<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucm0d9hx7uewd9hszxrhwden5te0wfjkccte9eekummjwsh8xmmrd9skcthaced

Publishing to

Last Notes

2026-02-27 02:29:48 CET

- reply

Not interested in your scams.

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 05:27:13 CET

- reply

Miners do not control the network.

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.

2026-02-22 09:36:40 CET

- reply

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

2026-02-21 22:16:34 CET

- reply

So no actual bug, just FUD

2026-02-21 22:13:29 CET

- reply

Until it expires obviously

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 22:39:43 CET

- 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 22:36:28 CET

- reply

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

2026-02-20 21:36:55 CET

- reply

They would be anti-RDTS

2026-02-20 21:36:00 CET

- reply

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

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 21:30:43 CET

- reply

There's also a risk bad actors will retaliate and/or counter-fork, but those risks only go down with more RDTS adoption.

2026-02-20 21:25:57 CET

- 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 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 20:33:30 CET

- 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 19:51:43 CET

- reply

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

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 19:00:28 CET

- reply

Not my fault there's so many liars.

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

2026-02-20 16:59:58 CET

- reply

That's a lie and you know it.

2026-02-18 08:22:30 CET

- reply

You're the complaining 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

2026-02-03 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.

2026-01-12 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

2025-11-07 17:31:26 CET

- reply

Liar

2025-10-27 22:38:39 CET

- reply

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

2025-05-12 03:23:23 CEST

Spam apologists trying to reintroduce the Bitcoin censorship FUD painted with jargon to confuse people. Sigh
Spam filters cannot be abused for censorship. It only takes 1 block to bypass attempts to censor. But it takes 1 block to make spam filters effective. Opposites.