<unnamed>

It is the fact that people can continuously try to change bitcoin via this method and it costs them nothing. If this fork attempt fails Luke can keep trying and we have to endure this retarded shit forever or it succeeds, then the Feds have an easy blueprint for capturing bitcoin. It’s a lose lose.
Hard forks have a cost for being wrong. That cost ensures that the people who try them and fail can’t continue their bullshit indefinitely.
Let’s say you hard fork to your desired consensus. You get 10% of the mining. Your KNOTS will be worth 10% of the main chain, but you can sell your bitcoin and increase your stack of Knots. Seems like a win win to me. You don’t have to have csam in one contiguous transaction on your node and you can increase your stack of the 21 million knots. Plus you get rid of all the haters. Why wouldn’t you do this?

2026-02-26 06:35:42 CET

- reply

This is a terrible idea in general but Of all the ai why on earth would you let retarded grok loose on these files? GG America

2026-02-26 06:20:18 CET

- reply

Hard fork. If yours is the more economically viable path you will get what you want. If it is not you lose only what you were willing to put in to make your fork successful.
With all the big talk I hear from your side it should be no problem to force the miners to support your chain.

2026-02-26 06:17:32 CET

- reply

Simplified my views are as follows. Contiguous spam is less harmful to Bitcoin than lots of little shards of spam. Hard drive space is cheap and op return can be pruned. Utxo spam created by lots of nonsense is impossible to stop and much worse for decentralization. So I question the core argument that this is a better move.
Csam in1000s of transactions or in 1 is not legally or morally different. As a node runner it’s not something I think about because I’m not in the business of looking at other people’s transactions. I run a node for my transactions and to ensure I am transacting within a system with the expected consensus rules.
I am more worried about utxo spam attacks and these new consensus rules actually make the chain more vulnerable to an attack of this nature.
The way the bip has been presented is dishonest. It’s not an emergency. Bitcoin is not failing or in trouble if we don’t make these changes. If people actually believe this they are hysterical and should be dismissed. If they are just saying this to get it passed they are playing a game of politics and should not be trusted and again dismissed.
If they had said “We find this use of the chain untenable and are going to hard fork” - I would be in full support of that path. I wouldn’t run their code, but I wouldn’t be calling them retards. The use of a soft fork is for soft hands. No conviction, no skin in the game. It’s not how Bitcoin wins. They won’t take bets on the success of their fork and this process they have purposefully picked requires no skin in the game. It is a terrible example to set and on this aspect alone I would reject it. The last thing I want is to invite social attacks or the Feds thinking Bitcoin can be changed on a whim and with classic fed csam talking points.

2026-02-26 02:08:46 CET

- reply

There are many dozen of us is not really that aspirational.

2026-02-26 02:07:12 CET

- reply

It’s not an emergency, therefore it’s not necessary. The idea that we just need something now and it will be temporary is so laughable. The time for “let’s see if this works out” has passed long ago. If you think it might be a failure you should fork, and spend resources on trying it out. Don’t socialize your losses on yo the rest of us.

2026-02-25 23:11:57 CET

- reply

Yes that’s how I picture him without the beard. Thank you.

2026-02-25 22:33:51 CET

- reply

My stance is if you feel strongly about this issue you should fork the code and make a clean break. To do otherwise shows a lack of conviction.

2026-02-25 21:14:30 CET

- reply

No one is stopping you from running your own consensus rules. A clean hard fork and you get exactly what you want. Your zero skin in the game temporary-soft fork nonsense is specifically what I take issue with. If you want to fork…fork. Just don’t be a pussy about it.

2026-02-25 19:53:08 CET

- reply

If Luke shaves his terrible beard and sacrifices one child in the proudest of his biblical traditions I will switch to becoming an unhinged 110 retard.

2026-02-25 19:50:24 CET

- reply

Sounds like lopp is going to hard fork into his own sauna where he enforces his own values. Maybe try that.

2026-02-25 19:46:17 CET

- reply

It turns out all the labor behind a lot of
Projects isn’t that valuable. You are typing characters into a keyboard. What difference does it make if those characters are “hey clanker go to this app and build me a clone” vs actually coding it. You may as well build in the open and monetize in ways that are value add not the opposite.

2026-02-25 16:52:31 CET

- reply

I do find if I’m stealing a meme I will send a minimal zap. The idea of tokenizing this sort of shit boggles my mind. But people are retarded.

2026-02-25 16:49:02 CET

- reply

That is a recipe for a social network no one uses.

2026-02-25 16:48:31 CET

- reply

Great point! Why would you use precious llm tokens to act retarded on nostr when you can act retarded on nostr all by your self. I don’t need ai to be retarded for me, I’ve got that on lock.

2026-02-25 16:47:00 CET

- reply

Zapping memes that aren’t of the highest quality induces more slop. Ideally you have a set of pristine memes collecting all the zaps and the shit memes die.
I also find the act of scrolling past something dumb so easy that I really don’t care either way.

2026-02-25 16:41:10 CET

- reply

He does, you can be mad about something and think it’s in poor taste and not spend your life trying to use back handed tactics to change the system. You simply leave and do your own thing. Being part of a public network means being upset at how other people use that network and also being powerless to stop it. There is a lesson there.

2026-02-25 15:48:31 CET

- reply

Your node, your software. It’s open code you can change the relay policy all you want. Core removed default relays that in their view were causing miner centralization as large miners were being given an unfair advantage. You are free to ignore that concern.

2026-02-25 05:59:41 CET

- reply

This shitcoiner pedophile has no legs to stand on this,

2026-02-25 05:30:56 CET

- reply

One assumes that the spam it can’t stop will be broken into several smaller pieces. Each piece is an additional utxo. It also leaves the chain more vulnerable to an utxo spam attack since it lowers the cost and raises the available block space that can be used for utxo spam,

2026-02-25 04:02:31 CET

- reply

Weight as in the size of the chain on a nodes disk drive as opposed to the amount a node must hold in ram to make sure it can stay synced. Adding more ram to a node is not only more costly but may not be possible, so utxo bloat is far more worrisome than the bloat of the chain. Op return is chain bloat, and can be pruned utxo bloat we are stuck with forever.

2026-02-25 02:53:21 CET

- reply

Bitcoin doesn’t care about your morals. It’s adversarial money.

2026-02-25 02:19:58 CET

Yep
https://blossom.primal.net/781a1a9206f0e7cc737fdfb9b1341b5d30f393112f5ad8ec79440944019bb8f4.mov

2026-02-25 02:17:10 CET

- reply

Bitcoin was designed to be programmable money. The only way you remove all the potential ways of embedding data is to break even the most basic elements of that programmability. All this to save a few bucks on hard disk space.
If you want lukes retard coin I suggest a hard fork. This bitch ass softfork shit is tiresome.

2026-02-25 02:09:09 CET

- reply

No it’s aimed at reducing the weight added to the chain. It doesn’t limit utxo, if anything it encourages the breaking of larger transactions into several smaller ones which each add utxo overhead. So every spam incident contributes more to utxo bloat.
Also by reducing the demand for block space even further by removing the large transactions you make it possible to stuff in many more utxos more quickly. An adversarial force could theoretically utxo spam the chain in 5-6 months to the tune of 200 million dollars and make running a basic node at home extremely challenging. While this could be attempted now the prescence of spam bids the cost up 10x and increases the time it would take by a large amount.
Do you think the decentralization would be helped or hurt by losing all the pleb nodes 6 months post activation?

2026-02-24 22:32:33 CET

- reply

Knots and ocean both excluded op returns in excess of 42 bytes when while whirlpool transactions by samurai typically need 46 bytes. Only someone who wants the state to control bitcoin would take such a course of action.

2026-02-24 21:04:36 CET

- reply

The alternative node is not the issues and has in practice done very little for decentralization. Your node is your business.
The issue is an emergency soft fork and the insinuations that anyone who doesn’t support it is a pedo. It’s not an emergency and if you have serious reservations around the current consensus model you would hard fork.
Luke’s views on the state are relevant to the consensus systems we adhere to. He will readily sacrifice privacy and this is a slippery slope for a system that is under constant nation state attack.
Kratter has moved from one demagogue to another who share the same authoritarian leanings and th same insane biblical delusions. He clearly has a blindness when it comes to autocratic personalities.

2026-02-24 20:56:46 CET

- reply

Do you think the physical limitations on privacy are an issue for the transition to a Bitcoin based economy. Even if they can’t track the monetary flows as readily surely the movement of physical goods leaves the control system with a critical choke point to leverage. Do you think this disputes naturally as these control systems wither away? Or is the ability to crunch massive data sets via ai make this observation of the physical world a threat we must work to eliminate?

2026-02-24 20:43:04 CET

- reply

Says the dude supporting the side whose primary aim is to make Bitcoin legally compliant. Go fuck yourself.

2026-02-24 20:41:56 CET

- reply

And as we have seen when filters are used the incentives to route around them grow and we end up supporter miner centralization as the larger pools have an advantage over the smaller ones.

2026-02-24 19:33:26 CET

- reply

It’s an emergency!!! Quickly change consensus for this critical but temporary measure!!!
You guys should hear yourselves from a rational point of view sometime.

2026-02-24 19:28:53 CET

- reply

Cool story

2026-02-24 18:16:36 CET

- reply

1. Calle fixing a bug is not the same thing as accepting all consensus valid transactions . Your framing is dishonest.
2. Going back to when it was 444 it was always presented as an emergency, even to the point of the idiotic activation method of csam was mined. The whole thing has been hysterical shrieking noises. The whole idea it is temporary undercuts your claim that this was well thought out. A well thought out change would be a permanent path. Of course a lot of this is dishonest politics. Bad look in either case.
3. Do the math. Blocks rarely exceed 2.2 mbs today and generally fall well below that. The theoretical maximums of a system are irrelevant. Your simulation assumes that people won’t continue to spam the chain using the unstoppable methods that in addition to adding weight they are terrible for the utxo set.
4. Today utxo spam is limited ironically by the high cost JPEGs that take up so much space compared to a simple transaction. Each block contains less utxo bloat per weight. The blocks being empty open up the system to a utxo attack. While utxo growth is obviously inevitable, seeing massive growth in a short period would be terrible for decentralization as pleb nodes fall of the network due to lack of ram.
5. Csam in pieces is the same as a single transaction containing this content and both are irrelevant.
6. Mempool filters were not working as evidenced by miners taking direct submissions to route around mempools.
7. My node my software choices.
8. You don’t understand economics so you fear spam. Sad.
9. Fees are clearly insufficient to price out spam currently because there is not enough demand for blockspace. But since the growth of the chain is manageable it really doesn’t matter.
10. Luke since the beginning of his involvement has pushed for a deference to state authority and has been hostile to privacy. You can deny that out of ignorance but most people have those memories.
11. A company seeking to raise money is making claims. No wonder you routinely have fallen for so much stupid shit. The only thing ethereum exists for is a way to trade shit coins without a central authority. Bitcoin has proven that trading shitcoins is a fools errand. The same reason I don’t sell my bitcoin today is the same reason why the majority of the ethereum ecosystem is meaningless.

2026-02-24 17:25:38 CET

- reply

Might be one of your worst takes. Luke is a statist, and the state he wants is a theocratic authoritarian nightmare. He is openly hostile to privacy. Not surprising you are into him considering your Thiel connections. The authoritarians always find each other.
The picture falls into place more and more. An anti privacy pro state hostile take over of bitcoin rooted in dumb moralism and blind devotion. I was initially thinking this was all accidental but it’s becoming clear what future you all want.
Thankfully I think the cypherpunk ethos is still strong enough to remove this parasitic behavior.

2026-02-24 17:10:57 CET

- reply

I don’t like bullies. You behave like one. Calle fixed a bug, you were free to not implement the fix. This is a unilateral software issue not a consensus change.
The current state of the bitcoin network is not a state of emergency. People saying otherwise are clearly lying. The practical difference in data volumes between now and in a possible 110 future are minimal. The potential for much more damaging spam of the utxo set is much higher in a post 110 future. This is undeniable. If you come to the table screaming about a pedophile emergency and everything you are saying is false you will be rejected and you become suspect. This is what has happened. Especially when this come after a protracted period of being in denial about the effectiveness of mempool filters.
I would rather deal with a bit of extra weight of the chain than face a potential scenario where a normal pleb node cannot stay in sync because the utxo bloat happened too quickly.
I don’t care about spam , I don’t engage with it, and I think it will ultimately be priced out, but the reality is the number of people using the main chain is insufficient to do that currently. I think most uses of bitcoin outside of strict monetary ones will eventually be priced out as well and I don’t see any need to accelerate that process because you fear a future of Bitcoin becoming ethereum. It won’t happen because there ultimately is not enough economic value to waste L1 resources on that stupid shit.
Will not follow Luke down any path, as he is hostile towards individual liberty and privacy.

2026-02-24 16:50:41 CET

- reply

Core didn’t change consensus, they just simplified the software they maintain. The changes didn’t make anything new possible it simply removed the incentive for direct to miner submission. Direct to miner submission is bad for decentralization. In any case it is not an emergency.
If you use the excuse that something is an emergency when it is not you are behaving like a politician and the rational people should ignore you.
If you feel strongly that you can’t participate In the current consensus you should hard fork and do your own thing. Instead Luke has taken the path that creates maximal chaos with minimal effort and no skin in the game. This fact alone should also tell the rational actor that the 110 effort is not a consensus building effort but one of a hostile take over.

2026-02-24 07:28:21 CET

- reply

Lol. Sure.

2026-02-24 06:49:10 CET

- reply

If they felt like they needed a node they would have one. 250 bucks plus a little electricity is a small price to pay. Most people don’t care.

2026-02-24 06:39:04 CET

- reply

I always find a good parking spot. But I also always get stung by bees.

2026-02-24 06:37:26 CET

- reply

Try reading it…like 15 minutes of your life.

2026-02-24 06:34:43 CET

- reply

Normies don’t own Bitcoin why would they run a node?
People only need to run a node to protect their own interests when transacting with their coins.

2026-02-24 03:06:31 CET

- reply

So you just tromp around nostr and shit on people better than you who actually contribute to the Bitcoin ecosystem because they won’t lick lukes ass? Find a new hobby my man.

2026-02-24 02:58:24 CET

I think one of the big issues trump faces is that no one in his I. Er circle will tell him that he is being retarded. He needs that person.

2026-02-24 02:34:14 CET

- reply

US: We want to know who the kid fuckers are.
Pete:the best I can do is ET

2026-02-24 02:15:03 CET

- reply

I am running the same hard drive I ran when I set up my current node 4 years ago. I will be running this same drive for another 4 years most likely. The idea that 4mb blocks are the norm(they aren’t), or that block size is a problem (it isn’t) is just more slop from a group of people who cannot put together a coherent argument. Bip 110 realistically saves 21gigs of disk space annually because practically speaking blocks are rarely over 2.2 gigs. I think I can manage a couple dozen extra gigs

2026-02-24 02:10:00 CET

- reply

It was never claimed to be an emergency. It also wasn’t a consensus change. You are free to run which ever relay policy for your node as you like. To pretend like changing a default setting is anywhere near the same thing as a consensus change is just another example in the long line of disingenuous fuckery we have seen from the pro 110 crew.

2026-02-24 01:24:35 CET

- reply

Bitcoin is money today. It doesn’t need bip-110 to remain money. The last thing we should do is rush into any consensus change.

2026-02-24 01:03:51 CET

- reply

Sometimes you just need a billion dollars because there’s an island a yacht and a jet you need to pick up.

2026-02-24 00:48:35 CET

- reply

No dog. Anything sold as an emergency wrapped in the banner of saving us from csam is the work of the Feds. That’s the playbook.

2026-02-24 00:46:26 CET

- reply

Until It forks you off the network and you get stuck with no mining but a high difficulty. On the bright side a small groups of people will control it so hard forking to get the network going again shouldn’t be too hard.

2026-02-24 00:38:48 CET

- reply

For the amount of espresso consumed at my house the super automatic I bought has been one of the best purchases of all time. I have a De’longhi that has been running flawlessly for 8 years.

2026-02-24 00:34:01 CET

- reply

It’s a small group of people lead by a Christian fascist who wants the state to control you. Close enough to nazism.

2026-02-24 00:32:51 CET

- reply

He is a shitcoiner who happens to have bitcoin. If he was a bitcoiner there wouldn’t be two privacy developers in jail and the unredacted Epstein list would be in the public domain.

2026-02-24 00:28:56 CET

- reply

Bitcoin is programmable money. Spam is not an emergency.
These two statements are irrefutable.
People who push an emergency measure in the absence of an emergency should be destroyed.

2026-02-24 00:17:59 CET

- reply

Oh no! Anthropics business model of stealing the data of mankind was just used against it. Lmao

2026-02-23 20:42:46 CET

- reply

If someone is caught with a fragment ed string of hex that is cp the argument you just used is just as valid since all you need is a bit of software to turn those fragments into the same illegal content. If you actually believe your logic is sound then bitcoin is done as all full nodes are contaminated already,
Bitcoin nodes are common carriers where the operators have no control over content or knowledge of what that content is. Att isn’t liable for cp JPEGs sent over the internet, the people sending the JPEGs are liable.
Only state actors use CP to bully free citizens.

2026-02-23 20:37:03 CET

- reply

Section 230 and common carrier law is generally a legal shield for node operators in the US. The uk courts have rejected the idea that node operators are financially responsible for node content.
Criminal case law has always upheld that possession of illegal material has always required knowledge and control. As a node operator your node has no knowledge of what material is being transmitted beyond that they are consensus valid transactions and you have no control over the valid transactions being included in the blocks. Deleting a bad block would exclude you from the network therefore you cannot control the network or the content on the network.
The csam route is unsurprisingly the place they are going with this argument since csam is treated as a special case. However csam on the block chain is just a string of hex so trying to say a blob of hex data that is a jpeg is any different than fragmented hex data that forms a jpeg is a huge stretch. Neither are csam or they both are. It doesn’t become csam until it is interpreted by software, weather that software is rare or common doesn’t matter since it is not part of the Bitcoin software it is irrelevant to the operation of the network.

2026-02-23 19:05:11 CET

- reply

The data in the blockchain is encoded and cannot be read by the node or its operator. It’s like being mailed a book from someone you don’t know in a foreign language you can’t remotely understand and you put the book in your little free library in front of your house and then the government holds you responsible for possession because the book is actual the nuclear launch codes. But since you had asked people to send you books to populate your library you didn’t suspect you were being set up.
Living in a world where you have to be responsible for others peoples crimes is living in a dystopia.

2026-02-23 19:00:45 CET

- reply

It requires a special piece of software regardless. Bitcoin nodes don’t come with software that reads the hexidecimal blobs or software that can determine what type of encoding the blobs are in. How can I be legally responsible for strings of hex? The responsible party as always is the one handling the illegal material in the format that it is usually maintained. If you find yourself in jurisdiction hostile to your running of a node you have a jurisdiction issue that you should solve because freedom money is not your only problem.

2026-02-23 18:05:46 CET

- reply

That’s the neat part we aren’t. You do you. It’s going to be awkward when the 110 fanatics start calling for state interventions when no miners join their game.

2026-02-23 18:04:28 CET

- reply

Your node only matters to you. Signal away friend.

2026-02-23 17:55:16 CET

Patel celebrates all the successful Epstein prosecutions. America truly is the greatest of nations.
https://blossom.primal.net/ca1b072ca4353abe0c192ef6b59094a6f7ab8027864d307180b44b9d27f54a61.jpg

2026-02-23 17:36:11 CET

- reply

Turns out when you run on exposing the pedophiles then try to cover it up because you are the pedophile it angers people.

2026-02-23 17:32:56 CET

- reply

Oh no there is some hexadecimals on my node all in one transaction!!!! It is fundamentally the same thing vs having one extra piece of software needed to stitch other bits together.
I’ll never know what’s on my node because I don’t look at transactions and have no way of decoding them. This means I would have to trust without verifying that some content is actually on chain. Node software doesn’t have the capability to view any of the data so I have no way to verify any claim.

2026-02-23 16:20:05 CET

When the fraud you are obsessed about is the one you are committing. https://azmirror.com/briefs/turning-point-leader-former-gop-rep-pleads-guilty-to-attempted-election-fraud/

2026-02-23 06:59:10 CET

- reply

What makes you think they will leave bitcoin? There are plenty alternative as is.
I’m actually more worried that nationstate will take this moment in time when the chain is completely empty to attack. As lame as the hoped spam is, it perversely provides a defense against utxo spam attacks which are a far bigger threat than having to buy a bigger hard drive.

2026-02-23 06:26:08 CET

- reply

The estimated disk space the chain will save in a post 110 world is around 21 gigs annually. There is a practical limit of what size blocks we see and it’s well under the 4mb theoretical maximum.
The utxo set getting spammed by p2sh wrap transactions is the unstoppable alternative to the current methods of embedding data onchain. If we see even half the spam using this method in a post 110 world it will massively increase the ram requirements needed to keep a node in sync.
Worse with blocks being empty thanks to the removal of ordinals many more of these spam utxos can fit per block. A dedicated nation stat could decide they want all nodes in data centers. A couple 100 million dollars later and we could see the Minimal ram breach 16gigs. This would be the end of decentralization if it happens before consumer grade hardware catches up to this standard.

2026-02-23 06:12:30 CET

- reply

Waiting for negative 100 to load up.

2026-02-23 06:09:20 CET

- reply

Don’t let the worst beard in the business get you down. There is some high fuckery afoot with these people and eventually it will be clear who the statists are and who still stands for Bitcoins core values. Hint: the csam scare mongers are always the Feds.

2026-02-23 06:07:18 CET

- reply

How is it reasonable? This change at best saves 21 gigs in disk space a year. At worst is puts the whole ecosystem at risk to utxo spam attack that wrecks bitcoins network of home node runners.

2026-02-23 06:03:52 CET

- reply

It’s a potential net negative and an existential threat to decentralization by making a utxo spam attack far less costly, faster to pull off and more likely. Imagine all home nodes get rekt a half year after activation. Chain goes full kyc aws mode. GG

2026-02-23 06:01:18 CET

- reply

This is expected when the big players got on board. They want your corn.

2026-02-23 05:58:51 CET

- reply

This is newsmax. Only absolute retards consume this slop.

2026-02-23 05:57:02 CET

- reply

It’s pretty good but I’ll probably die before I finish it.
https://blossom.primal.net/2247a72a8d972c519facaa3c92908fc51ce1167e6bf79eceae8750382cf67ac9.jpg

2026-02-23 05:04:24 CET

- reply

Bitcoin was over 100k for a long time. Many people sold and are feeling smug as fuck.

2026-02-23 04:56:10 CET

- reply

It rewarded traders because everyone became hodlers. I’m sure it will go back to fucking traders again soon.

2026-02-22 18:59:59 CET

- reply

Luke does not seem to care about privacy or dismantling the state. He is not in favor of freedom.

2026-02-22 18:58:54 CET

The MAHA I knew you would all get. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BA_JauUBDA8

2026-02-22 18:34:41 CET

- reply

I mean anything that currently is allowed but would be restricted post activation.
Post activation people can use the old and less utxo efficient method of P2sh wrapping to embed data. “Honest” spammers who just want their pictures on chain could choose this method and if they continued doing their spam at similar volume the chain would suffer utxo bloat in excess of the current norm.
The issue I see is that in the absence of spam the lack of demand for block space makes a dedicated utxo attack feasible. Even if the attacker bloated the utxo over 2 years it would severely damage node runners.
People are complaining about a couple hundred in drive upgrades because of v30…you think they are going to spend thousands for a 32gig machine?

2026-02-22 18:29:20 CET

- reply

You can’t argue against the fact that 110 opens up bitcoin to an attack. This is why we can’t have a grown up discussion about this.
Yes it is ironic that the fact that grown men will pay 5k to put a retarded jpeg on chain helps prevent a utxo attack. That’s just reality. Do the math of a post bip110 world and a utxo spam attack. It’s not hard.

2026-02-22 18:22:31 CET

- reply

I honestly don’t know, haven’t gamed it out. What I do know is something sold as an emergency fix when there is no emergency and also sold wrapped in morality about csam is how the Feds work. 110 is dishonest and should be rejected.
I don’t know if people pushing hard for it are compromised or if they just don’t see the threat. I do think Luke is compromised by his feelings that Bitcoin should not go against the state. He is against privacy tech. I find him disturbing to say the least.

2026-02-22 18:13:10 CET

- reply

Then We would have less utxo and hard drive bloat…and almost no demand for blocks which makes a dedicated attack almost a certainty. They don’t have to kill Bitcoin they just have to make it impractical to run a node on consumer hardware. If no one is running nodes except in data centers Bitcoin is captured.

2026-02-22 18:10:59 CET

- reply

Because the utxo growth only reduces in a post 110 world if you assume spammers don’t use p2sh to continue their trade or that a state actor doesn’t step in to purposefully spam the chain. The fact is spammers keep block space in demand. Monetary users don’t, which leaves us vulnerable to a utxo attack that could happen so quickly all pleb nodes become useless

2026-02-22 18:08:14 CET

- reply

They take up blocks making a pure utxo attack more expensive and take way more time to pull off.
The ram requirements growing too fast will centralize bitcoin. The hard disk space growing slightly faster will not.

2026-02-22 18:06:05 CET

- reply

It’s not just cost, it is time. Nodes will eventually need 32gigs of ram. The question is does that happen in 2 years or 10? A determined attacker today would be competing with a lot of people for block space and so they wouldn’t be able to fill every block with lots of utxos, some blocks would be full of large data blobs and few utxos.
In 10 years a low end laptop will have 32gigs of ram so no one will care. In 2 years a 32 gig machine is likely a server grade set up.

2026-02-22 18:02:42 CET

- reply

Spam in the form of a larger witness data transaction means there is less room for dozens of small utxo spam transactions and it cost some modest growth in hard drive required to host a node. Under 110 the cost of attacking the chain with small utxo bloating transactions drops dramatically but worse the time it would take to bloat the utxo set accelerates to an unsustainable level. After activation it would cost around 160 million to spam the chain to the point where in 6 months no nodes with 16gb of ram or less could stay synced. This is a threat. Currently it would cost 10x to do this and it would take an extremely long time because the degenerates like their retarded JPEGs enough to pay 5 grand to put them on chain.
TLDR we are being guarded by retards.

2026-02-22 17:50:03 CET

- reply

Op return limits are not a rule they are a setting. 110 is a rule change and it puts bitcoin at an existential risk for state capture.

2026-02-22 17:48:53 CET

- reply

The consequence now is we have a modest amount of chain growth. Hardly worth bunching panties over. The biggest threat facing Bitcoin is a sustain spam attack on the utxo set that quickly increases the ram requirement to a point past 16gb. The retarded JPEGs guard against this ironically.

2026-02-22 17:46:29 CET

- reply

Spam is hardly an issue. So the net negatives are minimal.

2026-02-22 17:38:54 CET

- reply

Theoretically nothing, but practically it is because there is demand for block space from “non monetary transactions. “ Witness data outbids the utxo spammers. Under a bip110 a nation state could spend around 160 million and make 16gb nodes wrecked in 6 months.

2026-02-22 17:25:02 CET

- reply

Without an easy place for spam to go
It will go into more damaging parts of the system. The chain being less utilized will make the cost of a utxo spam attack more feasible. Rapid Growth of the utxo set will outstrip the normal configuration of cheap node hardware. The doomsday scenario for bitcoin is that a 16gb ram node can’t sync. All to save a couple dozen gigs a year of hard drive space. Makes no sense to me unless fed capture is the goal.

2026-02-22 17:18:33 CET

- reply

110 will not stop spam. The spam it will not stop will bloat the utxo set. It makes a determined state actor able to spam attack the utxo because ironically the blocks being normally stuffed with some stupid JPEGs or other non bip110 compliant data makes it impossible to spam attack the utxo set.
It’s like your house is guarded by retards who can’t unlock your door because they are retarded…but they prevent other people from using the unlocked door because they are just retardley standing around. one day you send them all away and realize your house is full of Feds. The Feds monitoring your actions is what Luke Jr wants. Since Jesus is incapable of stopping your masturbation the next best thing is the Feds kycimg all bitcoin nodes that are forced into data centers.

2026-02-22 17:12:20 CET

- reply

What do you think v30 does? There have been less than 150 blocks mined in 2026 above 2.2mbs. The practical results of v30 is a minuscule growth in the chain.
Reckless is calling this issue an emergency and then pushing a bip that will result in a chain split.
Worse is that if we go to a bip110 world the spam will not be stopped. If the spam is not stopped it will come in the form of utxo bloating p2sh transactions and large multisigs. Your node is cooked. Good by pleb network. Have fun affording 32gbs of ram for your home server.

2026-02-22 17:04:51 CET

- reply

Mountain out of a mole hill. Spam under the current regime makes a node marginally more expensive to run. Bip110 will make a normal node impossible to run.
When people say 110 won’t stop spam they are talking about the fact that spam will simple come in through other vectors . The vectors that 110 leave open will cause massive bloat to the utxo set. If spam volume doesn’t reduce drastically as like claims it will for reasons🙏, it will mean that your little home node will be obsolete in year maybe two after activation.
Personally I would rather upgrade drives than buy a home server rack setup .

2026-02-22 16:56:52 CET

- reply

Palantir was founded in 2003. It was founded as a org dedicated to helping government spy. Don’t act like you didn’t know. Peter was a creep then and just because he is worse now doesn’t excuse you of your association.
No surprise you are advocating for a consensus change that will force plebs off the node network and put the chain in the hands of kyc server farms. You are clearly too smart not to see the trade off between chain growth and utxo bloat…I mean come on you turned 50 million into 2 billion. Surely you can see how rapid utxo growth will destroy the home node runners?
Luke is a state enthusiast if not outright fed asset. I’m telling you this now so in 10 years when you disavow him I can call you out.

2026-02-22 16:41:15 CET

- reply

Just more corruption. When you under pay a person in power they find a way to make money.

2026-02-22 16:39:55 CET

- reply

Personally I’d leave op return uncapped and figure out a way to force more of the spam out of witness data into op return. Currently there is no incentive to use the op return trash can for large files because the witness discount distorts the economics.
We aren’t allow to have this discussion because then we would be accused of supporting spam. All I want is trash in trash cans and minimal impact on the ram my node requires to stay synced.