<unnamed>

Public Key

npub10lrzse62vddqwsscqcmjurmhtxh545zf6q7ez9q25ddlc7p7saeqems9ug

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs8l33gva9xxks8ggvqvdewpam4nt626pyaq0v3zs92xklu0qlgwuspr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgvwaen5te0dehhxtnvdakqzrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqskt27x

Publishing to

nostr.bitcoiner.social

relay.primal.net

nos.lol

Last Notes

2026-09-11 15:33:59 UTC

- reply

I agree with that sentiment of HODL in BTC and spend in XMR. Also agree that adoption of XMR is still too low compared to BTC for tipping etc… so LN is the more practical option.
I read somewhere that the chain analysis firms continuously probe Lightning nodes for their liquidity in an effort to track how funds move.
I would expect that increasing the time between on chain to Lightning swaps and the subsequent transactions would make that sort of tracking more difficult. As would using fragmented amounts, and sending differing rather than consistent amounts in swaps. Parking some in XMR for a while could also make it difficult to follow the transaction. And sticking to amounts that are common rather than very large/small amounts also probably makes tracking more difficult. A trustworthy VPN (most are probably honey pots), TOR, or tunnel would be essential to hide your IP from any node your wallet talks to. It shouldn’t be this much work to have privacy, but that’s how things are!
I’ve been following the free state project for a few years - they are an interesting experiment in libertarianism. The “Free Keene” crowd have a bunch of entertaining videos from their antics if you haven’t seen that already.

2026-09-10 22:49:22 UTC

- 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.

2026-09-10 22:28:21 UTC

- 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It appears they stole the unpublished work of a mathematician who was using their tools: https://decrypt.co/resources/openai-solved-1m-math-problem-rival-mathematician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 21:33:13 UTC

- reply

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

2026-09-10 09:45:24 UTC

- reply

It’s an alien life form

2026-09-10 05:27:05 UTC

- 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 05:06:13 UTC

- 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 04:50:40 UTC

- reply

Disclosure day.

2026-09-10 04:48:32 UTC

- 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 02:28:42 UTC

- 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 01:21:24 UTC

- reply

Also agree that multi-sig is better suited for collaborative custody.
You can also do some collaborative custody (e.g. 2 of 2) with single-sig if you’re willing to take the risk of one of the partial key holders guessing the rest of the key.

2026-09-09 01:16:22 UTC

- reply

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

2026-09-09 01:03:50 UTC

- reply

Coldcard software was also open source. That’s not some magic fix for security.
The code needs to be actively reviewed by experts who are incentivized to do that, and ideally used by other development teams that also review it. Kind of like the Linux kernel source code gets used, reviewed and attacked and patched constantly.

2026-09-07 20:08:40 UTC

- 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 18:45:03 UTC

- reply

Na na na na na na na na, na na na na na na na na, Batman!

2026-09-07 13:15:41 UTC

- reply

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

2026-09-07 05:15:24 UTC

- reply

You mean the Jade from Blockstream that was just hacked for 4000 BTC on their Liquid network (where they froze all transactions in and out) because they’re larping at security?

2026-09-07 04:46:22 UTC

- reply

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

2026-09-07 04:42:35 UTC

- reply

It’s for the competitors at athletic events.

2026-09-07 04:35:14 UTC

- reply

I approve this message.

2026-09-07 04:34:22 UTC

- reply

Also - you typically scan a QR code so have no advance knowledge of what the web page will be. It could even be malware if someone placed malicious QR code stickers on the table.

2026-09-07 04:31:52 UTC

- reply

Props to the person who left the parking garage because it required an app. I’m still in favor of doing that - but don’t always have the time and energy to do that myself.

2026-09-07 04:30:11 UTC

- reply

Except they don’t hear it in cases like this and it doesn’t change.
I think the dystopian surveillance state is already here and not getting rolled back in my lifetime.
That means we need a parallel system that allows some semblance of privacy while still participating in clown world where we need to.
For example, I use a credit card to book airplane tickets because there is no privacy when going through an airport.
I use cash at the farmers market and wherever else I can to keep cash alive and circulating.
I used to try to get businesses and service providers to accept bitcoin but not anymore because I’m tired boss.

2026-09-07 04:03:59 UTC

- reply

Already happening in some countries: https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/unlikely-to-reverse-australia-still-on-track-to-becoming-a-cashless-society/news-story/627ed8c7f072b2b86c218b170bbbe7dd

2026-09-07 03:57:06 UTC

- reply

Sounds like Blake2b Bitcoin.

2026-09-07 03:49:24 UTC

- reply

Yeah - I don’t know any developer who has ever made that sort of inexcusable mistake with #define and #ifdef. And the co-founder who made the mistake had many years of experience, so it seems very unlikely they would make such a rookie mistake.

2026-09-07 03:44:07 UTC

- reply

Probably true.
Bitcoiners who’ve been around for a while don’t trust exchanges, ETFs, hot wallets, single-sig setups, Bitcoin backed loans, Liquid, VPNs, Bitcoin Treasury Companies, Podcasters, KYC or entropy generation on device.
All based on lived experience (apart from ETFs - but they’re at least as vulnerable as the exchanges and most ETFs keep their BTC with Coinbase).
Normies don’t have that context so choose convenience over secure self-custody.

2026-09-07 02:22:39 UTC

- reply

NVK has no shame.

2026-09-07 02:16:55 UTC

- reply

Very cool innovation.
I can see this being useful for some people and definitely for relay to relay communication.
The main limitation I can think of is if someone wants to prevent their ISP from knowing they are using NOSTR, they can’t use this (because they can’t spoof the source IP in a way that fools their ISP, and the destination IP reveals they are communicating with a NOSTR relay).
So if someone wants to hide their use of NOSTR from their ISP, they will need to use a VPN or custom tunnel etc…

2026-09-05 23:59:11 UTC

- reply

Glad to see you so positive and up-beat!

2026-09-05 23:32:05 UTC

- 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/

2026-09-05 22:39:09 UTC

- reply

Starlink mini has been awesome for me. Portable, low power, reasonable latency and high enough speed - usually at least 300Mbps.
I don’t think fiber to the home was ever viable in rural Australia because of the long distances and low density of the population. Maybe fiber to each town center and 5G, microwave or ADSL from there to the home?
What do you use at the moment?

2026-09-04 19:00:54 UTC

- reply

https://simpleflying.com/airships-in-development-list/

2026-09-03 05:47:03 UTC

- reply

https://discoverchinaguide.com/what-problems-affect-china-today/

2026-09-01 14:58:10 UTC

- 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 19:28:44 UTC

- 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 19:27:58 UTC

- 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 18:36:02 UTC

- reply

Umbrellas

2026-08-28 18:29:26 UTC

- reply

Box for mining rigs to be used as heaters.

2026-08-26 00:20:56 UTC

- reply

I think you’re oversimplifying how things played out.
The biggest problem I see from all this is that a relatively small group of influential people subverted a low risk BIP that was fairly well supported by thousands of node runners (almost 20%), and demonstrated that Bitcoin is in reality not decentralized because it would only take about half a dozen people to coordinate for (1) Core to ship a future soft-fork consensus change and (2) mining pools controlling more than 50% of the hash rate to signal support for it.
The main reason why I think there was coordination is that the lowest risk path for miners and mining pools was to allow BIP-110 to succeed but what we saw was absolutely none signaling for it besides Ocean.

2026-08-25 23:33:01 UTC

- 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

2026-08-25 23:02:02 UTC

- reply

Yes you can - the part I worry about is if everyone can backup a multisig configuration correctly because it’s more than just the seed phrases of each wallet.

2026-08-25 02:15:50 UTC

- reply

Global gold standard for international settlement incoming in 3,2,1…

2026-08-25 02:14:46 UTC

- reply

I wonder if the US threats to Switzerland are an attempt to make it harder for foreign central banks to buy gold from Switzerland.

2026-08-25 02:13:28 UTC

- reply

I didn’t expect the govt to accelerate the downfall of the petro dollar. That surprised me.

2026-08-25 01:51:25 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin sold can (obviously) be replaced - you exchange some fiat you earn for more Bitcoin.
In El Salvador, there’s no cap-gains on Bitcoin. Even where there are taxes, some people don’t KYC and don’t pay cap gains taxes.
It’s not the same situation for everyone.

2026-08-25 01:46:39 UTC

- reply

Strike app allows you to pay in Bitcoin from your USD balance. That avoids having a cap gain event, and allows you to encourage merchants to accept Bitcoin by spending Bitcoin with them.

2026-08-25 01:32:29 UTC

- reply

CBDCs are digital so also can’t work during a power outage but governments will embrace CBDCs anyway.

2026-08-25 01:30:45 UTC

- reply

Governments are trying to move money to be digital, and many businesses no longer accept cash.
Bitcoin is more robust than other centralized digital currencies or payment networks because there are miners and nodes all over the world that record and confirm the ledger of transactions, so it would take a worldwide power outage to (temporarily) stop the Bitcoin network.
Visa and Mastercard used to have physical machines that allowed merchants to imprint your raised card number on a paper slip. This was useful for power outages, but is apparently rare nowadays.
https://nexxtap.com/blog/how-to-prepare-for-cyclone-alfred-keeping-payments-moving-when-power-is-down

2026-08-25 01:17:26 UTC

- reply

Some people go hardcore downloading the blockchain from blockstreams satellite and broadcasting transactions via mesh networks HAM radio and satellite uplinks. It is possible to use Bitcoin in a disaster but it’s not easy - physical cash is much simpler and more robust:
https://www.wired.com/story/cypherpunks-bitcoin-ham-radio/

2026-08-25 01:12:58 UTC

- reply

Depends on how extensive the power outage is.
(1) If your cell phone still has internet access via the cell towers or something like Starlink running on battery power, the Bitcoin wallet on your phone can still send and receive Bitcoin.
(2) You can ALWAYS receive on-chain Bitcoin from anyone who has a wallet and internet access even if you are offline, and will see the updated balance when you get online again.
(3) If it’s a massive grid outage where there is no access to the internet then (although there are some nuanced ways to transact - like satscards) - the more honest answer is that you can’t send Bitcoin without internet access because you can’t “broadcast” the transaction.
(4) There are some custodial services that allow people to transact by text messages on old flip-phones. That requires cell service text messaging but no internet access.

2026-08-25 00:37:23 UTC

- reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haka

2026-08-25 00:12:52 UTC

- reply

I can relate - people keep offering me fiat opportunities and I just don’t want to do that stuff anymore.
Maybe there are off grid people closer to your location who would appreciate an electrician hooking up or expanding their off grid solar? That might feel less fiat and bring in enough cash for your expenses?

2026-08-24 23:30:24 UTC

- reply

I’ve been there - I couldn’t use Bitcoin at the nicest coffee shop near the town square, the pupuseria, pharmacy, or to pay my driver. But, I could use it for accommodation, coffee, lunch & dinner at a bunch of places, and at least one of the grocery stores. The Bitcoiners who live there have onboarded many of the businesses they need to interact with in their day to day lives, and that nice coffee shop apparently does accept bitcoin now. It also seems like the locals are making more use of the Bitcoin Center to learn about Bitcoin.
I agree that it’s not a great place to visit - I preferred El Zonte and El Tunco. Even in Zonte, acceptance was patchy. The small store I went to in El Zonte only reluctantly accepted Bitcoin, and the hostel on the beachfront outright refused to accept Bitcoin. The pupuseria in Zonte was interesting - dirt floor, tarp roof, no running water, but a state of the art iPad to accept Bitcoin.

2026-08-24 02:32:24 UTC

- reply

Yep - 100% a PR exercise. Rob Hamilton freely admits that he’s not a developer, yet he’s running his own AI bots to find bugs and leading the Red Team efforts.

2026-08-24 02:18:56 UTC

- reply

Berlin (a town of about 20k people in the mountains of El Salvador) has around 200 of 600 merchants accepting bitcoin. That’s about twice as many merchants as El Zonte, and 1/3 as many merchants as the much larger capital of San Salvador.
There’s a small dedicated group of expats there who have convinced these businesses to accept bitcoin, so in that sense it’s “forced”, but does seem to have achieved local support and adoption.
Here’s an old story from when it was 150 merchants: https://www.coindesk.com/coindesk-news/2025/02/12/el-salvador-dispatch-berlin-the-bitcoin-marvel-hidden-in-the-mountains

2026-08-23 18:02:02 UTC

- reply

I can see the appeal of something like Tether Gold (XAUt) for people who already choose to trust gold ETF custodians and want to trade the gold price 24/7 with low fees and the ability to transfer the assets, or receive delivery of physical gold in Switzerland. Personally, it’s not for me, but I do see the appeal.

2026-08-12 15:17:14 UTC

- reply

I understand your opinion. Do you understand mine? Have you considered that there might be a greedy powerful cartel shaping Bitcoins future?

2026-08-12 06:36:35 UTC

- reply

I’ll be waiting until someone has credible receipts.
That way I don’t need to know if they’re batshit crazy or just highly motivated.
I do lean towards collusion as my default in this case. I acknowledge that I could be biased, but that’s just what I see the incentives, personalities and relationships likely leading to.
The idea that Samson wasn’t on the phone to miners to drum up support doesn’t seem realistic.
The idea that Saylor didn’t make a direct plea for miners to do what he thinks stabilizes things best also doesn’t seem likely.
Brian Armstrong and David (spam king) Bailey staying out of it also seems unlikely.
It smells like the NY agreement 2.0.
This was most likely a case of who can influence the miners enough based on relationships and reputation (and maybe coercion - Saylor had just flagged a large potential sale that might hurt miners).
They all have an axe to grind with Luke.
I didn’t see a lot of genuine discourse about the technical aspects of the BIP from those opposing it. E.g. “we need large op returns to support XYZ functionality”. It was mainly character attacks on Luke.
Maybe popularity, audience reach, reputation, relationships, and economic weight is a reasonable way to set consensus. If so, it doesn’t bode well for Bitcoin as money in the long term since many of the influential people want it to become Ethereum 2.0 to pump their bags.

2026-08-12 06:13:33 UTC

- reply

That could be a separate BIP. I’d support that.
It won’t stop spam as much as something more drastic like limiting the total size of the transaction to less than 1kb (which is fine for most financial transactions).
I think an OP_RETURN limit is the easiest to justify to most Bitcoiners.

2026-08-12 06:04:32 UTC

- 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 06:00:47 UTC

- 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 05:47:36 UTC

- reply

Yep

2026-08-12 05:27:43 UTC

- reply

I agree with you that it should ideally be “buyer beware” but newbies don’t know enough and believe what the influencers tell them - and then many get their life savings rugged. Thats simply unacceptable.
So the influencers (who are mostly non-technical) need to stop making claims they can’t justify and make it much clearer that the claims come from the company paying for the product placement.
I suspect Odell just learned this the hard way from his lawyers - and that’s why RHR is on pause. He’s probably been advised to shut his mouth about Coldcard and not comment publicly on other products in case it happens again with some other product in the future.
Imagine the court case cross examination. “How did you determine that Coldcard offered the best security in the business?”. “I have no qualifications to examine its security but I liked the vibe of how arrogantly confident NVK was”.

2026-08-12 05:13:14 UTC

- 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 04:53:45 UTC

- reply

Can you show me on this doll where Luke hurt you?

2026-08-12 04:32:48 UTC

- reply

Thuperthycle. 🐂 🚲

2026-08-12 04:27:36 UTC

- 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 04:02:08 UTC

- reply

Oh the foreshadowing that this was sung by “The Police”.

2026-08-12 03:59:33 UTC

- reply

Maybe it’s only strong enough for starting forest fires - like he said? Not a lot of forests in the desert.

2026-08-12 03:55:06 UTC

- reply

Is the SEC backing Luke’s new fork?

2026-08-12 03:17:26 UTC

- reply

Now do Odell.

2026-08-12 03:12:29 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin will continue to work for you just fine until big government regulates/coerces/tells big bitcoin’s mining department that you are persona-non-grata. Then your UTXOs will be frozen - just like already happens with millions of dollars worth of stable coins every day.
This weekend set the precedent (maybe BIP-148 set the precedent but we weren’t paying enough attention) - applying sufficient pressure to a very small number of people is enough to get the desired outcome. Intel agencies are expert at doing exactly this.

2026-08-11 23:32:05 UTC

- 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.

2026-08-11 23:18:58 UTC

- reply

Like most groups, BIP-110 had some people there for the cult, some following an influencer, and others who gave it a lot of thought.
It seems unwise to ignore the possibility that what we just saw was miner collusion rather than free-market game theory playing out.
From my perspective, BIP-110 was low risk and did very little to disrupt spam beyond closing the OP_RETURN vector that Core v30+ makes much easier to access anonymously. It made more economic sense for miners to support it and avoid alienating the 15% of monetary maximalist node runners. Nobody else needed to do anything, and probably 65% didn’t care about the outcome (the 60% of node runners who didn’t upgrade to Core v30, plus the 5% running Knots without BIP-110).
Without collusion, no single mining pool could have certainty they were not wasting money mining during the chain split.
We’re starting to see allegations of collusion now - let’s hope we get to the bottom of it because miner centralization seems to be a serious problem.

2026-08-11 23:01:07 UTC

- 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.

2026-08-11 22:39:20 UTC

- reply

It’s all theatre at this point. Degens are going to degen.

2026-08-11 20:44:45 UTC

- reply

Did you consider joining Core as someone who has a more mature perspective than the typical Core dev?

2026-08-11 20:38:55 UTC

- reply

There’s a few hostile people on NOSTR who I think would be just as hostile in person. In general though I think most would be less hostile face-to-face.

2026-08-11 20:36:15 UTC

- reply

Important point.

2026-08-11 19:57:54 UTC

- reply

Fair point - we should have multiple approaches.

2026-08-11 19:56:05 UTC

- reply

I see your point - I consider pool centralization, template generation centralization, geographic (jurisdiction) centralization and hash rate centralization as slightly different but related problems that I bundle together as “miner centralization”.
Also, our community seems to unfortunately be overrun by NPCs who are unlikely to be opinionated enough to switch pools, so even if there was sufficient diversification of hashing (which is not as concentrated as pools), the pools would still be a problem. A slow incremental Fabian-style attack could make the changes small enough each time to not trigger many hashers to leave the pool.

2026-08-11 14:32:18 UTC

- reply

Here’s my current proposal for what we can do about spam that hopefully achieves greater support than BIP-110.
Option 1: a permanent soft fork to limit only OP_RETURN and absolutely nothing else. This is a direct response to Core v30.
Option 2: a tiny patch to Core (a few lines of code that are trivial to code review - not the massive changes Knots contains) that intercepts transactions as they are received from peers and aggressively filters out spam by silently dropping transactions before the node software even sees them using a standalone service running locally (or could be a library that can be updated independently of bitcoind). My current preference is a local stand-alone service so node runners can get comfortable setting it to auto-update as often as necessary to mitigate spam via policy. Lots of options that node runners can tweak to their preference plus a couple of very easy default options that range from filtering spam WAY more aggressively than even BIP-110 did, all the way down to filtering like Knots does.

2026-08-11 14:20:01 UTC

- reply

I wish you luck, and I hope I’m wrong about your likelihood of success.
I don’t think this fork will end well.
After the BIP-110 failure (predominantly due to miner centralization IMO), I switched from BIP-110 to an old version of Knots. My focus is now on what we can do as a community to fix miner centralization on the main chain.
I guess you’ve reached the conclusion that firing the miners is the right solution, but you will likely only have a small subset of the BIP-110 supporters (who were only about 15% of Bitcoiners) following you. That might be as small as 1% or 2% of Bitcoiners, and that’s probably not going to have enough critical mass to compete.
When Bitcoin started, it had no juggernaut to compete with in the space. So it would be naive to see this fork as starting over in a purer way. It will need to compete with the main chain of BTC that all the suitcoiners, influencers, centralized exchanges, VCs, miners and normies support. It will also need to compete with cryptos like Monero and Ethereum.

2026-08-11 14:02:38 UTC

- reply

I don’t think Bitcoiners generally believe that money is the “sole” problem in the world - just that it’s a root cause for many of the problems. The phrase “fix the money, fix the world” is an oversimplification, but it’s a catchy phrase that Bitcoiner podcasters like to use.

2026-08-11 13:57:59 UTC

- reply

Another reason why the poorest are affected most by money printing and inflation is that they save using the local currency that is being debased through inflation whereas wealthier people put at least some of their savings in stocks, commodities and property.

2026-08-11 13:55:45 UTC

- reply

The point Bitcoiners make is that IF the government cannot print money (where most people don’t understand inflation or the Cantillon effect so have no clue how printing money affects them), then the people will more easily see how they are being taxed (because the government can’t hide its expenses via money printing), and the people will not tolerate an overly taxing inefficient government, which (in theory) puts pressure on the government to be less wasteful.
It applies the same to all forms of government by making it more obvious to people how much of their work and effort is being taken from them and redistributed by the government.
Socialism is not going to fix the underlying monetary problem of fiat currencies - it’s just a different form of large government that redirects the money to different well connected people and organizations.

2026-08-11 13:45:44 UTC

- reply

The Cantillon effect does explain why Bankers and CEOs get more money than workers. The newly minted money flows from central banks to private banks to companies (and their CEOs), to wealthy stock owners, then entrepreneurs (self employed - so can adjust prices quickly), then middle class (doctors/lawyers/managers etc.), and lastly to workers employed by companies. Might not explain everything, but does explain a lot:
https://river.com/learn/terms/c/cantillon-effect/

2026-08-10 22:57:12 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the link.

2026-08-10 22:38:20 UTC

- reply

I hope you’re right, but there are Bitcoiners who think “tail emissions” to reward miners are not inflationary.
https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary

2026-08-10 22:26:20 UTC

- reply

Maybe Bitcoin can follow XRP’s lead and name the default 35 unique node list (UNL) that does matter. Whatever 80% of those nodes agree on is the XRP definition of consensus.
It really saves a lot of time being wasted discussing things in the community when you and a couple of buddies can make the decision over a few beers and upgrade your UNL nodes in a coordinated way.
This gives the energy efficiency of the BlackRock database combined with the illusion of a distributed block chain ledger on a network where you can run a validator node.

2026-08-10 22:08:47 UTC

- reply

You could mine both and swap BTC for XMR if XMR is more accepted locally. I have not completely lost hope for BTC, despite the BIP-110 failure, but I am educating myself about XMR. Current plan is to gradually sell my BTC during the next bull run (assuming there will be one when the degens pump their bags).

2026-08-10 21:17:32 UTC

- reply

We need a lot more people mining Bitcoin like you are to decentralize mining. I hope you keep mining Bitcoin even if you adopt Monero.

2026-08-10 21:13:57 UTC

- reply

It looked like Foundry (and maybe others) paused mining until the outcome was clear, so if by some chance the first rejected block was superceded by another BIP-110 block, miners might have capitulated and adopted BIP-110.

2026-08-10 04:53:10 UTC

- reply

You’re missing the really big opportunity. There’s no need for a block chain. Just put all transactions on a centralized database at Blackrock. Then we can eliminate the environmental impact of mining.

2026-08-10 04:48:21 UTC

- reply

What Bitcoin needs is for NPCs to wake up and do some thinking. Far too many NPCs for Bitcoin to succeed. We need to change this.
I haven’t met a BIP-110 person who didn’t do the work to think about long-term outcomes for Bitcoin. Doesn’t mean they were right - but they did the work.
What disappoints me is the NPCs who did zero work to understand what was at stake and treated the BIP-110 issue as a sport where they could pick a team without doing any work or thinking.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

2026-08-10 04:28:47 UTC

- reply

Did you learn anything from this incident?
Perhaps it’s a bad thing that three people control over 50% of hash rate?
Yesterday they voted in the direction you agree with, but next time when they vote against you it’s too late to decide that it’s time to do something about the centralization problem.

2026-08-10 04:22:48 UTC

- reply

Good luck with that NPC approach in the future.
Miners are the main beneficiaries from “tail emissions” due to increasing the supply beyond 21M, plus they are generally short-term profit focused rather than long-term focused on what is best for Bitcoin.
I’m not saying it happens anytime soon, but don’t expect miners to vote against their short-term economic interests.
On the topic of BIP-110 failing, if you watched it closely, Foundry ceased mining waiting to see which chain would win. Miners don’t care about Bitcoin long-term because they may already have left Bitcoin for AI before the “long-term” happens.

2026-08-09 21:10:01 UTC

- reply

There’s a limited amount of effort focused on decentralization (e.g. Jimmy Song pushing for another node implementation, or stratum mining from Ocean).
Meanwhile “big bitcoin” is funding quantum security that’s probably irrelevant for another decade.

2026-08-09 21:05:40 UTC

- reply

We have a massive centralization problem in many dimensions and that needs to be addressed. That’s what I see.