GrassFedBitcoin
Bitcoin Mechanic

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 16:55:37 CET

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 23:39:37 CET

- 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 21:12:17 CET

- reply

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

2026-03-07 19:49:14 CET

- reply

Do you believe casinos will eventually cease to exist also?

2026-03-07 18:35:10 CET

- 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 18:34:56 CET

- reply

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

2026-03-07 18:33:09 CET

- reply

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

2026-03-07 18:12:27 CET

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 12:34:31 CET

- reply

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

2026-03-03 18:25:15 CET

- reply

Witness discount abuse

2026-03-03 16:58:04 CET

- 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 16:53:28 CET

- reply

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

2026-03-03 16:41:00 CET

- reply

I am the worst of hipsters

2026-03-03 16:40:34 CET

Half and half is not cream.

2026-02-25 18:44:30 CET

- 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 18:38:40 CET

- reply

Azure is worse

2026-02-25 06:37:29 CET

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*.

2026-02-25 00:43:03 CET

- reply

Me too!

2026-02-23 21:35:50 CET

- reply

What metaphysical things are missing from the discussion?

2026-02-23 21:34:58 CET

- reply

He mentioned growth of the chain separately to the discussion around BIP-110. The BIP doesn't decrease block size to 300KB which was what that section of the podcast was about.

2026-02-23 19:37:34 CET

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

2026-02-23 01:50:46 CET

- reply

100%
So many see Bitcoins as an investment or hedge against inflation.
Whilst the blockchain a junk yard for scams.

2026-02-22 02:00:20 CET

- reply

It is in the real sense (should the monetary maxis end up succeeding with BIP-110)

2026-02-22 01:13:25 CET

- 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 22:09:56 CET

- reply

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

2026-02-21 18:33:57 CET

- reply

No, I'm a horrible coder and was a teenager when Bitcoin was being written.

2026-02-21 18:30:19 CET

- reply

Respect

2026-02-21 08:13:47 CET

- reply

Probably the latter. It's hard to ascertain the truth from these numbers and it's good to remember that it's gameable.
There's always the chance the nodes are all just fake so you have to incorporate other heuristics.
I've obviously verified for myself that many real people are out there running BIP-110.
People that attend conferences and pay attention in the space should be able to figure out how much energy there is behind things like this.

2026-02-21 06:47:08 CET

According to bitnodes(.)io 7.8% of nodes are BIP-110.
Luke's stats have it more like 5.7%.
I'm sure some nodes have been spun up for appearances (equally sure that's true of Core nodes).
I think it's fair to say there's already some genuine grass roots support for BIP-110 whilst virtually zero from companies/miners.
It remains to be seen whether that's sufficient to draw in others.
One thing of note is that if it came the other way around (no grassroots support, but big companies and miners all pushing for it) that'd be a far greater red flag and I'm glad it's happening the way it is.

2026-02-21 02:29:43 CET

- reply

Exactly, you have nothing.

2026-02-20 22:13:45 CET

- 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.

2026-02-20 00:48:45 CET

Hence BIP-110
#nevent1q…h5s0

2026-02-19 01:54:57 CET

- reply

BIP-110

2026-02-18 03:16:33 CET

- reply

I think we're not about to do any other soft fork upgrades in the next 12 months anyway. And leaving holes open of that nature isn't worth it in current context.

2026-02-17 02:58:28 CET

- reply

🙏

2026-02-17 01:23:51 CET

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

2026-02-16 18:41:44 CET

- reply

I have said this. I can't pretend the desire to use a proxy for the USD isn't preferable to worse fiat for the global south. And telling them they have to jump straight to Bitcoin and just deal with the volatility is distasteful.

2026-02-16 17:25:40 CET

- reply

Because making it permanent means HFs or ossification.
Q2 is answered in the BIP -
https://image.nostr.build/e750c8287cd54d8e863726c52d7402e80e53991c0dec2a1ac3390fa3477c133f.jpg https://image.nostr.build/e750c8287cd54d8e863726c52d7402e80e53991c0dec2a1ac3390fa3477c133f.jpg

2026-02-16 17:15:57 CET

- reply

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

2026-02-16 17:14:16 CET

- reply

Not my call

2026-02-16 07:56:00 CET

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

2026-02-14 23:26:05 CET

https://youtu.be/T65RXneAkCA

2026-02-11 06:17:17 CET

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEtVfQNTs2I

2026-01-20 03:37:20 CET

The correct number of files to have on your desktop is zero.

2026-01-17 23:28:01 CET

- reply

Thanks! That'll be the first one I try

2026-01-17 22:25:36 CET

- reply

Thanks for the thoughts!
I downgraded to a "volt" as that is standards compliant (and just USB) so I have functioning audio on the machine right away.
Last time I used a DAW in Linux-land was Ardour about 11 years ago.
I never even liked protools (which is what Ardour is the FOSS equivalent of) so unsurprisingly I didn't get far with it.
I agree that great music makers don't need a billion fancy things to make good music. I'm happy going barebones with it.
BitWig comes highly recommended but it's not free and that undermines the overall effort of ditching MacOS in the first place.
I'll probably try Ardour again or Audacity.
Something to make simple video edits too would be great. Main thing is reliability and no weird linux stuff like random cutting out when you render files.

2026-01-17 22:20:26 CET

- reply

It's working surprisingly well

2026-01-17 22:20:11 CET

- reply

I still have it along with GNOME on here. Can switch to it again, though the keyboard navigation is actually pretty good on COSMIC already.

2026-01-16 09:44:44 CET

- reply

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

2026-01-16 09:23:28 CET

- reply

Audio was the thing tying me to Mac all this time. I basically have to trash an old UAD Apollo now as it's thunderbolt and I doubt any of the hacks would make it usable.
If ableton would freaking add Linux I'd have made the switch a decade ago.

2026-01-16 09:19:33 CET

- 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 02:22:21 CET

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 01:41:06 CET

- reply

What distro?

2026-01-09 01:38:45 CET

- reply

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

2026-01-09 01:37:41 CET

- reply

Cos I work for a company that has meetings with people

2026-01-09 01:36:32 CET

- reply

Yep

2026-01-08 08:21:59 CET

- reply

I asked Gemini to draw arch Linux if it was a car https://image.nostr.build/96b8615022fa3ff8da264cec900d6f7d90ba3947fdce14cce6b8727c3525ed44.jpg

2026-01-08 08:16:25 CET

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.

2025-12-23 00:44:02 CET

- reply

That's... A relief frankly. That makes life a lot less stressful for coinjoin devs.

2025-11-10 13:41:21 CET

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

2025-11-05 17:45:51 CET

- reply

Very cypherpunk, Satoshi is smiling.

2025-11-05 02:38:22 CET

- reply

Thanks for stepping up!

2025-11-04 23:38:11 CET

- reply

Live by the bullshit, die by the bullshit

2025-11-04 23:36:04 CET

- reply

Cachu is for enemies

2025-11-04 23:08:45 CET

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

2025-11-04 05:16:06 CET

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

2025-10-16 22:44:13 CEST

- reply

Sir, this is a monetary network.

2025-10-13 21:14:24 CEST

- reply

Correct

2025-10-07 06:07:25 CEST

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

2025-10-07 06:06:28 CEST

- reply

+1 lichess is great! been using it for 10 years

2025-10-06 15:31:20 CEST

- reply

Hence the last point

2025-10-06 14:47:54 CEST

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?

2025-10-04 08:35:11 CEST

- reply

He does RT stuff he doesn't agree with.
Generally I get the sense he isn't buying the Core bullshit though.

2025-10-03 21:43:11 CEST

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.

2025-09-29 08:38:45 CEST

- reply

Srry fam

2025-09-29 02:11:08 CEST

- reply

Complicit

2025-09-29 01:36:03 CEST

- reply

Anyone amplifying Calle is - at best - a moron.

2025-09-29 00:55:25 CEST

- reply

Yes otherwise I'd let this nonsense go unchallenged

2025-09-29 00:45:01 CEST

- reply

Oops. Nostrudel makes me bad at Nostr.

2025-09-29 00:21:21 CEST

- reply

Lol.
PoW exists to make it hard to rewrite history, not to prevent spam.
This is obviously just more dishonesty masquerading as "bridge building" after a week of non-stop character assassination after many months of bad faith interaction.
Citing your credentials "I have worked on anonymous systems for over a decade. I have read tons of research on spam detection, rate-limiting, and I've implemented spam prevention techniques in the real world."
...is not enough to make people pretend you're arguing in good faith here which you obviously aren't having opened with rewriting the entire function of what PoW does and how Satoshi used it. We know specifically what Satoshi did about spam and you're ignoring it because that would contradict your premise.
(Further - spam filtration does not imply centralization. The opposite is the case. No one is going to run nodes if they do not posses the tools to prevent their mempools filling up with porn/malware and anything else that can leverage the idiocy of Bitcoin's developers.)

2025-09-26 20:19:00 CEST

- reply

the TMZ of bitcoin went after luke

2025-09-25 23:38:23 CEST

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

2025-09-25 05:38:13 CEST

Sheesh, I didn't expect Core to shit the bed quite this hard.

2025-09-23 06:17:47 CEST

- reply

.........

2025-09-22 05:28:07 CEST

No wealth like a happy home

2025-09-17 06:25:23 CEST

- reply

You should.

2025-09-17 06:24:57 CEST

- reply

You gave them too much leeway with the fee estimation FUD.
If miners filter and your mempool is full of Core-endorsed garbage, then you just start overpaying fees for no reason - if for some reason you're using mempool-based fee estimation which is a terrible idea and Sipa/Greg et al know this perfectly well.
Nothing about Bitcoin, including fee estimation, requires mempool homogeneity. This was totally manufactured as a rationalization and only applies in scenarios where mempool policy and mining are both completely centralized. Which - to be fair - is the current scenario but not at all sustainable and makes no sense to rip filters out in an effort to placate something untenable that is in the process of being fixed.

2025-09-17 04:58:14 CEST

The emperor has no clothes.
Bitcoin is not in good hands.
#nevent1q…59xr

2025-09-16 01:50:18 CEST

- reply

I gave up when he started simping for the IRS regarding Roger. Crab in a bucket.

2025-09-15 06:16:37 CEST

- reply

Trust the science

2025-09-15 05:57:18 CEST

- reply

Of course

2025-09-15 05:48:33 CEST

What level of cope is this?
#nevent1q…nyvw

2025-09-14 00:56:17 CEST

- reply

Luke's stats show ~14% but they lag by a month. They cut out duplicates where possible, and treat all AWS as one node. I don't think it's possible to be more pessimistic than 14%. The 25% we saw yesterday appeared to be Umbrel users updating and getting counted twice, but that isn't happening today with the Start9 update so that theory is just wrong afaict unless I have some misunderstanding about how Umbrel nodes differ from Start9 nodes.

2025-09-14 00:41:06 CEST

- reply

It's just blocking multiple connections over same ISP is it not?
Also, appears to ignore Tor completely, so basically that dismisses the thousands of Umbrel/Start9 users. These stats aren't going to give you an accurate picture at all, if you're honest with yourself you'd dismiss them.

2025-09-14 00:08:24 CEST

- 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"