Modus

Thorn did not ask people if they are worried, or if they are trimming their positions. His poll is totally orthogonal to this issue.
With regard to 'where they stand,' 18% are pro core and 36% are ambivalent or do not know where they stand. That's 54% of the group who have some awareness. I have spoken to OGs who trimmed their positions in BTC over concerns that this issue could lead to price volatility.
Sure, it may not be the main driver, but your reasons for discounting it are not compelling.

2025-11-10 18:34:30 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…k82y

2025-11-10 18:33:52 UTC

- reply

Real first name. It is a 100% dox.

2025-11-06 20:52:37 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/6592b0c4866b18a97071be4608663ed5c561f540d2c1d89f51b9b3ad755dfb29.gif

2025-11-06 17:37:15 UTC

- reply

Fiat games on Bitcoin. So hot right now.

2025-10-30 20:10:08 UTC

- reply

What's the deal with confiscation risk? Are coins gonna be frozen for a year?

2025-10-28 20:51:01 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…uf96 Look who was forced onto a more censorship resistant platform. (Many such cases.)

2025-10-21 22:19:03 UTC

- reply

Was there ever a video posted of that talk you gave?

2025-10-17 20:11:26 UTC

- reply

#knots
#nevent1q…np9m

2025-10-17 18:37:56 UTC

- reply

"Knots could be one of those alternatives if Luke was more open to making it not just a Luke project."
If @nprofile…rp72 did that then it could contribute to centralization of Bitcoin development.
It's good that knots is "just a Luke project" because we need more than two popular implementations, and I think Luke is setting an example that more devs need to express their opinions in open source code.

2025-10-15 06:13:07 UTC

- reply

A baby is pretty NPC ish. A half-built car doesn't drive. Things that are developing don't stay the same forever.

2025-10-15 05:47:13 UTC

- reply

I was referring to playing Russian Roulette, usually done with a revolver that holds 6 bullets. What the exact odds are for AI disaster, I do not know. But even if the odds are small, it's still a big deal.

2025-10-14 20:57:55 UTC

- reply

You added soooo many things in this new post.
Anyway, I disagree. I think human action is a type of action, animal action is a different type, and AI action is (or will be) even more different. It may not have consciousness, or be able to own things (although in some sense they will be able to exclusively control some Bitcoin, so maybe that is a type of ownership). But I don't think an entity needs consciousness or ownership in order to act.
To further discussion, what if we agree to disagree regarding action and instead talk about whether it can "do stuff". Do you think it can do stuff?

2025-10-14 20:15:56 UTC

- reply

So you're just asserting AI can't act, and the definition is not related to any argument supporting your assertion? That's fine if that's the case, I'm just wondering why you think an AI can't act.

2025-10-14 20:02:16 UTC

- reply

Setting aside the theological section, which part of your post is the part that AI will never be able to do? To me, they all look like something that an AI could develop some ability to do (albeit very weirdly).

2025-10-14 18:04:26 UTC

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/10/jack-clark-on-ai.html
Co-founder of Anthropic:
And the bigger and more complicated you make these systems, the more they seem to display awareness that they are things...
…I am also deeply afraid. It would be extraordinarily arrogant to think working with a technology like this would be easy or simple...
My own experience is that as these AI systems get smarter and smarter, they develop more and more complicated goals. When these goals aren’t absolutely aligned with both our preferences and the right context, the AI systems will behave strangely.
...the system which is now beginning to design its successor is also increasingly self-aware and therefore will surely eventually be prone to thinking, independently of us, about how it might want to be designed.
#AI

2025-10-13 17:50:36 UTC

- reply

#Knots Is signed by 3 devs. It's a myth that Luke is the only dev. It's true that he is the only maintainer, but open source software can always be copied by other devs - so typically only one maintainer is needed. If the maintainer is a tyrant, the others will fork the project.
#nevent1q…pvsp

2025-10-13 16:49:28 UTC

- reply

I decided to remove the word "directly" from my initial definition, to make it more up to the reader.

2025-10-13 16:45:52 UTC

- reply

I debated exactly how I wanted to include the last part, about relaying and filtering. Technically it is involved economically, but in an indirect way. The "economic node" thing has been used to argue against filter supporters, and I don't think that's a good argument. However, I decided not to put my opinion about that in my original post. It's actually kind of up to you how you interpret the economic contribution of a node that is only relaying and filtering.

2025-10-13 16:28:09 UTC

Some people have asked me recently: What is an "economic node?" It's a #Bitcoin #node that is directly involved in a monetary transaction. Here are four ways that a node can be directly involved in a transaction:
1. Creating a transaction. This is often called "transaction coordination." You need to know if you've got money in your wallet before you can send.
2. Broadcasting the transaction to the bitcoin network. (You can add some privacy by doing this with your own node.)
3. Verifying that you actually received funds. For the average bitcoin user, this is by far the most important thing you can do with your node. If you rely on others to tell if you received anything, they could trick you.
4. Mining. Miners need to see the previous blocks, and if they want to earn fees then they need to see the pool of new transactions (AKA mempool).
A node can also be indirectly involved in a transaction by distributing new transactions to other nodes, and filtering out bad transactions. This filtering is the main issue between #core v30 and #knots.

2025-10-10 17:43:06 UTC

- reply

Ouija board

2025-10-09 16:32:45 UTC

- reply

It varies between different node distributions. @nprofile…d6j2 will give you the choice. I don't know about the others, but I think most nodes should give you some way to choose.

2025-10-09 16:28:31 UTC

- reply

There are lots of people involved, so different factors are probably affecting different people:
1. Ego.
2. The core maintainers feel like they have power, because they control what can go into the most important Bitcoin software. If they have to listen to other peoples' input, it diminishes their feeling of power.
3. Possibly because they are compromised. (If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.) Maybe they're compromised by gov/bankers, maybe by shitcoiner money, maybe both. I think it's both. (Shitcoinery is probably an attack by gov/bankers, so it's the same thing.)
4. They believe they are technically correct, and they cannot understand factors outside of their deeply well-informed technical opinions: #nevent1q…9xh5

2025-10-09 16:16:17 UTC

- reply

The (supposed) benefits of running v30, as best I can tell:
-V30 removes a mempool filter. The network would just route around the filter, so it's (supposedly) pointless.
-You get better fee estimation on your node.
-Your node would use more bandwidth if you're not running v30. (I think because it's re-downloading the same transactions which you rejected already?)
-Your mempool will better match what is allowed to go into blocks. (This is held up as a good reason, but I do not agree. If you can't figure out why this matters, it's because it doesn't.)
-It "encourages" spammers to put their crud in a place that won't pollute the utxo set. Making the utxo set too large can impede node running in the long run. (The encouragement is weak because it's still cheaper to contribute polluting the utxo set.)
Overall I think none of these reasons are good enough to go ahead with the change. I may have missed something; this list isn't perfect.
The attached article explains the debate in general, partly answers your question, and links to a detailed post that answers your question in depth (where it says "nuanced detriments").
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-core-or-bitcoin-knots-what-the-op_return-debate-is-actually-about

2025-10-08 22:56:34 UTC

- reply

He will get flooded with midwit responses. Fiat economists are the most erudite midwits in the world.

2025-10-08 22:52:08 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…qddd

2025-10-08 16:40:14 UTC

Really good software devs can become arrogant. If they're totally confident that they are technically correct, then they can become cemented into their beliefs. However, because they're geeks, they can struggle with interpersonal things: they can't read the room, they can't handle debates gracefully, they can't tell when they are being manipulated by bad actors, and they can't understand the incentives of regular people like plebs, node runners, miners, investors, journalists, lawyers, and "normies" who just discovered bitcoin.
So if some of you think "I'm not technical enough to understand this debate," that's not totally right. Because you can understand PEOPLE better than core devs, and that's a big part of the equation. If core is gonna act all weird about this, silence debate, and ignore dire warnings from people like Nick Szabo and Luke Jr, then something is wrong. This is how an 80 IQ pleb can see the problem more easily than a 120 IQ blue-haired San Francisco core developer.

2025-10-04 20:19:06 UTC

- reply

F2pool has started mining large op_returns. They're probably running v30. So maybe Bitcoin did begin to die yesterday.

2025-10-02 01:39:48 UTC

- reply

Satoshi was not the best coder, but he was an amazing "Bitcoin architect," applying knowledge from other disciplines. I think in the future, Bitcoin development needs a formal process to get input from non-coders who understand economics, law, etc.
#nevent1q…v2th

2025-10-01 04:52:42 UTC

- reply

2025-09-30 17:58:12 UTC

- reply

Nuts

2025-09-30 14:22:33 UTC

- reply

And yes, she is a very important core dev. She's a maintainer. One of the 6 most powerful core devs.

2025-09-30 02:02:02 UTC

- reply

Dang I created the formula wrong. I think it should be 2025 minus year you bought

2025-09-29 23:31:54 UTC

How to figure out your #Bitcoin IQ:
((Year you bought - 2009)*7)±100
You choose plus or minus based on honest self assessment, but you gain higher social status the farther you are from 100, in either direction.

2025-09-29 19:44:06 UTC

- reply

Ok, man. I guess we'll see what happens when v30 comes out, man.

2025-09-29 19:22:40 UTC

- reply

I guess my argument from authority didn't work

2025-09-29 19:03:48 UTC

- reply

Szabo has a degree in computer science and a degree in law. He says:
"illegal content in a contiguous standard format, thus readily viewable by standard software, is more likely to impress lawyers, judges, and jurors, and thus is legally more risky, than data that has been broken up or hidden and thus requires specialized software to reconstruct. Such demos would be part of convincing these legal decision-makers that a defendant node operator had knowledge of the content."
https://x.com/NickSzabo4/status/1972505731095306459
And remember, this issue is not 100% technical and cannot be fully understood using technical arguments only.

2025-09-29 14:54:16 UTC

- reply

They need a way to describe higher levels of spiciness. A lot of people can't handle legit spice action. They don't want to ambush regular people with brutal intensity.

2025-09-29 14:50:21 UTC

- reply

lol

2025-09-29 14:09:27 UTC

- reply

Not all one liners are the same.

2025-09-28 17:26:43 UTC

- reply

Oh, my nostr client didn't show me the content nesting properly. I thought you were responding to OP

2025-09-28 17:14:58 UTC

- reply

It's from 2015. I think OP is just sharing the point that Szabo made.

2025-09-28 15:49:34 UTC

- reply

They're gonna build a prison

2025-09-23 19:18:39 UTC

- reply

"It doesn't really matter if the data is contiguous or not, because it needs to be transformed regardless."
I disagree. Ease of transformation matters. Being contiguous seems like a HUGE difference. From a programmer's perspective I can see why one would think it doesn't matter, but from a lawyer's perspective, I think it would matter a lot. Obviously I'm just offering a fuzzy conjecture and I'm not a lawyer, but I do not consider this question to be settled AT ALL and I don't think you should either.

2025-09-23 18:52:15 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…yyv9 It is already there and it indeed is less of an issue because it requires jumping through hoops to display the data that was scrambled and hacked onto my node. Whether it truly "doesn't matter" to the law is a legal question that hasn't been tested in court, but it certainly helps that the software was not intended for this use and does nothing to facilitate it... Until v30.
My concern is that there will be fewer hoops to jump through, and that core is making it easier to store arbitrary contiguous data for no monetary reason.
@nprofile…wa92 I may be wrong, but I thought the Bitcoin core desktop software will display op return, without xor. I may be wrong. I don't have time to check right now. But either way, I think the distinction between different "one liners" is very important and should not be flippantly ignored.

2025-09-23 18:14:28 UTC

- reply

What about the fact that an op return can display non-encoded data directly in the Bitcoin core software? This makes it appear that the INTENT of Bitcoin is to distribute arbitrary information, rather having that information "hacked" onto my node against my will. This seems to be an important legal distinction.

2025-09-21 06:24:16 UTC

- reply

nsecretary of my Treasury

2025-09-19 21:08:12 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/240b516915bd147ef6d5f00ccf1f26c1828fca776171fdc4561427bd3b42338f.jpg

2025-09-16 18:38:32 UTC

- reply

It's cool. It auto created a coin OS account and displayed username and password.
I sent it to my minibits wallet but I have 2 sats left in coin OS because I didn't estimate the fees right.

2025-09-16 17:00:02 UTC

- reply

Damn, it's empty