<unnamed>

Public Key

npub10lrzse62vddqwsscqcmjurmhtxh545zf6q7ez9q25ddlc7p7saeqems9ug

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs8l33gva9xxks8ggvqvdewpam4nt626pyaq0v3zs92xklu0qlgwuspzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgkwaehxw309a3xjarrda5kuetj9eek7cmfv9kqz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7um5wghxuet5qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvr654ze

Publishing to

Last Notes

2026-09-11 01:19:49 CEST

- reply

You’re probably right that NVK is desperate to not lose Coinkite. I still like their Satscard, but that’s a novelty item that (hopefully) nobody puts much Bitcoin on.
Block clock is fairly harmless - although some people complain that it has problems with some WiFi routers that NVK is unwilling to admit and/or fix.
In the wake of this Coldcard hack a few of the Core devs mentioned that some Core devs had looked at the Coldcard source code and it had awful structure and coding, so they decided not to use Coldcards. If they had made a PSA about that it could have saved a lot of people, but I guess they wanted the OpenSats funds to keep flowing.
I don’t think there’s a ‘sure’ thing - I’m pretty happy with the Bitcoin only Trezor in terms of usability - would be better if it allowed dice rolls.

2026-09-11 01:03:16 CEST

- reply

Agreed.
All I meant was that he can’t go full Max Keiser in a WSJ article 😂

2026-09-11 00:49:22 CEST

- reply

I think “Basically anonymous” is a dangerous belief for people to have.
It’s very easy to accidentally leave a trail that de-anonymizes previously private on-chain transactions, and the chain analysis firms run lightning nodes in an effort to de-anonymize lightning.
The main purpose of Monero is to make privacy the default so it’s difficult to mess up your privacy. Bitcoin and Monero are both useful in my opinion.
I’m a BTC pleb - not a Monero bro.

2026-09-11 00:28:21 CEST

- reply

It appears they stole the unpublished work of a mathematician who was using their tools: https://decrypt.co/resources/openai-solved-1m-math-problem-rival-mathematician

2026-09-10 23:33:13 CEST

- reply

I suspect Alex was trying to not freak out the normies while broadening the Overton Window for typical WSJ readers.

2026-09-10 11:45:24 CEST

- reply

It’s an alien life form

2026-09-10 07:27:05 CEST

- reply

I think you’re probably correct that NVK knew but waited to see what would happen. There’s the RHR episode where Odell says NVK won’t tell him what the latest Coldcard update fixes but that people who used Odell’s approach (rolling some dice to add entropy) would be fine.
I can’t trust Coldcard or NVK again. What makes you think that this time around, they can be trusted? Is it misplaced brand loyalty because you like the products and really hope they are now secure because you want to keep using them?
You do you, but I’m never using Coldcard again.

2026-09-10 07:06:13 CEST

- reply

No way - NVK has always been arrogant and never listened to security researchers.
How would he suddenly reform this ingrained character flaw that’s part of his personality?
The Coldcard team is tiny and incapable of performing a proper security review. The “bug” was an inexcusable software mistake that even rookies don’t make, and any half decent peer review of the code before shipping it would have found it - except the same guy wrote the code and merged the code under 2 different usernames.
My Coldcard is now a museum piece and I will never trust them again. With 20:20 hindsight, there were so many red flags. I should never have trusted them in the first place.

2026-09-10 06:50:40 CEST

- reply

Disclosure day.

2026-09-10 06:48:32 CEST

- reply

I’m so tired of this account spreading misinformation to sell Jade hardware wallets. There is no issue with Trezor or Bitbox wallets. Trezor and Bitbox both announced it’s a phishing email from their 3rd party email provider. It comes from legit email addresses but is fake. Their email provider was hacked.
Don’t believe me (or anyone) - go to the legit websites for them and read their security advisories.

2026-09-10 04:28:42 CEST

- reply

You don’t need to tax other people to support your communist ideals - go to a commune and work with the others there to support yourselves. Even Libertarians will agree with your right to do that. The problem is when you want to tax others to fund your communist ideals.
What’s stopping you from doing it right now today?

2026-09-09 03:16:22 CEST

- reply

Fair point. Proper entropy single-sig is incredibly secure.
Backing up multi-sig is more complicated and easier to make a mistake.

2026-09-07 22:08:40 CEST

- reply

Never really considered the privacy implications of NIP-42 before. A bad actor can host a relay then store cryptographic evidence of exactly who downloaded exactly what content. That’s a privacy nightmare.

2026-09-07 15:15:41 CEST

- reply

Classic bureaucratic inefficiency. Telstra was always an inefficient (almost) monopoly.

2026-09-07 06:46:22 CEST

- reply

11 of 15 Coldcards 😂
https://help.blockstream.com/liquid-network/faqs/how-does-the-liquid-federations-multisig-work

2026-09-06 01:32:05 CEST

- reply

Glad to hear things are stable now. Not sure if it’s relevant in your case, but cat litter can contain a parasite that causes miscarriage so your girlfriend should not be the one cleaning out the cat litter box.
https://doctorguideonline.com/can-cats-cause-miscarriages/

2026-09-01 16:58:10 CEST

- reply

Like controversially uncapping OP_RETURN limits despite significant technical and non-technical objections… resulting in a loss of trust and fracturing of the Bitcoin community (most node runners stayed on older pre v30 versions and around 20% moved to Knots).
New alternative node versions and dev teams can’t arrive soon enough!

2026-08-28 21:28:44 CEST

- reply

Ignore the “put on some pants” crowd - “half-naked (maybe fully naked) dude walking through the desert” is your brand and it works!

2026-08-28 21:27:58 CEST

- reply

I enjoy listening to your questions and ideas. It would be nice if the video was better quality, but not essential.

2026-08-28 20:36:02 CEST

- reply

Umbrellas

2026-08-26 01:33:01 CEST

- reply

Park rangers have way more legal powers than you might expect. Here’s a crazy story by a seasoned hiker who couldn’t see the exact campsite in winter and was charged because he camped in the wrong spot: https://youtu.be/rCcXt6XZrdw

2026-08-12 08:04:32 CEST

- reply

Look at the effect of hyperinflation on the poorest in the societies where that happens. They don’t “save” but their “pay” loses value in the time it takes them to go to the store to spend it.

2026-08-12 08:00:47 CEST

- reply

They shouldn’t have given them the authority to create the funds out of thin air in the first place? Zero magic printer dollars to allocate means they won’t be misallocated.
Other funds are from depositors and they should be held in trust and not allocated.
Then there’s funds from shareholders - misallocate those funds too much and the shareholders sell their shares and invest elsewhere.
Soooo ultimately the business is accountable to its shareholders.
If you’re asking about whether the allocation is “moral” that’s a whole other problem to solve and nothing to do with Bitcoin.

2026-08-12 07:47:36 CEST

- reply

Yep

2026-08-12 07:13:14 CEST

- reply

Ocean mined blocks on both chains during the split because they allowed those pointing their hash to choose. That doesn’t seem captured.
Didn’t see anything like that amount of decentralization from any other pool.
What makes you think that regulated corporate mining pools (that need to do what the government tells them) aren’t already captured - or at the very least at risk of being easily captured?
I don’t know with certainty that what I saw over the weekend was collusion, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck!

2026-08-12 06:27:36 CEST

- reply

Yeah - Aruba is a desert island and it has the best water I’ve ever tasted. They have giant reverse osmosis plants and some are now even powered by wind energy.
https://apps.galaxys26userguide.com/

2026-08-12 05:17:26 CEST

- reply

Now do Odell.

2026-08-12 01:32:05 CEST

- reply

The “simpler” explanation is that every mining pool and significant miner (other than half of Ocean) disliked BIP-110, and thought it was good for their business to alienate the 15% of monetary maximalist node runners when nobody else needed to change their node software for everything to go smoothly?
All to avoid a low risk minor change to consensus that closes an obvious threat vector for Bitcoin via OP_RETURN and costs them less than 0.05% revenue from spammer fees?
I think “collusion” is the simpler explanation, because they needed to act in unison to avoid risks to profits during the chain split by rejecting the soft fork.
There are collusion allegations coming out now - let’s hope we get some insight into what really transpired.

2026-08-12 01:01:07 CEST

- reply

Around 20% of node runners are ok with spam and run Core v30+. Around 20% run Knots and the other 60% are sitting on the fence running old versions of Core.
If mining was adequately decentralized, the logical move was to support BIP-110’s small consensus changes that were relatively minor instead of alienating the 15% of monetary maximalist node runners signaling BIP-110. Everyone else could have continued to run their existing node software. This would not have been disruptive - even spammers would only have minor disruption although the OP_RETURN spam vector (that currently isn’t used much, but Core v30 makes much easier to access) would be closed.
What we saw was a clear demonstration of solidarity from miners (probably based on back-room collusion - there are allegations coming out now that seem credible) that shows how centralized and easily captured they are.
This is not good for Bitcoin because it shows it’s more centralized and hence easier to censor than we believed.
We should all care about miner centralization and who the people are who really control Bitcoin’s destiny.

2026-07-26 22:29:45 CEST

- reply

I still don’t understand the game theory and why you’re so confident the UASF approach works.
Is there a good summary of the rationale somewhere that I can read? I’ve heard mechanic explain it a few times, but I still don’t quite get it.
There’s a saying in trading that “the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent”. Why can’t miners, exchanges, and economically dominant nodes like those run by wallet providers also be irrational and not take the path of least resistance with the soft fork for BIP-110? Surely after several hours, the game theory is over and nobody’s going to disrupt them by signaling BIP-110 and have enough hash rate to re-org the chain and take back block rewards they thought they already earned (but were waiting 100 blocks to spend).

2026-07-25 23:57:58 CEST

- reply

💯 agree with you. I practice yoga almost every day and it’s great for the mind and body. Hatha, Yin, Vinyasa Flow, hot yoga - they’re all amazing in different ways.
Your approach to life is probably expanding a lot of Bitcoiners perspectives. A hard core Bitcoiner who mines with solar in the desert, runs BIP-110, did ayahuasca and then instantly quit the rat-race to wander the desert, while occasionally doing a bit of electrical work in the fiat mines, and loves yoga is wild.
If your next video is about how you went from Carnivore to Vegan, there will be some minds blown. 😂

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 07:58:39 CEST

- reply

Welcome. Even if it fails, I’m glad to be on the anti-spam side of this argument. We’re at something like 17% of nodes now. That’s up from around 12% a few weeks ago. Not sure the pace of adoption is rapid enough to win but the awakening of us common plebs is impressive.

2026-07-07 07:11:57 CEST

- reply

I completely agree. I follow a lot of people I disagree with and it helps me to avoid building my own echo chamber.

2026-07-07 07:02:46 CEST

- reply

Jimmy said nothing of substance because he can’t afford to upset the spammers who own the main Bitcoin conference that Jimmy speaks at every year.

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 05:08:08 CEST

- reply

That future sounds awesome!

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 07:13:28 CEST

- reply

My thought is that a farmer shouldn’t need to do tax gymnastics.

2026-07-06 06:34:36 CEST

- reply

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

2026-07-04 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.

2026-07-03 21:29:32 CEST

- reply

We need more of this sort of innovation. Even better if it can be with non-GMO crops and organic methods so the end product is healthy food.
I think indoor is an interesting innovation for some crops:
https://youtu.be/8sOEB2m0m9Y

2026-06-22 00:20:16 CEST

- reply

EVs are awesome to drive. Better acceleration than most supercars. You can remotely turn the climate control on to cool or heat the car before you get there without emitting deadly fumes. Much cheaper per mile than gasoline powered cars and almost zero maintenance needed. There’s downsides like the upfront cost and how clean or dirty the electricity in your home is. Federal subsidies are already gone in the US but people keep buying EVs because they like them. Thats product superiority in a free(ish) market.