of the economy using their own full node. CSAM means every full node will be actively engaging in child porn distribution. Most people will never be willing to do that. Without people using their own nodes, Bitcoin becomes just a worse version of fiat (including, but not limited to, inflation, seizures, etc). Spam makes it harder to run a full node, so is a similar threat over a longer period of time.

2026-02-20 21:15:42 CET

- reply

You're the liar.

2026-02-20 21:12:54 CET

- reply

Dorsey invested in OCEAN
OCEAN pays employees reasonable (not massive) salaries - I would make more working elsewhere.
None of this is relevant to the context of RDTS at all
(Opposites are hard??)

2026-02-20 21:10:22 CET

It's okay to be ignorant about RDTS and withhold judgement until you understand it better.
It's not okay to be _opposed_ to RDTS, since it just addresses an existential threat to Bitcoin.
RDTS is hostile only to CSAM and spammers.
If you're neither, it's not a hostile softfork, and you should support it.

2026-02-20 20:54:22 CET

- reply

Without the lies you're parroting.

2026-02-20 20:51:40 CET

- reply

Imagine thinking fake news media is a defense.

2026-02-20 20:49:23 CET

- reply

Yes it is.

2026-02-20 20:42:06 CET

- reply

More lies.

2026-02-20 20:39:25 CET

- reply

All comparable softfork attempts have succeeded, and so will RDTS.
Odell's lies are lies tho.

2026-02-20 19:43:46 CET

- reply

The only things RDTS is hostile toward are CSAM and spammers.
If you're hostile to RDTS, you're friendly to those.

2026-02-20 18:59:40 CET

- reply

Maybe, but he definitely does know it isn't about anyone's ego.

2026-02-20 17:21:53 CET

- reply

Liar

2026-02-20 17:00:13 CET

- reply

Liar

2026-02-16 19:31:33 CET

- reply

For what it is, this is a very SLOW activation with a HIGH hashrate requirement (and hashrate is NOT consensus)

2026-02-16 18:07:33 CET

- reply

55% is high for such a critical fix actually
Core has done 0% for less critical fixes

2026-02-14 11:47:00 CET

- reply

RDTS doesn't suck though. Quit with the FUD

2026-02-12 19:25:43 CET

- reply

Bitcoin doesn't exist to destroy the criminal justice system.
If the hackers were targeting anyone else, it would not have taken them months to get your bitcoins

2026-02-12 19:24:07 CET

- reply

Core gatekeepers actively work to make forks more difficult and spreads lies to scare people into using only Core

2026-02-12 01:39:31 CET

- reply

Liar. Hacked despite way above par opsec. And investigating crimes is literally the FBI's job. You're an idiot

2026-02-03 21:22:14 CET

- reply

It's not about funding sources. Pay attention.

2026-02-03 20:49:31 CET

Reposting Jack Mallers:
"Bitcoin is a neutral, open-source public utility. Like fire, water, or the internet.
It is not a person. It is not an institution. It has no secrets.
Corrupt people do not get to rob humanity of our chance to fix the mess we inherited. Bitcoin is the solution, not the problem."
https://x.com/jackmallers/status/2018760677511319763?s=20

2026-02-03 18:57:42 CET

- reply

CISA is overrated. It doesn't actually do what people think.

2026-02-03 18:11:51 CET

- reply

Explains a lot, though.
We need a purge.

2026-02-03 18:09:03 CET

- reply

Segwit and Taproot were not mistakes. The mistakes were side matters.

2026-01-12 05:47:40 CET

An update on this thread, for full clarity: There are now a total of 8 new bugs which can cause wallet deletion or corruption.
My initial comment applies only to the initial, severe bug that affects people simply using Core30 normally.
@nprofile…m9s8 _is_, however, impacted by 6 of the others, which are not triggered by normal end users:
3 of these are "power user" functionality (moving wallet files around manually; creating unexpected files in the wallet directory; or using the `bitcoin-wallet` command line tool)
1 of them requires a low-level disk/filesystem/OS problem during shutdown.
The remaining 2 are unrealistic to trigger at all, but hypothetically possible if you start the node software again immediately before it finishes shutting down (within milliseconds), or ... have multiple wallets in the same directory, one of which has recent changes, the node crashes or has a power failure, you start the node again and NOT open the recently-modified wallet, open the other wallet, and shutdown cleanly.
All six of these issues will be fixed in a new version of Knots soon.
#nevent1q…qzjl

2026-01-06 01:02:44 CET

FYI, @nprofile…m9s8 is NOT impacted by the Core30 wallet deletion bug.
https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/2008326237962277039?s=20

2025-12-21 04:47:30 CET

- reply

You're the liar. I said nothing of the sort. And no, softforks _don't_ cause chain splits.

2025-11-11 21:34:24 CET

- reply

Liar

2025-11-07 17:31:26 CET

- reply

Liar

2025-11-05 20:38:16 CET

- reply

The whole concept (as I originally designed it) was for an emergency/reactive UASF. I'm not sure it makes sense any other way. For a non-eventful softfork, you'd want to start it 1-1.5 years into the future. And then with a 1 year expiry still?

2025-11-05 15:40:45 CET

- reply

And run the UASF 😉

2025-10-28 22:09:58 CET

- reply

There was until Core30

2025-10-28 15:19:45 CET

- reply

Agree with your second paragraph. I definitely don't _want_ to control Bitcoin.
No idea why you think that's at all related to the screenshot, though

2025-10-27 22:38:39 CET

- reply

Guess I replied to the wrong post...I meant the top one

2025-10-27 21:52:38 CET

- reply

Assuming good faith, Odell, you seem to have this habit of posting before verifying...

2025-10-27 21:49:44 CET

- reply

Got a source for that? That would indicate the only reason they haven't done it to Bitcoin yet is building this narrative / waiting for more Core 30 adoption...

2025-10-13 16:24:58 CEST

- reply

Eight, actually*

2025-10-13 15:24:18 CEST

- reply

I tried decentralised funding (via Patreon, GitHub Sponsors, and Bitcoin) for years. It just doesn't get enough donations to be viable. You can disagree with their funding decisions, but at the end, I think we do need organizations like OpenSats to arrange funding.

2025-10-13 13:49:07 CEST

- reply

Only one maintainer ships each Core release.
The "on your own" has always been nothing but FUD.

2025-10-07 03:37:59 CEST

- reply

The exploit works because Core neglected to update the spam filters a few years ago, and refuses to fix the vulnerability.
And no, you're wrong. Satoshi's spam filters were VERY picky about what was inside transactions. Anything that he didn't foresee being used was rejected.
Core30's malicious changes have nothing whatsoever to do with Taproot.
Each user decides for himself. Collectively, our nodes form consensus around what is spam and what maybe isn't.

2025-10-07 03:28:15 CEST

- reply

2) Ordinals/Inscriptions are just spam. It's basically a scamcoin using proof-of-attacking-Bitcoin as its "algorithm". Taproot witness data does not allow arbitrary data - that's just an abusive *mis*interpretation of script code that Ordinals is doing completely unrelated to Bitcoin. This _is_ a relevant distinction.
3) Satoshi introduced spam filters to deal with the spam issue. So Bitcoin literally _was_ designed to work this way.
4) Again, Bitcoin has used spam filters from the start. It is Core30 that aims to change Bitcoin by removing some.

2025-09-20 22:21:28 CEST

Some people seem to want to argue that there is already CSAM in Bitcoin's blockchain. This is false. Bitcoin today does not support images at all - only arbitrary data up to 80 bytes (or 95 in the coinbase).
Exploits like "Inscriptions" work by _misinterpreting_ script code, and _bypassing_ existing policy rules. They are not actually storing images, but merely putting gibberish code on the chain, which they later themselves (not Bitcoin) _misinterpret_ as images.
This distinction is very real and relevant. If you don't differentiate between "data that can be misinterpreted to produce CSAM" and "data that correctly interpreted displays CSAM", then literally _all data_ is CSAM, with _no exceptions at all_. This tweet would be CSAM. Google's logo would be CSAM. Your phone's operating system would be CSAM. Literally anything _can_ be misinterpreted as CSAM.

2025-09-16 12:42:45 CEST

- reply

Except that's NOT how censorship resistance works.
Censorship resistance comes from anyone being able to mine a block

2025-09-16 09:55:15 CEST

- reply

Adam is doing a LOT of blatant lying lately :(

2025-09-10 08:52:28 CEST

- reply

Hence it's not enough to just use Knots yourself, but the network as a whole must reject Core 30

2025-09-10 08:15:21 CEST

For years, there has been FUD that Bitcoin's blockchain could be criminalised by storing CSAM on it.
For years, the answer has always been that Bitcoin doesn't support data storage, and the offending content is not the blockchain itself, but the additional software used to transform the blockchain into CSAM.
By sanctioning data storage, Core 30 is eliminating that argument. There will no longer be any additional software required, your Bitcoin node itself will provide CSAM on demand, using a well-defined and officially supported format.
The very reason "CSAM on the chain" was FUD, is being _destroyed_ by Core 30. They are making it a _true_ accusation. No amount of obfuscation will change this fact.
This is not the _only_ reason to reject Core 30. But even if it was, it would _still_ be strong reason to do so.

2025-09-08 20:09:37 CEST

- reply

This post is about the next decade or two, not the next 24 hours.
Core and Bitcoin cannot both continue to exist.

2025-09-08 08:49:03 CEST

Bitcoin is not a finished product. We may be on a detour to address spam, and part of the crisis did originate with (mishandling of) the Segwit and Taproot upgrades - but to improve the world, we still need more functionality. Stopping all improvements forever ("ossifying") is fatal.
Part of addressing the issues with Core needs to be ensuring we don't repeat the same mistakes: if an upgrade introduces unforeseen vulnerabilities, those need to get addressed in a timely manner. All protocol changes require support from the entire community, so we developers are going to have to earn that reputation back.
There are fairly simple, low-risk softforks like CTV, or even a consensus cleanup (though I have reservations about BIP 54), that should not introduce vulnerabilities, and could be a starting point to regain confidence after Core is out of the picture.
The next step up is probably native zero-knowledge support, BitVM optimisations, and similar. This is when it *might* make sense to start considering Bitcoin L1 "complete", and capable of handling further improvements and even scaling on true trustless sidechains. We have a long road to get there still, and every step will take consensus - possibly quick mitigation of unforeseen outcomes - but we shouldn't lose sight of the end goal: a decentralised currency that nobody can undermine, and hopefully one day onboard the entire global economy.
It's possible to accomplish, but we will have to work for it.