<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kuegpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet583myy6

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nostr.wine

nos.lol

nostr-pub.wellorder.net

Last Notes

2026-03-23 02:51:47 UTC

- reply

I'm read-only on the important DB - for now at least.

2026-03-23 02:38:46 UTC

Gonna have to get good at SQL some day.

2026-03-23 02:38:15 UTC

- reply

Graphene is android with less hassle so I don't see how it could present much friction.
NixOS confused the heck out of me.

2026-03-20 23:55:10 UTC

Man I can't believe TempleOS is implementing age verification

2026-03-19 15:43:55 UTC

- reply

It's irrelevant. Miners can pay themselves a million Bitcoins with an invalid block today if they want. The reason they don't is the same as the reason they'd mine BIP-110 valid blocks. All that matters is how widely enforced the rules are aka decentralization.

2026-03-13 15:55:37 UTC

I miss when the Simpsons was right about everything - that was just depressing.
Now it's Futurama that's right about everything which is leaves me fearful for our lives.

2026-03-07 22:39:37 UTC

- reply

I don't think so, it would be directionally correct to somehow eliminate the witness discount (at least for non-monetary uses) but it's a completely different market.
A vintage car used as a collector's item does not naturally fall to the price of a used Prius as they are used different purposes.

2026-03-07 20:12:17 UTC

- reply

1. I'm not against L2s
2. The assertion that idiots run out of money is baseless
Think

2026-03-07 17:35:10 UTC

- reply

It is jot a coincidence that this "generic database" contained primarily financial activity until 2023.
That was the result of responsible decision making and careful design.
That has all been abandoned for the purposes of bringing crypto scams to Bitcoin, rationalized with hollow ideological claims that undermine sincere engineering efforts to reduce non-monetary usage of Bitcoin.
"Bitcoin is permissionless!"
"That is not spam, they're valid transactions!"
...as though those things are meant to mean we cannot be permitted to acknowledge and fix issues preventing the network from functioning correctly.

2026-03-07 17:34:56 UTC

- reply

Best? No. Inevitable if BIP-110 and efforts like it fail? Yes.

2026-03-07 17:33:09 UTC

- reply

And yet I've heard it from many respected minds in the space. @nprofile…dtkh

2026-03-07 17:12:27 UTC

If Bitcoin is not optimized for financial activity, people will transact off chain using trusted third parties, and the blockchain will increasingly consist of junk data no one wants to store.
The assertion that Bitcoiners will out-price spammers is contrary to all evidence.

2026-03-04 11:34:31 UTC

- reply

I didn't say it's not permissionless dummy.

2026-03-03 17:25:15 UTC

- reply

Witness discount abuse

2026-03-03 15:58:04 UTC

- reply

There are no sides. There's just parasites using Bitcoin for storing trash. Then there's bitcoiners pushing back against it with a bunch of moronic influencors getting in the way.
Personal attacks are inevitable. I actually don't do a lot of it, though obviously lose patience every now and again. If *all you have* is personal attacks like Odell then yeah, people are going to call that out.
Also, it's incredibly stupid to judge BIP-110 because people you dislike are yelling at others about it. If you want civilized discourse you're really just asking for centralized decision making. It's chaotic, live with it.

2026-03-03 15:53:28 UTC

- reply

That's like saying scrambled eggs and omelettes are the same thing.
They are but wtf no they aren't.

2026-03-03 15:40:34 UTC

Half and half is not cream.

2026-02-25 17:44:30 UTC

- reply

Just actually comment on what the BIP does. You can combine it with all the personal attacks you want they just can't be *the entire substance of your complaint.*
Do you disagree with the tradeoff of killing OP_IF in taproot given that it's basically only used for spam and making taproot the opposite of the scaling tech it's meant to be?
Do you actually want OP_RETURNs to continue being consensus valid up to 1MB in size?
Do you see a pressing need to activate another softfork (that isn't CTV) during the year BIP-110 prevents them?
Is killing deeper-than-7 trees in taproot going to create some issues?

2026-02-25 17:38:40 UTC

- reply

Azure is worse

2026-02-25 05:37:29 UTC

Of course BIP-110 can fail.
For the exact same reason that Bitcoin itself can fail.
Users failing to meaningfully enforce its rules on a widespread enough basis.
That is all Bitcoin is and making that the priority is the motivation for the BIP in the first place.
Don't burden decentralized verification with anything else. *Ever*.

2026-02-23 18:37:34 UTC

Prompting Grok to save me time reading/rebutting Lopp's hit piece against BIP-110.
Pretty decent summary.
https://image.nostr.build/1175f7783107fcbdd5eff16268b25afeb0c64c7522323be95668f795483a2676.png

2026-02-22 00:13:25 UTC

- reply

Appreciate the perspective. I consider Bitcoin to be alive and thus able to change itself when under attack to thwart the attack. Death is failing to react to changing environments and circumstances.

2026-02-21 21:09:56 UTC

- reply

You'd may need to URSF for that depending on how much support "my" fork gets.

2026-02-20 21:13:45 UTC

- reply

I don't want any control over anyone.
You're simply projecting on behalf of people trying to stifle an immune response. I've laid out clearly why I stopped running Core and switched to Knots, then BIP-110. Refute the rationale instead of making personal attacks.

2026-02-17 00:23:51 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/521ee621dd86781de312d224bfb972fb5ef8297cb6ef64e97f035ea9c4ba7b0d.jpg

2026-02-16 16:15:57 UTC

- reply

Paying money to an unrelated third party doesn't make abuse consensual.
This is very basic ethics.

2026-02-16 06:56:00 UTC

BIP-110 fixes taproot.
Until now it has making Bitcoin less efficient at being money due to the OP_IF nonsense.
We have been consuming the same resources and facilitating *less* monetary activity as a result of taproot.
The alternative ways of stashing data it provides will be largely parried by the second order consequences of successful activation of BIP-110.
Vid 👇
https://youtu.be/JPE7X_q3A7A

2026-01-16 08:44:44 UTC

- reply

Blurriness. Text unpleasant to read.
Apparently not uncommon to dislike KDE with this.

2026-01-16 08:19:33 UTC

- reply

I tried KDE and all my displays looked horrible. I think COSMIC have managed to so something pretty great with that

2026-01-16 01:22:21 UTC

Apple cancelled my order. Twice.
So guess I am switching to Linux for my desktop/daily driver.
So far discovered that Pop_OS! new COSMIC desktop requires restart if you ever want to change mouse speed.
Spending an hour making a mouse not move 20x faster than it should is peak Linux.
It's so annoying but I'm gonna make it work.
I am sustained by a deep loathing of Microsoft and Apple.

2026-01-09 00:38:45 UTC

- reply

Mac has less bloatware afaict. No stupid onedrive, Xbox gaming vouchers etc. Just please leave me alone computer.

2026-01-08 07:16:25 UTC

I bought a new computer.
It's a Mac.
Mac is the worst option for a main workstation except for Windows (obviously) and Linux. Leaving me with....Mac.
I use Linux all day every day but always CLI only and inside VMs/containers that are always set up for specific purposes.
Really just not feeling like ever having to fight to make a webcam work in a zoom meeting or something yet so I just doubt Linux desktop is ever gonna be a thing for me.

2025-11-10 12:41:21 UTC

Cypherpunks dox people.
https://image.nostr.build/43f503510036b1ce6b4b3e10149861fea0124e26ab0ac9fed05060d4eb8aa2ed.png

2025-11-04 22:08:45 UTC

"Junk data"
wtf, not very cypherpunk of you @npub12rv…85vg
https://image.nostr.build/40abe658744800cb98383dc6d368b839d6a8aa79a7aa8ede275ae65b598af324.png

2025-11-04 04:16:06 UTC

If a midwit becomes aware that he is a midwit, does he cease to be a midwit?

2025-10-07 04:07:25 UTC

I peaked at 1960 at blitz chess.
Don't get to play so much these days, so dropped down below 1700.
Anyone here play?

2025-10-06 12:47:54 UTC

Mining is centralized.
The concern around objectionable content is met with appeals to decentralization of mining - i.e a Bitcoin network that doesn't exist.
Until now, what has already been "technically possible" with storing nasty stuff in the chain wasn't.
1. "The" mempool was protected because everyone would filter a sick 100kb OP_RETURN along with *all* OP_RETURNs greater than 83 bytes.
2. The blockchain was protected because the few miners there are in the world would reject directly submitted malicious content.
This left one option for sabotage: an attacker mining a CSAM OP_RETURN directly into the chain themselves.
Referring to something as impractical as that as "technically possible" is entirely frivolous and it would have been laughable if it had ever happened. An "Unknown" pool finds a block that has a giant 1MB MP4 of something appalling in it? Obvious sabotage that we would universally eschew and I'm confident we would be able to resolve after the fact.
Now however the situation has changed.
F2Pool solicits this stuff directly from the p2p network and Libre Relay nodes along with Core 30 release candidates are willingly relaying it.
There is now an anonymous, p2p network for this attack that's free to access and there is a miner who will oblige it.
The combination of the above, in practice, drops the cost from six figures ($$$,$$$) to three ($$$) and makes it possible to do anonymously.
But more importantly, the mechanism of the attack makes the resulting content appear to have been endorsed by the network at the policy level rather than come as a result of a circumvention that exploits crude consensus rules.
If you still cannot understand the significance of that then you must simply not be aware of the changes that Bitcoin has undergone with all the malicious tweaking of late and the sheer desire there is to take Bitcoin out.
Again: The p2p network has protected itself from attack due to sane default mempool policies, while the blockchain has been inaccessible to attackers due to pools not wanting to be on the hook for blocks containing malicious data.
Those technically-circumventable factors are now gone and there is no practical limitation to the attack beyond cleaning some coins, and paying a couple hundred bucks in transaction fees to get unacceptable content into the chain.
If the network isn't going to protect itself from malicious, consensus-valid activity then the only option left is changing consensus and doing a soft fork to limit OP_RETURNs and perhaps other known types of data carrying.
That idea entered the arena on the mailing list on Friday from someone vocally against Knots (@PortlandHODL) and was received positively by the Core devs who responded. Some embellishment was offered by Luke (add additional data carrying types) to which there was not so much response.
Without community support a fork fails. It's possible if even the Core 30 proponents are OK with limiting this stuff at the consensus level though that there is community support and thus it could be the way forward.
I dislike it because it abandons spam mitigation occurring at the policy level which is where it belongs but the current environment isn't giving us a lot to work with.
It is probably appropriate to characterize the fork as defense we never needed against a specific type of attack versus spam mitigation in general which will have to be continue in parallel.
Fork?

2025-10-03 19:43:11 UTC

Bitcoin was not conceived of or designed as a system where random people would voluntarily run FTP servers and store random files forever for free.
That is being backward rationalized into a monetary system where that kind of architecture must exist for other reason but the incentive issue remains.
No one is going to do this for you, even if they want to for other purposes.
They are going to defend themselves.
They always have been, and are having to switch client to be able to continue doing so due to Bitcoin Core's negligence and downright malice.

2025-09-25 21:38:23 UTC

CORRECTION: NO HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY.
https://image.nostr.build/08f420928f28c39ae7955ffa2dbce878c06c4c34de018c43667992a9e28c16f3.png

2025-09-13 22:08:24 UTC

- reply

I know we're both in our respective echo chambers but...you really think only 2.6% of nodes are Knots?
This seems to be more "most Knots nodes are in America, therefore ignore basically all of them"

2025-09-10 05:27:51 UTC

Dang. Interoperability issue between LND and CLN keeps knocking my channel offline.

2025-09-07 15:02:46 UTC

Knots:
https://image.nostr.build/7e987f5f05ef1522d52f762b53aa150a91e4cacc0ff137761f2b088a4a156a59.png

2025-09-07 14:57:43 UTC

People seems to be enjoying the lack of Knots propaganda here so I'll commit to making more effort and getting out of the twitter echo chamber.

2025-09-01 22:49:14 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/9dbe53bc9935e393ccb0f0c5b5ee1485b2c177bb92bce6165bdbf02b7584d60b.png

2025-08-31 21:28:44 UTC

Old methods of storing evil stuff required obfuscation: they would need to break it up into multiple chunks and reassembly would require specific software and knowledge of what the data is and how to reconstruct and interpret it exactly.
The old formats looked like this:
"Hi, I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's my first output of 45 outputs - <filepart1>, here's my second output <filepart2>, here's my third output<filepart3>" along with a tonne of other stuff that has to get parsed out when processing the highly obfuscated material. This is thankfully also true of inscriptions.
OP_RETURN however is just a dump for raw, serialized data. It's not the same.
It says the equivalent of "Hi I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's an unspendable output: <file> end".
This wasn't a problem for tiny OP_RETURNs i.e their current limit of 80 bytes.
If they're permitted to be 100kb, that's where the abuse begins.
And that's the end of plausible deniability.
When the stuff gets processed - which it has to be for your node to verify that they are valid transactions - then you just have a raw, unadulterated file that will trigger primitive antivirus/forensics software to alert the user: "Hi, you have CP on your computer."
You now need a licence to run a Bitcoin node, everyone thinks you're disgusting if you do, and they're not even wrong.
https://youtu.be/JLtmSzeLXOU

2025-08-25 18:49:41 UTC

I've watched everything get destroyed at the identity level over and over again.
Here is the mechanism by which it always happens:
#nevent1q…72dp

2025-08-04 07:28:42 UTC

God willing, Bitcoin will survive its devs.

2025-08-03 20:57:58 UTC

Someone can always abuse the honor system. I will never be the one to undermine a high-trust society with "race-to-the-bottom" behaviour.
And it only becomes hopeless when you have intentional subversion by bad actors.
Bitcoin requires adversarial thinking but somehow you must reconcile that with the fact that no one wants to be in a community with scummy people.
Respecting Core filters was an honor system thing that shouldn't work in theory but in practice has done for basically its entire existence.
And it has taken intentional malice by scammers to undermine that.
The best argument I can make against my position here is the point that honor systems don't scale. Leave-the-cash-in-a-box farm stand works in a village with 500 people. It's not going to work in New York City. True.
But at the same time, Bitcoin is a permanently unfinished and evolving technology. All the decisions in that regard are downstream from its users. And if its users can't resist undermining their own interests with short-termist obliteration of the commons by treating nodes as a disposable but inevitable resource when its the only aspect to Bitcoin making it genuinely decentralized then the future looks extremely bleak.
I don't think the alleged hopelessness of counter-spam measures is coming from people who are prepared to take all the relevant players in this ecosystem into account.
Do spammers want their spam to be stored by the world's most redundant database? Sure.
Do miners want to get paid for facilitating that? Sure - though that's very short sighted of them.
But does my node want to relay fake transactions thinly veiling chunks of non-Bitcoin garbage from spammers to miners? Of course not. And without our nodes you don't have Bitcoin. You have another stupid crypto.
16% of the network is permissionlessly asserting their right to relay what's in the interests of themselves and the network.
Just like how you can argue that me not stealing the blueberries from the farm stand and voluntarily paying for them is completely rational behaviour for someone who doesn't want to chop off the branch on which they sit.

2025-07-24 22:49:52 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/4a06da2447114ba112bac93d01c9dd91e477d76ac09418ffd790e2ed0d686598.jpg https://image.nostr.build/8bb4d7b949723b9a1324d8f2e62d2754d21936cd9d46380893313cadca89485c.jpg

2025-07-21 00:03:13 UTC

Yerba Mate > Coffee
Extremely few understand this.

2025-07-19 23:17:53 UTC

Stonks
https://image.nostr.build/62c32743ea1b5bcff613ab2bbeefb804684ed15db2970609361eb4cdd6cd8117.png

2025-07-08 01:47:42 UTC

God damn it https://image.nostr.build/a831ca23a906444de964ff9e424cd2dac53a39a46ba57bce26c8c3fd2f7730c6.png

2025-07-04 11:54:54 UTC

- reply

You have gotten stuck at #3. Try to keep up.

2025-07-04 06:51:16 UTC

Narrative evolution in the political battle to undermine Bitcoin as a monetary network:
1. There's no such thing as "spam" in Bitcoin. Transactions are either valid or invalid.
2. OK spam exists and it's a problem but it'll get priced out by genuine monetary activity.
3. OK the trend in the opposite direction is clear, but the proposed solution of filtering spam at the mempool level does nothing at all as miners can still include this stuff in blocks regardless. (And despite the fact that spam filtration is something we've always done, it's somehow now "censorship" as of spring 2023).
4. OK filtering actually works extremely well and is basically forcing some BitVM schemes to use fake pubkeys instead of OP_RETURN which - for the sake of *maybe* preventing a few KBs of UTXO bloat a year - we need to aggressively resolve *now* by forcing nodes to relay giant OP_RETURNs by breaking the datacarriersize filter in the hopes that BitVMers use OP_RETURN instead.
5. OK yes, this is total and utter submission to the attempts to optimize Bitcoin for data storage as opposed to monetary activity as per every other meaningless crypto but hey, we are just Bitcoin Core and you can run something else if you don't like it - isn't open source wonderful?!
6. OK if large numbers of Bitcoiners actually start running something other than Core we'll simply ignore the message being sent loudly and clearly - that a growing % of people running nodes have no interest in becoming free relays for spammers and miners and that in a sane world, the default implementation puts the priorities of monetary users above scammers and even miners.
7. OK we will invoke disaster scenarios that must come from spam filtration - centralized mining, bad fee estimation, poor block propagation - combine with other fear tactics about "Knots being maintained by one guy".
8. Respond to all debunking of the above disaster scenarios with simple assertions that those who disagree "occupy something other than reality". Rest on laurels of deeply established trust of Core that it is extremely painful for people to question.
Contrast all this with the "filter-boi" side which have not needed to twist themselves into Knots trying to justify the unjustifiable -
1. Spam filters work, they optimize Bitcoin as a payment network rather than a generic database.
2. If you let filters fall into disrepair or maliciously break them then Bitcoin fails the same way cryptos always do - nodes become an abused and disregarded commons while we pretend we're decentralized.