<unnamed>

Public Key

npub10lrzse62vddqwsscqcmjurmhtxh545zf6q7ez9q25ddlc7p7saeqems9ug

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs8l33gva9xxks8ggvqvdewpam4nt626pyaq0v3zs92xklu0qlgwusp9dmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuervv4ezucm0d5hkg7twv9kk7ttvv9h8getjdckkvmmcw3ex7aqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezumn9wsq3camnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdsd3353e

Publishing to

nostr.dler.com/dynamo-lantern-foxtrot

nostr.bitcoiner.social

Last Notes

2026-07-22 23:09:21 CEST

- reply

Congrats on the Start 9 server. Very nice piece of kit!
Too expensive for me though. I use a Raspberry Pi 5 16GB RAM with a 2TB internal SSD and that was much cheaper and powerful enough to run a node. Also very low power draw - something like 10-15w on average if I recall correctly.

2026-07-22 05:07:42 CEST

- reply

As long as Lightning and basic on-chain transactions work, that covers 90%+ of monetary use cases. Add in coinjoin, multisig and time locks and you probably cover 99%+. Bottom line is that we could tighten consensus rules far more than BIP-110 does and still not affect monetary uses.

2026-07-22 04:46:44 CEST

- reply

Read the sign.
https://blossom.primal.net/2330840f5502f8531a01a3cba06a4022125c9003dec570588e829571bf4ec541.jpg

2026-07-22 04:05:22 CEST

- reply

Bravo! Many good points there.
Most importantly - there’s nothing being offered on the anti-BIP-110 side of the argument about the financial applications that BIP-110 would disrupt. So I can only assume it’s about making Bitcoin more like Ethereum with BRC-20 tokens, ordinals, etc… so VCs like David Bailey and Jameson Lopp can make more money.
I also think Bailey’s control of the largest Bitcoin conference silences criticism of spam from most influencers because they want to be invited back to speak at the conference and grow their audiences.
Completely agree with you that more restrictive is not always better - we need to find a sweet spot over time that tightens consensus enough to make spamming so painful that most spammers go elsewhere, while still allowing financial use cases.
BIP-110 is not a silver bullet. It’s a clear message to VCs that spam is not welcome, and a first step in the right direction towards tighter consensus rules.

2026-07-22 00:32:13 CEST

- reply

You can write a message using 83 bytes in OP_RETURN. You know like “this is for dinner” or “ Happy Birthday Alice, Love Bob”.

2026-07-20 23:22:18 CEST

- reply

Very cool setup- thanks for showing us. Are those miners loud back down the hill at your home when they are running?

2026-07-20 22:36:19 CEST

- reply

Ton

2026-07-18 19:49:00 CEST

- reply

Non-listening nodes make connections to listening nodes and the first message they send is their version:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#version

2026-07-18 04:10:06 CEST

- reply

Open water debt.

2026-07-17 04:02:31 CEST

- reply

Cheap block space? It’s a broken concept because miners take the fees and node runners pay for the storage without receiving any payment. It doesn’t matter if it’s 100 sats/vbyte or 1 sats/vbyte, miners take the fees and node runners store the blockchain without payment because they believe in Bitcoin as money. Spam increases the amount of data on-chain and node runners didn’t sign up for non financial data storage so as they gradually stop running nodes it will get centralized. It’s so obvious that it’s annoying that every Bitcoiner doesn’t get it yet.

2026-07-16 05:15:07 CEST

- reply

The point of the question is not about if BIP-110 fixes all spam - no single change can prevent all spam, and BIP-110 certainly doesn’t stop all spam. What it does is disrupt some common existing spam patterns so spammers need to adapt and more importantly send a message to VCs that spam is not welcome. The point of the question is that there’s no rule change in the BIP that should impact anyone other than spammers. So if people are worried about a chain split they should adopt BIP-110 and the risk of a chain split is gone if enough people adopt it.

2026-07-16 05:10:11 CEST

- reply

What specific consensus rule change in the BIP do you disagree with and why? I can’t see anything controversial in the BIP.

2026-07-16 05:08:06 CEST

- reply

I’m ok with risking a chain split to send a message to spammers that they are not welcome. Real Bitcoiners will take short-term pain for the long-term success of Bitcoin. There’s nothing controversial in the BIP that miners (other than Marathon who has a side-business mining spam via Slipstream) should reject. If they want business as usual then miners should just adopt BIP-110 and all their blocks will be considered valid by all nodes. If they want to roll the dice on a chain split, the ball is in their court. We will know what they decide in a few weeks.

2026-07-16 04:51:29 CEST

- reply

What are you taking about. Fees are based on the size of the transaction and the rate of sats per vbyte and a JPEG is much larger than a basic transaction. So a financial transaction might pay less in total but a higher rate to get confirmed quickly. Anyone who uses bitcoin for financial transactions experiences this for themselves. Also whose node is CPU constrained? Raw storage is more of an issue because that sticks around forever whereas CPU usage has peaks and troughs.
I’m starting to doubt your intentions at this point because just the mere act of starting to mitigate spam has a moral/ethical/legal benefit compared to welcoming it like core did with v30.
I’ve seen knotslies before. Anyone with half a brain knows that spam mitigation is an ongoing effort and there will always be people who find ways to embed spam, so we need to periodically prevent more spam attack vectors until most spammers give up and go elsewhere. Anyone expecting a perfect spam mitigation from a single change (or ever) is deluded. BIP-110 is minimal and that’s good because it reduces the risks of unintended consequences while sending a warning to spammers and their VC backers. If it was more aggressively mitigating spam there would be more risk of impacting financial use-cases, and plebs would be more reluctant to adopt it.
It might be a larp- you could be right about that. There are reasons why some miners might signal at the last minute, so we will know in a few weeks.

2026-07-16 04:27:04 CEST

- reply

That Taycan is a beautiful car!

2026-07-16 01:30:12 CEST

- reply

I think you’re missing the point. Making it more expensive and higher moral/ethical/legal risk to run a node leads to centralization of nodes and eventual capture of Bitcoin.
It’s not just about the scarcity of blockspace. Financial transactions already pay more than some of the spam that waits for days in mempool at sub-1-sat/vbyte fees waiting to fill spare capacity because the people sending money pay higher fees so it will confirm quickly, and the people storing monkey JPEGs are happy to wait.

2026-07-16 01:22:48 CEST

- reply

I don’t trust Core or Luke long-term either. So alternative node implementations are super important. My perspective differs to yours in that I’m ok with Knots/BIP-110 for now (after painfully reviewing the Knots code that is annoyingly more different to Core than it needs to be) and can move elsewhere in a year based on what the best option is then. Worst case - I modify Core myself and run that. I decided not to sit on an old version of Core because the spammers keep spamming and bypassing the nodes, so when the v30 change sent a social signal that spam is welcome on Bitcoin, I decided it was time for true Bitcoiners to fight back. Since spammers bypass nodes, we need to start periodically tightening consensus rules to mitigate spam and send an immediate message to their VC backers that spam isn’t welcome. BIP-110 is far from perfect - ordinals already have a change that makes them BIP-110 compliant. That’s not the point. It’s to make spammers unwelcome, periodically disrupt their approach with tighter consensus rules and eventually reach a sweet spot where financial use cases and innovation are still supported, but spamming is so inconvenient that most spammers go elsewhere.
I’ve been listening to Rabbit Hole Recap for many years now and appreciate the info you and Marty have shared with the plebs. I hope that in the next few episodes you find a way to move to a more pragmatic stance where Bitcoiners can all get along, flip the bit to avoid any chain split and find a better long term solution than relying on Luke.

2026-07-15 17:45:25 CEST

- reply

Seems kinda irrelevant. If most miners flip the bit at the last minute there is no chain split. If most miners don’t flip the bit, then Oceans mining pool for the BIP-110 chain is dead on arrival. I just can’t see a lot of people forking off like the Bitcoin cash crowd. I think it’s more likely that the BIP-110 supporters regroup and try another approach to mitigating spam.

2026-07-15 17:21:15 CEST

- reply

Over time we need to cautiously keep limiting the size and nature of data in a transaction via periodic consensus soft forks until we hit a sweet spot where financial transactions and innovation are supported and spamming is inconvenient.
Just sending a message to their VC backers that spam will not be tolerated is helpful even though spammers will evolve. VCs don’t want to invest too much in something that is rejected by the ecosystem, disrupted periodically and potentially completely shut down long term.

2026-07-15 17:14:42 CEST

- reply

Your argument seems mathematically correct, but I think it either gets adopted by large miners or fails. Marathon has a focus on mining spam, but the other miners make very little from spam so have no compelling reason to reject BIP-110, and will fall in line if a couple of large miners signal for BIP-110 at the last minute.

2026-07-15 16:44:11 CEST

- reply

A lot of plebs don’t even realize that Knots is a fork of Core, so the vast majority of the code is identical. They worry that the Knots team is too small to maintain the code, but the team is really all of Core plus some people who tweak the code against spam. Also - despite what anyone may think of Luke’s views, he’s one of the most experienced Bitcoin Core developers. If he pushes for something in the future that you don’t like, then you don’t need to adopt it. What he’s pushing for at the moment in BIP-110 is perfectly reasonable.

2026-07-15 16:29:28 CEST

- reply

Take 10 minutes to read the BIP. It’s quite easy to understand. You won’t see anything you disagree with - unless you’re a spammer. It’s kept simple to minimize the risk of unintended consequences. And buys us a year to develop more comprehensive spam mitigation, while sending an immediate message to the VCs funding spammers that their spam will not be tolerated.
https://bip110.org/

2026-07-15 06:15:34 CEST

- reply

The OP_RETURN change was just a final straw for many people with Core - it’s not actually about OP_RETURN. Core has ignored the onslaught of ordinals spam for years. I like most of the Core devs I’ve met, and I don’t like Luke’s views in general. But I’m sick of Core ignoring and enabling spam. Because of Libre Relay and Slipstream, it seems to me that gradual periodic consensus restrictions via soft fork is the only way to get Bitcoin back to being money because node filters are insufficient these days. I don’t know if you’ve noticed it but most of the Bitcoin influencers are captured by David Bailey and his spam empire because they want to be invited back to speak at the massive Bitcoin conference each year. I think there’s a multi-faceted attack on Bitcoin right now from people who want to make money in the short-term and don’t care about the long-term success of Bitcoin, or do care about the long-term success but don’t think adversarially enough.

2026-07-15 05:54:16 CEST

- reply

I haven’t heard any wallet providers coming out in support of BIP-110. Did I miss something?

2026-07-15 05:07:53 CEST

- reply

What’s the point of that? Almost every wallet apart from Nunchuk was already BIP-110 compliant because wallets are built for storing and sending money, so BIP-110 has no impact on them.

2026-07-14 19:02:10 CEST

- reply

That’s what open timestamps does. A simplified explanation of what they do is have “calendar” servers that accumulate timestamps in a Merkle tree then periodically put a single hash for the whole tree on-chain. So you could potentially have a very large number of individual hashes and only need occasional hashes on-chain. They also hand a “proof” to the committer so they can still verify their hash using the blockchain if the calendar servers are not available in the future.

2026-07-14 18:32:13 CEST

- reply

Getting legal clarity is definitely important. I think we should also work to minimize risks, and the active minimization of risks probably helps jurisdictions get more comfortable with the protocol.

2026-07-14 18:22:10 CEST

- reply

I’ll have to try reticulum.

2026-07-13 16:10:33 CEST

- reply

I think you meant to say “stay safe and reject Cashu”.
“Are there any risks when using Cashu and associated wallets and tools?
Yes. In fact, there are many risks. Make sure to understand them before putting any sats into any Cashu mint/wallet.”
https://docs.cashu.space/faq

2026-07-13 07:16:00 CEST

- reply

Nope - and nobody’s arguing about allowing 83 byte OP_RETURNs. BIP-110 allows that, just like Core v29.
There always has been and always will be some minor level of spamming. That’s not the problem. It’s the massive spam attack from ordinals and others over the past few years that’s the problem. Core v30 just made spamming easier. It’s time to fix this.
Please spend 10 minutes reading the BIP and you might realize that you actually support these common sense spam mitigations. It’s just a first step in the right direction that buys us a year to devise more robust solutions. That’s all.
https://bip110.org/

2026-07-13 06:27:55 CEST

- reply

Pruning nodes is centralizing nodes. We need full nodes to bootstrap other nodes. If full nodes are only run by a handful of hardcore libertarian Bitcoiners and large institutions with legal teams to fight for their ability to run full nodes, then nodes are too centralized and too easily captured.
Pruned nodes keep the past couple of days of full blocks and also relay valid transactions and blocks so it’s not as clean a solution to potential legal risks as you might assume. Tightening consensus rules to make it more difficult to embed spam within a “valid” transaction prevents nodes from relaying or storing those transactions, so it’s more protection for node runners.

2026-07-13 06:16:16 CEST

- reply

The censorship argument is a logical fallacy pushed by hardline libertarians, spammers and some Core devs who mean well but don’t think adversarially enough. It’s a propaganda tool that tugs on the heartstrings of many Bitcoiners.
Protecting the protocol from abuse by people who have no interest in protecting its monetary properties is not “censorship”. Limiting financial transactions based on a blacklist of UTXOs or IP address, or amount would be censorship.
Consensus rules already set limits. Why are all the existing limits not considered to be censorship? Why can’t I currently have a 10MB transaction - does that mean I’m being censored by Core or Nodes or Miners? Obviously it’s not censorship - it’s limiting the protocol to its intended purpose.
SegWit and Taproot resulted in unexpected consequences that made Ordinals and other spam possible - it would be unreasonable to say we should not change anything to fix that mistake. We should always be willing to fix mistakes and unintended consequences.

2026-07-13 06:04:20 CEST

- reply

Tightening rules is a soft fork - not a hard fork. There can be a chain split if miners choose to ignore the soft fork. That’s not the same as a hard fork because a hard fork requires old nodes to upgrade whereas a soft fork doesn’t.
Consensus code would need to change - various implementations could change the code and node runners could choose to upgrade or not. Like how you can run Knots without BIP-110 if you choose to.
“According to @BitMEXResearch, the Bitcoin UTXO set expanded from 84 million to 169 million between December 2022 and September 2025 during the Ordinals period, an increase of roughly 85 million outputs, highlighting significant on-chain growth (source: @BitMEXResearch, Sep 8, 2025). According to @BitMEXResearch, BRC-20 tokens are identified as the key scaling problem driving this UTXO expansion in the Ordinals era (source: @BitMEXResearch, Sep 8, 2025). A larger UTXO set raises memory and storage requirements for full nodes, indicating increased resource load at the protocol level”
https://blockchain.news/flashnews/bitcoin-utxo-set-jumps-to-169m-in-ordinals-era-brc-20-flagged-as-key-scaling-issue-for-btc

2026-07-13 05:23:06 CEST

- reply

You know how when you deposit a check at the bank, you don’t get to attach a giant poster or video for the bank to keep available to anyone who asks for it for eternity. Is that censoring your financial transactions, or is that just protecting a protocol by limiting it to the financial use cases it was intended for? Hint - it’s not censorship.

2026-07-12 06:08:18 CEST

- reply

Bank notes with graffiti get destroyed and replaced with pristine new notes from the central bank. The dollar doesn’t tolerate graffiti - it fights it.
Plus it’s not only about out-pricing spam (financial transactions already out-price spam because people usually want them confirmed quickly). It’s also about the effect of spam on unpaid node runners and the centralization pressure on nodes from spam’s unnecessary increased resource costs and legal risks.

2026-07-12 05:29:57 CEST

- reply

Node runners get to make that decision through cautious changes to consensus rules over time.
It’s usually pretty obvious what is and isn’t a financial use case. Storing jpeg image data is not a financial use case - it’s a storage use case. Storing a hash that proves ownership of that jpeg might be considered a financial use case and since the burden on nodes of storing a 32 byte hash is negligible that should be (and is) possible within an 80 byte OP_RETURN. Anchoring a L2 chain like Lightning is a financial use case - other chains might not be financial but as long as the burden is no more than lightning they’re tolerable. Smart contracts that have no embedded data and release non-dust-sized UTXOs under certain conditions are probably financial. Node operators can accept or reject changes to consensus rules based on their own interpretation of what is a financial use case.
Lots of spam sits in mempools waiting for a low fee environment because they don’t care how long it takes to confirm. So they’re paying less per byte than typical financial transactions but increasing memory and storage demands for nodes significantly over the past few years. I read a recent analysis that fees are about 7% of miner revenue, so spam pays miners only a few percent but burdens node operators in terms of resource needs and unnecessary legal risks. I think spam eventually leads to centralization of nodes and that’s why I’m against spam.

2026-07-12 04:44:14 CEST

- reply

I read the read me. Seems like an interesting protocol. I didn’t dig into the code to check, but if you don’t already use Merkle Trees and Calendar servers like open timestamps does to reduce how often it needs to commit a hash to the blockchain, you might want to look into it because it will reduce the costs of getting hashes on blockchain and improves scalability.
Good luck!

2026-07-11 09:23:36 CEST

Just saw an interview between Isabel Foxen Duke and Peter Todd about spam.
It was like watching a couple of foxes talking about the futility of gates on the hen house, so I can’t recommend it. TLDR - it’s impossible to completely prevent all spam (which is true), so there’s no point trying to mitigate spam (which is the false propaganda spammers want plebs to believe).
FYI: Isabel did the marketing for Ordinals, and leads the strategy for MARA slipstream that bypasses node filters to mine spam the node runners refuse to relay.
Peter created Libre Relay that bypasses node filters to allow spam and anything that is technically allowed by “consensus rules” to be sent to miners for inclusion in the blockchain. He also created open timestamps that IMO is a useful tool to prove that (off blockchain) data has not been modified since the hash was generated and stored as a tiny 32 byte payload in OP_RETURN. Purists would consider this “non-financial” use of the blockchain, but I’m fine with it because it’s such a small obscure payload attached to a legitimate transaction.
https://opentimestamps.org/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/isabel-foxen-duke-87272423
https://youtu.be/LU-lc31MsyY

2026-07-11 06:53:43 CEST

- reply

I get it. Spam can be encoded in transactions, and BIP-110 does not completely prevent that. Imagine a future where dust transactions are invalid (which is how most spam gets encoded), and transaction data sizes are limited to reasonable amounts of inputs and outputs, and spam for large payloads like JPEG images then needs to span multiple transactions and/or span multiple blocks. Still not impossible (in fact NEVER impossible), but it becomes such a PITA to spam that it goes back to being a minor problem of bible verses and other annoying but small spam payloads instead of 70% of transactions in a single week (if that recent statistic is true).
Just stop it with the fees propaganda from Core and think for a second. If someone pays the local mob boss for their permission to shit on my living room floor and they are willing to wait a few days to take a shit during a low fee period. The free market never produces an economic incentive where people stop shitting on my living room floor. Eventually my only option is to leave the neighborhood so only mob owned living room floors are available (and that’s node centralization in a nutshell).

2026-07-11 06:19:11 CEST

- reply

It’s not cool to make fun of the plebs who are trying to prevent Bitcoin becoming a shitshow, and I’m getting tired of the Bitcoin LARPers who are anti BIP-110 without reading the BIP or because they don’t like Luke or because it’s not going to perfectly stop spam. It’s not perfect but at least it’s a step in the right direction that buys us a year to devise better solutions. You don’t need to like Luke - just review what the code changes actually do.
The propaganda from Core is that fees paid to miners will fix this, and stopping non-financial data is “censorship”. Engage your brain for a minute and consider why node running (which is unpaid) wouldn’t become centralized as costs and legal risks increase as a result of spam. Also - it’s objectively not “censorship” to mitigate non-financial data. It doesn’t limit or censor financial transactions, just spam.
Then consider who pays the influencers and why they’re anti BIP-110. It’s sooo disappointing to see Bitcoiners seriously believing influencers who are paid by shit-coiners, suit-coiners and VCs.

2026-07-11 04:54:49 CEST

- reply

With that many bitaxes it must almost be time to level up to an s21 and do immersion mining so it’s quiet enough for your living room 😂

2026-07-11 01:03:40 CEST

- reply

Nice setup! I hope you get it resolved soon.
I agree with the suggestion to turn on the pump without the miner if you can, and measure the flow by filling a bucket.
If that confirms that the flow is less than it should be (with the miner off) you can divide and conquer (bypass half the system, to find the half that’s blocked and then bypass half of that) until you find the blockage.
The place where the hose leaked and is swelling could just be the weakest link - I don’t think it necessarily helps you to find the blockage if there is one.
Since you’re using distilled water, I would be surprised if you have an actual blockage - the other suggestion of an air-pocket makes more sense to me.
Good luck!

2026-07-11 00:27:15 CEST

- reply

I don’t care which camp does it (BIP-110, production-ready, Core, other RDTS nodes), and I don’t think we have to do it immediately as an existential risk (though sooner is better), but we need to start limiting the amount and type of spam on chain or node running’s eventually going to get centralized, like we are already seeing happen with mining. With enough centralization, Bitcoin becomes a few steps away from being Ripple and that’s pretty much game over. I don’t think BIP-110 solves everything, we need to keep tightening consensus rules over time so it becomes more and more impractical for anything other than financial use cases. We’ve seen from Libre Relay and Core
V30 that node filters are insufficient, so consensus rule changes seems like the only viable path to me. At least the BIP-110 crowd is taking an initial step in the direction of mitigating spam on-chain. Fees and market dynamics will never solve it because the fees for spam go to miners and the costs/legal risks go to unpaid node runners who volunteered to support the ecosystem of peer-to-peer money (not permanent cloud storage).

2026-07-08 01:19:20 CEST

- reply

I just realized why you can’t understand spam and love Libre Relay. You’re into ordinals!
Bye… not wasting any more time.
https://github.com/ordinals/ord/issues/4489

2026-07-07 23:16:16 CEST

- reply

https://b10c.me/blog/015-bitcoin-mining-centralization/?ref=hackernoon.com

2026-07-07 23:05:42 CEST

- reply

I’m not convinced it’s as much of a slippery slope as you appear to see it as. There’s going to be things changed in the protocol over time that introduce problems and we need a way to fix those problems rather than living with them forever. SegWit and Taproot came with the unintended consequences of increased spam. Rather than roll back SegWit and Taproot, we can impose some restrictions to mitigate where they appear to be getting abused maliciously, and developers (and to a lesser extent spammers) will work around the constraints. If arbitrary data payloads are the main thing that gets mitigated that makes it more painful for spammers than people creating monetary use cases because monetary use cases (perhaps with the exception of coinjoin) are relatively small payloads.

2026-07-07 22:44:54 CEST

- reply

I thought Gopher just died out because HTTP, Mosaic, and AltaVista search were developed and were more user friendly and became more popular? Is there a story to Gopher’s demise I can read? I’d be interested in that history.

2026-07-07 22:25:20 CEST

- reply

Reasonable request. It’s not going to happen quickly though, so in the meantime, Lighting+VPN or Lightning+Tor is good enough privacy for many people who want to make small transactions that don’t need significant liquidity across the Lightning network.
https://coin.space/best-crypto-wallets-2026-top-9-tor-self-custody-options/

2026-07-07 21:27:38 CEST

- reply

Sure - I understand that perspective. I’m not sure those are all sensible techniques in the first place because they require the protocol to ossify in certain ways for long periods of time and that’s not a risk I would take on any protocol. I wouldn’t time lock a UTXO for multiple years because if I needed to move it because the crypto it depends on is broken, I can’t. Spam mitigation doesn’t need to block script improvements - it just needs to mitigate arbitrary embedding techniques in the scripts. The most obvious at the moment being very large non-executable scripts - that are clearly a data payload.

2026-07-07 21:11:58 CEST

- reply

Bitcoin has evolved a lot since the genesis block. If we went back to what Bitcoin was like back then, lots of good things like Lightning and (I think) multisig wouldn’t work. On the upside, malicious things like Libre Relay and Slipstream didn’t exist, nodes limited OP_RETURN to ~80 bytes and mining wasn’t centralized.

2026-07-07 21:04:06 CEST

- reply

Fair point about the patch analogy. Crypto techniques have a shelf life that’s reasonably long and I think spam attacks will evolve at a faster pace so need more frequent updates - at least for the first few years.
I think uncapped OP_RETURN makes it a little easier for new spam entrants because the code is simpler to embed and identify their payloads as long as they’re willing to pay 4x the cost because it doesn’t get the segwit discount. More importantly, I think it sends a message from Core that the network is “open for business” to spammers because they no longer need to use Libre Relay or slipstream to get large OP_RETURN payloads mined. It also reduces the incentive for miners to care about what payloads they mine because “they’re just mining what the dominant network agreed to send them” instead of being responsible for bypassing the network via something like slipstream.
I think carefully tightening consensus periodically to mitigate spam is worth the risk and effort because it prevents a lot of future payload based attacks on the network that incite mainstream outrage, and they are risks we don’t need to take.
I’m willing to believe the analysis I read that (to date) there were no valid monetary use cases that used the disabled op code, so they’re not preventing anything monetary going forward (and old transactions are grandfathered in). Even the new BIP-110 compliant ordinals embedding approach could be blocked without preventing new monetary code from embedding its (small) payload in OP_RETURN instead of non-executable script.

2026-07-07 20:17:12 CEST

- reply

The “money” part. Spam is not a monetary use case.
Mitigating spam is not censoring “permissionless money”, it’s protecting the monetary use cases from the unnecessary costs and risks introduced by the spam.

2026-07-07 20:09:18 CEST

- reply

Plus - you know how science works right?
You need to disprove his claim by testing the DCA result for every possible starting date within the timeframe of his claim and showing that the ending balance was less than $1M. Choosing some random date and getting a result less than $1m doesn’t prove him wrong.
If you’ve already written code to calculate for that date range, just wrap it in a loop for credible start dates and also you need to allow him to cash out early so loop back from max end date to any prior end date and see if every iteration of the loop resulted in less than $1m.

2026-07-07 19:08:04 CEST

- reply

Thanks

2026-07-07 08:37:16 CEST

- reply

I think you could say the same about the folks on either side.
I was also hoping for a higher high. Did you notice that the ATH was a few days before Core v30 was released on Oct 10th despite intense opposition on all the various mailing lists and forums (and the same OP_RETURN change being rejected by the Core Dev community a couple of times over the previous few years)? Maybe be unhappy with whoever made that decision to make a contentious release of v30? I personally don’t think that was the main cause for the price drop, but rather that we were all wrong about the 4yr cycle being dead and the price drop after v30 was mostly a coincidence, and partly a lack of confidence in the long term success of Bitcoin because v30 legitimized spam and showed how a small number of devs could ignore the wishes of a large portion of the community and fears of how the Core/Knots fight could unfold.
Have you tried reading the BIP instead of listening to the trained seals? It’s a short read and not that radical.
Hodlonaut wrote some well researched articles showing governance issues within Core. They’re a little biased but worth reading too.
The Core press release in support of v30 is also worth reading - mainly because if you take a few minutes to think about it you can see flaws with most of their reasoning.

2026-07-07 07:00:35 CEST

- reply

I guess that invitation to speak at Bitcoin 2027 was more important than taking a stand against spam. Disappointing.

2026-07-07 05:24:27 CEST

- reply

Why so much hate for people who don’t want spam on the blockchain?

2026-07-07 05:13:09 CEST

- reply

Not by enough. Plus if it’s anything like the current economics where miners get paid and node runners store the data forever without getting paid - those incentives simply can’t work to reduce spam - that’s why a consensus change is needed to mitigate spam. The rules seem arbitrary because they’re trying still allow any legitimate monetary use case. Much simpler rules would be more effective at stopping spam but would also prevent some legitimate monetary use cases.

2026-07-07 00:22:49 CEST

- reply

I think there’s a difference between the puritans and the plebs who just want Bitcoin to be money. Privacy makes money better so it’s not against the monetary maximalist view.
Unfortunately the puritans are the only ones offering a path towards mitigating spam at the moment. IMO it’s fine to use what the puritans build now and move elsewhere later when there are more options to choose from.

2026-07-07 00:08:54 CEST

- reply

Can you please expand your explanation of group 5? Are you saying you don’t like the forced change (coercion) in BIP-110? And does group 5 rely on all participants doing the right thing for the money focus? That doesn’t seem to be happening for the past few years.

2026-07-06 23:28:45 CEST

- reply

Good for you to point this out for people reading the thread. Folks like Lopp already know Satoshi was against spam - they just want to mislead plebs because BIP-110 will start Bitcoin down a pro-money path that crushes their spammy businesses.

2026-07-06 06:34:36 CEST

- reply

Yep - been there. It’s awesome when it just works and sucks when it doesn’t.

2026-07-06 05:13:12 CEST

- reply

“BTC would only be kinda private if of a sudden no one would ever off-ramp again” there is still a privacy issue for on-chain transactions because let’s say you pay a friend for your share of dinner - they can easily look on-chain and see how much you had in that UTXO initially - and depending on how well you managed your UTXOs that might reveal more about your finances than you want. Lightning payments provide better privacy than on-chain transactions.

2026-07-06 04:37:14 CEST

- reply

The biggest problem is when it’s used excessively on crops people eat (they seriously drench some crops with glyphosate). Killing weeds on your driveway is not the problem. The “debate” in the scientific community seems a little silly to me. It was credibly identified as “probably” causing cancer back in 2015, and we can avoid the risk through organic food. I suspect that at least some of the “scientists” who think the evidence is insufficient are probably on the payroll one way or another:
https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/

2026-07-06 03:54:43 CEST

- reply

And they provided the line of code for how to filter ordinals in the next iteration of spam mitigation. You can see that it’s only one line of code needed - right? That’s not a big effort. Spam mitigation must be an ongoing effort - no sane person expects it to be a one and done. Eventually VCs will get too scared to fund spammers, the corners where spam can live get smaller and smaller and spammers grow tired of needing to constantly evolve their protocols. Ideally they eventually choose the easier path of moving their spamming to Ethereum where it is welcome.

2026-07-04 23:45:14 CEST

- reply

Appeals to authority are irrational arguments that Bitcoiners should not listen to. I am a professional software engineer with decades more experience than most of the Bitcoin Core devs. I reviewed the code in Knots that mitigates spam and was appalled at how simple it is to mitigate spam and Core’s unwillingness to fight spam because they would need to add a few lines of code to each release as spammers evolve over time. That’s when I moved from Core to Knots. Wake up Bitcoiners - many of these so-called Bitcoin devs don’t own much Bitcoin so if they destroy Bitcoin it doesn’t matter much to them. I was blown away when Jeff Booth said he’s spent time with Gloria and likes her as a person but that she held no Bitcoin.
I also did my due diligence before moving to Knots+BIP-110.

2026-07-04 01:27:16 CEST

- reply

False dichotomy. It can be distilled down to should we remain continuously vigilant against non-financial use cases, or just let spammers slowly destroy Bitcoin even though they COULD just do their spamming on Ethereum where it’s welcomed.
The rules aren’t arbitrary - they are targeted at preventing non-financial uses of Bitcoin. We should add new rules periodically as necessary to keep Bitcoin focused on monetary use-cases and mitigate non-monetary use-cases. It’s actually not that difficult from a technical perspective (as you know) it’s more challenging to get the community/ecosystem to embrace the necessary mitigations.

2026-07-04 00:48:17 CEST

- reply

Slowly increasing adoption by nodes signaling BIP-110. Plebs are learning slowly. Ballpark 17% now: https://btcnodes.io/

2026-07-04 00:42:13 CEST

- reply

Two story Hillbilly stretch limo.

2026-07-04 00:38:36 CEST

- reply

Don’t forget to leave your front door wide open when you go to bed tonight. It doesn’t stop serious criminals so there’s no point closing it. Plus, to prevent them doing things in your house that you don’t like would be censorship.

2026-07-01 05:33:29 CEST

- reply

Yes - BIP-110 does change consensus. It tightens the rules and grandfathers in existing UTXOs so it’s a soft fork not a hard fork because any transaction/block that is BIP-110 compliant is also compliant with current consensus rules.
What BIP-110 does is essentially plug the gaps caused by Segwit/Taproot/Core v30/Libre Relay/Slipstream that have enabled spammers over the past few years.
It’s not a perfect solution but is a step in the right direction that buys us a year to figure out an even better long-term solution.
Please take a few minutes to read the BIP instead of listening to the echo chamber.
https://bip110.org
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki

2026-07-01 05:14:08 CEST

- reply

Inflation makes asset owners in the upper class become even wealthier without them needing to do anything. Some of the disparity is from the Cantillon effect where the Government gives money to those closest to power (typically very wealthy political donors). The rest of the disparity is caused by entrepreneurial risk taking that often advances society and is worth rewarding. So…. the solution is to stop printing money that inflates away the savings of the lower and middle class (who own few assets), and stop giving money and contracts to donors and their NGOs!!!!

2026-07-01 04:43:53 CEST

- reply

His claims are reasonable over that sort of timeframe - look at the chart of this analysis (turn off logarithmic display) and you can pick a timeframe where $30/day gets you close to $1m. This tool only permits monthly contributions - so daily contributions may have slightly better results than this portfolio tool shows.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=4IUsHuGgxEmu5cTpWzWy88

2026-07-01 04:19:15 CEST

- reply

I feel that way too. There’s been too many suits, shitcoiners, spammers, and stablecoiners over the past few years. Plus zero progress to get de-minimus capital gains tax exemptions so normies can use it for payments. I see the most influential people pushing for legislation that helps their specific company at the detriment of the overall Bitcoin purpose and community. Then there’s the prosecutions of open source developers and the dude who clearly wasn’t running Bitcoin fog. And we’re in a bear market so that doesn’t help morale either.

2026-07-01 04:06:09 CEST

- reply

Some BIP-110 people are a bit like Mormons. They ride their bicycle into your thread and ask if you’ve heard about the gospel according to Luke yet :)
I try to approach BIP-110 as a Bitcoiner rather than treating it as a religious or sporting event where you need to take a side.
It took me a long time to do enough work and code review to migrate from Core to Knots (because it’s heavily controlled by Luke), then even longer to run Knots + BIP-110 (because BIP-110 is not perfect and seems likely to fail - but is a step in the right direction and worth giving it a shot and at least sending a protest message).
I’m yet to meet someone who (1) sees Bitcoin as money, (2) has a strong technical background, (3) has done the work, (4) is not compromised by incentives/funding and (5) rejects BIP-110 on technical grounds.
Lack of doing the work is what kept me in the non BIP-110 camp until very recently.

2026-07-01 03:37:46 CEST

- reply

I don’t think reducing block size would do enough to mitigate spam, and it could unreasonably increase fees for financial transactions during busy periods. I was looking at some blocks today and saw giant inscriptions that had taken days to get into blocks because they paid very low fees and just waited in the mempool until there was less fee competition. So I can see why the approach seems appealing. I just think there will naturally be periods with lower demand for block space, and spam would still creep in then. Maybe someone’s figured out the statistics from looking on chain and has a more scientific view than mine.

2026-07-01 03:23:13 CEST

- reply

Normies will come for the NGU phase after this bear market.
I agree with you that this bear market feels worse than previous ones. Maybe it’s because we feel the absolute fiat drop (which is larger this time) more than the percentage drop (which so far is smaller this time).

2026-07-01 03:17:46 CEST

- reply

Try stepping back from all the personalities on both sides and ask yourself if you want to mitigate spam or ignore it until nodes are essentially centralized due to increased cost and legal burden.
I’d prefer it if Core decided to mitigate spam through a consensus change similar to BIP-110 that would more smoothly go into effect and reign in malicious short-term incentivized miners and spammers but the current influential Core devs are not interested in mitigating spam. I’ve spoken directly to some of the key Core devs and concluded their rationale is at best naive/flawed, and at worst compromised by the desire to remain aligned with the people who pay their salaries.

2026-07-01 02:34:55 CEST

- reply

Agreed.

2026-07-01 02:28:37 CEST

- reply

Startup time after upgrading to the latest version of Knots configured for BIP-110 was less than 20 seconds according to the logs. So no time-consuming re-indexing.

2026-07-01 01:59:38 CEST

- reply

BIP-110 was designed to allow Lightning to continue operating because Lightning is an application of Bitcoin as money, plus Lightning is a separate layer with its own nodes and economic incentives for Lightning node runners.
Spam is not an application of Bitcoin as money so that gets mitigated by BIP-110.
If spammers want to create their own node network to store the spam forever and just put hashes and timestamps proving who owns the amazing “art” on the Bitcoin blockchain, that would be BIP-110 compliant. Better yet - just use Ethereum where spam is welcome.

2026-06-29 06:01:12 CEST

- reply

There are rationales from Core, but they are misguided. One rationale goes like this:
(1) They want nodes to estimate fees better
(2) There are miners mining transactions with larger OP_RETURNS that nodes don’t relay so don’t see
(3) By making the filters closer to the consensus of what miners are currently mining (via Libre Relay or Slipstream), a node can estimate fees better.
The problem is that even with these changes you won’t see Slipstream transactions and even if those transactions start to propagate through the network instead of Slipstream and Libre Relay, each node will still have a slightly different mempool, so there is no perfect fee estimation. And monetary maximalists care more about spam than using their node to estimate fees a little better.
Another rationale is:
(1) Citrea needs 144 bytes
(2) If we increase OP_RETURN limits they will put their data there instead of UTXOs (spoiler alert - they didn’t stop using UTXOs)
(3) Core devs don’t want the hassle of justifying each increase as new use cases arise so lets blow OP_RETURN wide open now.
The problem is that data in OP_RETURN costs 4x more so spammers prefer embedding spam in witness data where they get the 75% segwit discount. And blowing OP_RETURN wide open will allow all sorts of use cases with unintended consequences - instead of considering each small increase cautiously.

2026-06-29 05:37:22 CEST

- reply

Preventing the opening of new lightning channels seems too extreme.

2026-06-29 05:29:11 CEST

- reply

The datacarriersize setting doesn’t mean the same in v30 as it used to.
“In v30, this same number and setting will now permit nine times more data than that same number would have allowed in v29 and prior versions.”
https://protos.com/three-sneaky-changes-in-bitcoin-core-v30-are-confusing-node-operators/

2026-06-28 16:18:46 CEST

- reply

Take a look at https://btcnodes.io/ every now and then: BIP-110 is now 17% of nodes and was 12% a couple of weeks ago. That data shows it is increasing in popularity. Also “this is how it works” because greedy spam miners are currently bypassing node filters but they also need nodes to validate blocks so if enough nodes start rejecting their blocks they will have an incentive to stop mining spam.

2026-06-28 07:11:58 CEST

- reply

3. Doesn’t need to be viewed as a conspiracy.
I personally don’t care WHY Core refused to add a few lines of code to each release to mitigate spam. I’ve talked to some of the key Core devs about it and their answers are lame (how do we know what’s spam? Slippery slope/Censorship/Can’t stop everything so no point trying/boring maintenance work/fees will solve this/etc…). At this point, I think we need a consensus change because Libre Relay and Slipstream are going to (maliciously) bypass node filters anyway, so even if Core didn’t blow open OP_RETURN, we would still have a problem.
It took me a long time to get comfortable enough to move from Core to Knots. I reviewed the policy source code of both and when I saw how trivially Knots identifies most current spam attacks (e.g. Runes always start with a value of 13 so that’s a single line of code to identify Runes) I really questioned why Core outright refused to mitigate spam, and update the code with a few more lines of code each release as spammers evolve to try to circumvent the filters. Especially since Luke and friends would be doing the work of updating those filters.
It then took me even longer to move from Knots to Knots+BIP-110 because it seemed destined to fail.
I don’t love Knots or BIP-110, but it’s a step in the right direction and buys us a year to find a better solution to spam. Core has zero interest in solving the spam problem.
If BIP-110 fails (which seems likely to me) that just means another year or two of spam on chain before we collectively decide to do something about spam.
I’ve been very disappointed with the ad-hominem attacks from both sides, the propaganda, the bad-faith pseudo-technical arguments, and the lack of interest in solving the problem of spam.

2026-06-28 06:38:09 CEST

- reply

The game theory is going to be interesting if the number of nodes signaling BIP-110 continues increasing. It was 12% about a week ago and today it’s 16%. If I was a miner, I’d want to avoid the potential chaos and would just stop mining spam and take the 10% revenue hit (at least in the near-term) until everything settles down.

2026-06-28 06:19:18 CEST

- reply

To answer your questions - yes that’s all a problem for BIP-110. Why you’re gloating about that says a lot about how much you care about Bitcoin as money.

2026-06-28 06:15:27 CEST

- reply

I’m not sure why you decided to be so anti BIP-110. If you take the time to understand it, all it does is mitigate currently known spam attacks and buy us a year to find a better solution to spam.
Are you an ordinals-maxi?
Do you own any bitcoin? Because if you do, you should care about the problems spam causes for the ecosystem.

2026-06-28 05:16:21 CEST

- reply

Can you please state your opinions on spam mitigation? Your profile suggests you are quite technical but so far all your comments have been pseudo-technical but vague and to a naive reader would suggest that Knots or BIP-110 are somehow scary or difficult. Neither of which are true.
It’s reasonable for you to be pro-non-financial use cases on Bitcoin that monetary maximalists would call “spam”. Please just say that if that’s your perspective. If you’re not interested in an open dialogue of ideas, I can save a lot of my time by moving on and leaving you with your existing opinions.

2026-06-27 21:07:56 CEST

- reply

Miner signaling for BIP-110 is less than 1%. If the BIP-110 advocates had lots of money they would rent hashrate to increase that number.
More importantly, this question of bots and sybil attacks is just noise. Everyone should focus on the actual issues.
(1) do you want Bitcoin to succeed as money or provide free storage for spammers until it’s so expensive to run a node that it becomes as centralized as mining is?
(2) are you happy with the incentives/governance of the current Core devs and their refusal to mitigate spam over the past few years?
(3) if you want spam mitigated, then we’re going to need some consensus changes (like BIP-110 proposes) because Libre Relay and Slipstream deliberately bypass node filters.

2026-06-27 20:47:29 CEST

- reply

Are you running an older version of Core or one of the newest versions with the OP_RETURN changes?
Also curious about your views on spam.
I was uneasy about moving from Core to Knots initially - then I reviewed the Knots policy source code and saw how a few lines of code per spam attack vector is enough to filter it which made me seriously question why Core had refused to mitigate spam or accept Luke’s filters for years (my conclusion is that the main Core devs are passionate about Bitcoin but not monetary maximalists and fine with any use case that existing consensus rules allow). I don’t like all the unnecessary stylistic changes Knots makes to Core source code because it makes comparing differences time consuming, but I got comfortable with it. I would prefer if it was a minimal patch that I apply to Core source code.
It took me a very long time to decide to run Knots with BIP-110. I eventually decided that to stop Libre Relay and Slipstream (and similar) spam threats, we need to change consensus rules because they deliberately bypass node filters. Even if BIP-110 fails, I think we should try as a community.
I’m an “almost” monetary maximalist. Open timestamps, and other minimal data payload use cases are fine with me. I would even be ok with OP_RETURN allowing a small payload of say150 bytes to support use cases like Citrea - even though I’m not a fan of Citrea.
I’ve been really disappointed with all the ad-hominem attacks from both sides. It’s a distraction from the key issues in my opinion.

2026-06-27 20:18:07 CEST

- reply

Definitely BIP-110 not BIP-119. Stopped old Knots version and started new Knots version configured for BIP-110.

2026-06-27 19:22:02 CEST

- reply

Yes - you are correct about the version. It’s the latest version of Knots and it’s configured for BIP-110. Upgraded from an older version of Knots. For me the upgrade was quick and easy. Not sure if re-indexing was required - didn’t pay that much attention to startup time.

2026-06-27 08:03:23 CEST

- reply

It’s not just the recent OP_RETURN changes that are problematic. It’s also the lack of action over the past few years to mitigate spam as it grew. Outright rejecting code Luke offered them to mitigate spam (code that is now in Knots).
If we assume there will always be bad actors like Libre relay and MARA slipstream that completely bypass node filters policy, then a consensus rule change is the only way to mitigate spam.
It would be awesome if Core proposed consensus rule changes that will meaningfully mitigate existing known spam attacks. In the absence of that, BIP-110 is a good enough step in the right direction that buys us a year to find an even better next step.

2026-06-27 07:42:06 CEST

- reply

“They responded to the change” - factually a correct statement, but they responded POORLY to the change is a more honest assessment.
Their response to increasing UTXO spam plus Libre relay and slipstream bypassing node filters was like if someone breaks into your house and steals your TV, so you respond by removing your front door rather than improving your security. Then tell your neighbors that locking your front door would be a form of censorship because criminals should be free to use your house any way they want and adding a dead-bolt is a slippery slope towards government mandated home security policies. And for bonus points - claim that upgrading your security periodically will in no way deter criminals because they can figure out new ways to break in, and that no matter how much you secure your home, a seasoned expert burglar can still break in, so there’s no point even trying to be secure.

2026-06-27 07:15:51 CEST

- reply

Very well said!
I’m pro BIP-110 but wouldn’t throw all Core devs under the bus because every one I’ve met seems committed to the success of Bitcoin. I think the OP_RETURN mistake was a few developers and a governance/incentives problem. I even think the people involved were probably well intentioned, just misguided and perhaps as you pointed out misaligned with the monetary maximalist view of Bitcoin.

2026-06-27 06:16:48 CEST

- reply

I think it’s even less. 12.5% is in the ballpark of the number of nodes that signal for BIP-110 (it’s now increased to around 16%), but the number of mined blocks signaling for BIP-110 is less than 1%.
https://bip110.org/monitor
https://btcnodes.io/

2026-06-27 06:03:21 CEST

- reply

Can you please explain? Are these filters that add minerals back into the purified RO water? If so, that’s what I’m planning to add. Is there a particular filter you recommend?

2026-06-27 05:23:19 CEST

- reply

Yes - I’ve spoken directly with Antoine and his rationale is based on the assumption that consensus can’t be changed. BIP-110 will change consensus to mitigate a lot of the current spam approaches. So it’s a better solution (if it gets adopted) than Antoine’s. Also, his approach was reckless because his immediate goal was to provide enough space for Citrea to store there data in OP_RETURN instead of UTXOs and he could have achieved that by conservatively increasing the size to something like 128 bytes (I don’t remember the exact number). He didn’t want to have to justify further increases for other use cases in the future so decided to blow the limit wide open which was reckless because it’s difficult to estimate unintended consequences, so a conservative approach is safer.