<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcppemhxw309asjumn0wvhxcmmvqywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wsq3yamnwvaz7tm0venxx6rpd9hzuur4vgqcaqll

Publishing to

a.nos.lol

nostr-pub.wellorder.net

offchain.pub

Last Notes

2026-03-01 11:51:31 UTC

- reply

Anyone vs anything. Big difference

2026-02-27 01:29:48 UTC

- reply

Not interested in your scams.

2026-02-27 01:29:12 UTC

- 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 01:26:12 UTC

- 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 07:27:33 UTC

- 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 04:29:00 UTC

- 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 04:27:13 UTC

- reply

Miners do not control the network.

2026-02-25 04:26:51 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-25 04:26:00 UTC

- 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 08:42:02 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-22 08:36:40 UTC

- reply

Your "argument" is no basis to force others to store and distribute anything, much less CSAM.

2026-02-21 21:16:34 UTC

- reply

So no actual bug, just FUD

2026-02-21 21:12:06 UTC

- reply

Liar

2026-02-21 07:21:26 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-21 07:13:28 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-21 06:49:38 UTC

- reply

Liar

2026-02-21 06:44:34 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-21 06:40:49 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-20 21:40:37 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-20 21:39:43 UTC

- reply

There is NO difference at all between CSAM on a hard drive and CSAM via Core30's data storage mechanism. And you're ignoring the whole distribution part. And yes, they are accessible by non-techies.
The goal is not to stop motivated individuals from accessing the images. The goal is to not be in possession or distributing them myself just by running a node.
And we don't have to restrict specific data - we just ban *all* data storage.
By the time there are arrests, it is way too late. Once CSAM is on the chain, it can never be removed.

2026-02-20 21:36:28 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-20 20:36:55 UTC

- reply

They would be anti-RDTS

2026-02-20 20:36:00 UTC

- reply

One-word replies are necessary to counter Brandolini's law.

2026-02-20 20:32:30 UTC

- reply

It has nothing to do with me, troll

2026-02-20 20:31:56 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-20 20:25:57 UTC

- reply

2) No real impact/cost. Miners and nodes need to upgrade. There's some strictly theoretical tradeoffs documented in the BIP itself: https://github.com/dathonohm/bips/blob/reduced-data/bip-0110.mediawiki

2026-02-20 20:19:12 UTC

- 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 20:15:42 UTC

- reply

You're the liar.

2026-02-20 20:12:54 UTC

- 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 20:10:22 UTC

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 19:54:22 UTC

- reply

Without the lies you're parroting.

2026-02-20 19:51:40 UTC

- reply

Imagine thinking fake news media is a defense.

2026-02-20 19:42:06 UTC

- reply

More lies.

2026-02-20 19:39:25 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-20 19:33:30 UTC

- reply

It's not part of BIP110, but I don't care. Bitcoin is dead if it mandates CSAM distribution. If such a block is created, I am personally rejecting it and encouraging everyone else to do the same regardless.

2026-02-20 18:51:43 UTC

- reply

That doesn't mean you should join the scammers, Odell.

2026-02-20 18:43:46 UTC

- 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 17:59:40 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-20 16:21:53 UTC

- reply

Liar

2026-02-20 16:00:13 UTC

- reply

Liar

2026-02-16 18:31:33 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-16 17:07:33 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-14 10:47:00 UTC

- reply

RDTS doesn't suck though. Quit with the FUD

2026-02-12 18:25:43 UTC

- 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 18:24:07 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-12 00:39:31 UTC

- reply

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

2026-02-03 20:22:14 UTC

- reply

It's not about funding sources. Pay attention.

2026-02-03 19:49:31 UTC

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 17:11:51 UTC

- reply

Explains a lot, though.
We need a purge.

2026-02-03 17:09:03 UTC

- reply

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

2026-01-12 04:47:40 UTC

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 00:02:44 UTC

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

2025-12-21 03:47:30 UTC

- reply

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

2025-11-11 20:34:24 UTC

- reply

Liar

2025-11-07 16:31:26 UTC

- reply

Liar

2025-11-06 13:29:13 UTC

- reply

I do not support the rules in BIP444 on a permanent basis.

2025-11-05 19:38:16 UTC

- 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?

2025-10-28 21:09:58 UTC

- reply

There was until Core30

2025-10-28 14:19:45 UTC

- 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 21:38:39 UTC

- reply

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

2025-10-27 20:52:38 UTC

- reply

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

2025-10-17 18:57:26 UTC

- reply

No, the Core maintainers also function as maintainers in Knots too. Saying I'm the sole maintainer because I roll the releases is like saying Gloria is the sole maintainer of Core 29.x.

2025-10-13 14:21:50 UTC

- reply

$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.asc
gpg: assuming signed data in 'SHA256SUMS'
gpg: Signature made Fri 10 Oct 2025 05:14:58 PM EDT
gpg: using EDDSA key 1A3E761F19D2CC7785C5502EA291A2C45D0C504A
gpg: Good signature from "Luke Dashjr (Codesigning) <[email protected]>" [unknown]
Primary key fingerprint: 1A3E 761F 19D2 CC77 85C5 502E A291 A2C4 5D0C 504A
gpg: Signature made Sat 11 Oct 2025 04:06:25 PM EDT
gpg: using RSA key 1D70CBE4B42239445617D33DD316C8140185B647
gpg: Good signature from "shiny (Bitcoin Knots attestations) <[email protected]>" [unknown]
Primary key fingerprint: 1D70 CBE4 B422 3944 5617 D33D D316 C814 0185 B647
gpg: Signature made Mon 13 Oct 2025 09:41:15 AM EDT
gpg: using RSA key C1BCB7169AF1A07A0C5E471A047509FA0A6D7350
gpg: issuer "[email protected]"
gpg: Good signature from "ataraxia009 <[email protected]>" [unknown]
Primary key fingerprint: C1BC B716 9AF1 A07A 0C5E 471A 0475 09FA 0A6D 7350
Likely more coming... 29.1 had 7 signers.

2025-10-13 14:02:11 UTC

- reply

It would take less than that for you to think about it. It was a one-line claim that isn't true.

2025-10-13 13:54:36 UTC

- reply

That's simply not true at all.

2025-10-13 13:25:22 UTC

- reply

That doesn't put out the fire, it turns up the heat.
Why do you want an airdrop so bad?

2025-10-13 11:49:07 UTC

- reply

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

2025-10-12 21:21:25 UTC

- reply

There's an actual fire tho

2025-10-12 21:20:32 UTC

- reply

So inform yourself and recommend Knots NON-blindly🤦‍♂️

2025-10-08 15:23:45 UTC

Even if we survive this attack by Core30, this situation where I personally have to save Bitcoin every few years needs to stop. Bitcoin cannot survive if it's dependent on one man. Others need to step up more.
https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/1975942110047252776

2025-10-07 01:28:15 UTC

- 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.

2025-10-06 19:59:44 UTC

F2Pool is actively attacking the network RIGHT NOW. All it takes is one attacker to send them a single instance of CSAM, and Bitcoin users will have to knowingly and intentionally receive, store, and distribute it until the end of time. This will permanently impact Bitcoin adoption regardless of whether governments turn a blind eye or prosecute. If miners are going to switch pools when they do bad things, NOW IS THE TIME.
I don't care if you switch to Foundry or even Antpool. Obviously I would prefer you make your own blocks and use OCEAN, but this is too critical and time-sensitive to be picky. We can work on mining decentralization and spam issues over a longer period of time, but CSAM is an insta-kill we MUST avoid.

2025-09-27 10:54:39 UTC

Why do all nostr relays block VPNs?

2025-09-26 04:14:46 UTC

- reply

What do you have against Knots now???

2025-09-20 20:21:28 UTC

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 10:42:45 UTC

- reply

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

2025-09-13 22:48:37 UTC

Nobody is actually against Bitcoin having spam filters. Fees are just another filter, not fundamentally any different from any other filter. Even Core is adding _new_ filters: TRUC and ephemeral dust are two recent examples (mandatory in Core, and optional in Knots).
They're just against _you_ having a say in what filters you get to use. They want to dictate that you use the filters _they_ choose.
Instead of decentralized policy, they want a centralized policy.
(And they're not even choosing sane ones! Who in their right mind wants to relay CSAM???)