Bitcoinmaxi / Ferris Bueller is on Nostr

"e732db3dd1accb8b8f9b39da8f969c02aa17c1f2a9d7939d7175383446c7d1fc6cb08ea6f46e990b74ee91ff0285711039406152d68147573b907cfd8363d0c4"

Last Notes

2026-02-19 13:00:29 UTC

4500 nodes signalling BIP 110 at 5.11%!! Its so awesome to see bitcoiners taking a stand!!

2026-02-08 09:41:30 UTC

- reply

You’re hiding behind definitions. In the real world, a contested checkpoint forces a chain choice and locks in history, which is a split in everything but name. Calling it soft doesn’t change that.

2026-02-06 21:48:38 UTC

- reply

If it's contested, if forces and chain choice and a split that cannot be brought back together without another emergency intervention. So yes, effectively it is a hard fork by history change rather then a rule change. And if not Core, who and how? I think there are some very serious and committed bitcoiners on the knots side that are interested in maintaining bitcoin as money and I don't think they will capitulate. Yourself, and youre inner circle of serious bitcoiners may not thing Cores reputation has deteriorated but the reality is 22% of the network jumped ship, price has been down huge since release, lead maintainer gone, legendary supporter likely involved with epstein, and having to pull the Core 30 release for a major bug. Doesnt look great to me

2026-02-06 20:29:43 UTC

- reply

Simple in code, not simple socially. What you are suggesting is essentially a hard fork and that would require serious coordination by Core who's reputation has deteriorated. While all that is being deliberated on, assuming the BIP 110 has enough hash power for a few blocks here or there, wipeout and game theory aren't working in Core chains favor

2026-02-06 18:54:44 UTC

- reply

Haven't seen a URSF client yet so this is all posturing it seems. We will see if miners are willing to risk wipeout but I think it could only take a couple to cave and the dominos will fall

2026-02-06 18:52:11 UTC

- reply

That's not how that works

2026-02-02 21:00:16 UTC

- reply

I agree with most of the transactional issues stated. However, I'm not sure why you assume the price will crash or that perception would be damaged. That's not what happened in 2017, which is the only data point we have that is even remotely similar. Price went up and bitcoin came out the other side stronger for it.

2026-01-27 12:30:07 UTC

- reply

This you?
https://blossom.primal.net/7eb1ddcb3ee60a37d4a5269bca3be64d596c612bfe1f7d5008e020d5bb0c0c50.png

2026-01-17 16:41:38 UTC

- reply

Why? Because of the spam debate?

2025-10-01 21:42:47 UTC

- reply

Will watch this tomorrow. Breedlove seemed to think this issue was overblown and even seemed to be leaning to cores side. Curious to see if bechler does a good job of turning him.

2025-09-13 23:29:13 UTC

- reply

The NPC assumes NPC behavior lol

2025-09-11 00:35:18 UTC

- reply

When did he call people knotzis? Not disagreeing. Just curious because I don't see it. If true you are 100% right

2025-09-10 00:08:01 UTC

- reply

Only to maintain consensus. I don't think anybody wants a fork here. I'm just not interested in helping give spammers another place to put their data.

2025-09-09 20:49:56 UTC

- reply

Lol cmon man. My mempool and the blockchain aren't the same. I hope you're trolling

2025-09-09 18:52:07 UTC

- reply

Then you are opening youself up to DDos attacks, fee management issues, privacy leaks, ect