kymafi
Kyma Fi

The technical issues were controversial changes made by unethical people. Funded by Epstein (MIT media lab and blockstream). You are just ignoring the Core issue.

2026-07-18 14:41:33 CEST

- reply

Nah. Not gonna happen. Rdts activates no matter what.

2026-07-18 02:20:26 CEST

- reply

lol fiat thinking? No. I’m saying that the discount is necessary to be a swift and efficient l medium of exchange. What good is Bitcoin if it costs 10% of your transaction to buy a cup of coffee? Literally no purpose other than a store of value in which case it’s no longer p2p cash. It needs to be both MOE and SOV.
The real bloat is coming from arbitrary data. Segwitt discount isn’t arbitrary.

2026-07-17 22:29:46 CEST

- reply

I’m talking about lightning fees… they are low due to the discount. If BTC loses lightning and is no longer a fast and cheap medium of exchange, then it’s going backwards. Different issue than the spam issue. The spam causes actual bloat with no monetary purpose. The Segwitt discount serves a very important purpose. If you could lower that without effecting lightning fees, I’d an agree, but you can’t.

2026-07-17 21:18:10 CEST

- reply

Says the guy selling bitcoin loans on his podcast lol 😂 talk about useless shit

2026-07-17 21:14:23 CEST

- reply

It’s not a free lunch. That data is necessary for low cost transactions and Bitcoin being used as a medium of exchange. Without it every other shitcoin would be cheaper to use as money. And nostr wouldn’t even be able to run zaps lol

2026-07-17 21:12:03 CEST

- reply

Without it lightning would be more expensive. It’s what keeps opening and closing channels low.

2026-07-17 21:10:49 CEST

- reply

False. the witness discount is what makes the protocol efficient enough for mass adoption by keeping the costs of interacting with the base layer (opening/closing channels) low. You could technically run a version of Lightning without the discount, but it would be significantly more expensive to use.

2026-07-17 21:08:36 CEST

- reply

lol no your not… no URSF 😜

2026-07-17 16:15:06 CEST

- reply

Stop listening to @nprofile…qfp2 lol , it would kill lightning. It’s not that simple.

2026-07-16 14:55:14 CEST

- reply

No core divided the network. They opened op return for a single company, lied about it and refused to put the limit back.

2026-07-15 02:02:48 CEST

- reply

Niceee. I like the sound of that!

2026-07-14 20:53:32 CEST

- reply

*op return dilemma

2026-07-14 19:48:36 CEST

- reply

I got to catch up on these episodes. My favorite alien

2026-07-14 19:33:12 CEST

New track is out on Wavlake. 🛸
Spam Killer ⚡️
#BIP110
https://wavlake.com/track/bab9d10f-1879-414b-9682-00788f99cc01
https://blossom.primal.net/d091feed1c1c3636c0e59fabccb29c9fc6af7aec9cdc359c86b52173ead77a0b.mov

2026-07-14 17:57:10 CEST

Nothing worse than waiting for your direct deposit to clear while Bitcoin absolutely rips 🤣
Please go down first BTC! I need those cheap sats

2026-07-14 15:43:50 CEST

- reply

Core is responsible if there is a chain split. They made the controversial change. They can easily put back the op return limit and this whole thing ends in 5 mins.
Why won’t they do this?

2026-07-13 01:12:54 CEST

- reply

This is sound spiritual advice ⚡️

2026-07-13 01:12:29 CEST

- reply

No need for a soft fork if this happens.
It won’t happen unfortunately.
Core is completely incompetent and shipping malware at this point.
#nevent1q…ad6f

2026-07-12 06:09:11 CEST

Running BIP110. Cause @npub15dq…lm5m and Epstein’s pal @nprofile…x6h9 said not too.

2026-07-11 22:41:21 CEST

- reply

I’ll check it out. Since when did primal not play embedded YT videos though :/

2026-07-10 19:46:13 CEST

- reply

Stand up then. Lol

2026-07-10 15:30:44 CEST

- reply

What about it is unsatisfactory?
Is there a monetary purpose to op return? Or taproot exploits?

2026-07-10 07:20:22 CEST

- reply

lol 😂 did you read it though. Pretty hilarious

2026-07-09 07:54:22 CEST

I’ve been running BIP110 for months now and still haven’t heard a single coherent argument against it. I’ve heard it all at this point.
Ez activation. But the scammers and spammers will be louder the closer we get to the date.
#asknostr

2026-07-09 05:09:49 CEST

- reply

Haha George is awesome

2026-07-08 07:12:19 CEST

- reply

Knots dev structure isn’t a problem. The Satoshi client had one dev… and worked more efficiently than cores entire dev team. Cores dev team has deleted wallets, leaked ips, made controversial changes, and doesn’t own bitcoin. They are incompetent DEI hires…

2026-07-07 18:22:59 CEST

- reply

Nah he’s come around. Plus the ideas in what I’ve read so far have been aligned. I’m always glad to see people change their mind. No use holding it against them.
Hell I was running core last year before I knew what was going on.

2026-07-07 02:48:21 CEST

I take it back my guy @nprofile…0vkk. Dead wrong about your book.
Excellent points here. Highly recommend.
https://blossom.primal.net/d8ca1d3f16f60a9580d9dfa7bc33b6494c3ca4048fea3e2fcb0a0b3d2e4a0872.jpg

2026-07-07 00:28:43 CEST

- reply

I love how you are completely ignoring the rest of his post on purpose….

2026-07-06 20:18:55 CEST

- reply

A temporary Soft fork is not a shitcoin. It most likely will activate and is not adding new features or modifications to Bitcoin. A chain split would require a ursf or miners ignoring a huge percentage of nodes - if that were the case Bitcoin would no longer prove to be decentralized and the main chain would be by definition a shitcoin

2026-07-06 20:14:53 CEST

- reply

lol 😂 dude thinks Andy back is a “legend”.
This is too much

2026-07-04 23:33:51 CEST

- reply

How exactly is an open op return allowing for JPEGs, Stablecoins and memes on BTC helpful adoption? It’s literally fiat thinking being added to BTC. There is no monetary use case for it, only fiat profit.
Fiat is CORE’s issue, they pay their devs in fiat, many don’t even own BTC, know how it functions, and hate plebs running nodes.

2026-07-04 22:07:45 CEST

- reply

Nah independence from the Fed would probably take care of the Isreal problem too lol

2026-07-04 21:45:48 CEST

Nostr is basically a group chat, except instead of sending you funny memes, most are bitcoiners, half of them insult you and the rest are bots.

2026-07-04 14:45:10 CEST

Happy Independence Day!
I’m so proud of this country who fought against Tyranny so we could pay 40% in taxes, be 40 trillion in debt, and be home to 40 entrepreneurs that own 70% of the wealth.
Yay America!

2026-07-04 00:41:45 CEST

- reply

Doesn’t matter if you already have opted out fully.

2026-07-02 18:28:38 CEST

- reply

How crazy were your dreams when you stopped?
Mine were so intense. lol

2026-07-02 12:48:44 CEST

- reply

How is making stricter rules for data on BTC censorship?
If that were true then this would be “censoring” users on wisp lol
https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsqqqxa74ecnmmwpaycyz0sczl0rqp66qz9695gurxxtflyxndsamgfdm4tc

2026-07-02 12:34:03 CEST

- reply

This argument has nothing to do with miners shutting down, but miners ignoring the nodes.
If they ignore BIP110, and continue to mine spam and 70% non monetary data they are assuming control of the network… at that point Bitcoin is no longer decentralized and a government could intervene through law.
This was a part of the legal argument in the Faketoshi case (Craig wright)… he sued Bitcoin devs saying changes were made to the protocol… but the nodes were actually controlling the network so he lost…
Also BIP110 does reduce spam. It’s called rdts - REDUCED DATA Temporary SOFT FORK. If you read the actual bip, you see that it never claims to stop spam completely… its goal is to reduce the massive bloat now and prepare for other ways to stop it in the future due to Cores open door policy.

2026-07-02 12:00:01 CEST

@nprofile…z57s just made the single most important argument for BIP110 in this video:
https://youtu.be/_8QhtlEad8I?is=Jdd6UUeBkHgP_OaZ
Currently miners have the defense of saying that nodes control the network. If they take that control and ignore the nodes/BIP110, they have no legal defense or way to resist government.

2026-07-02 10:06:25 CEST

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/ee609f96321e29511a065245e22bd0fdb587be2dc9dc495f010945584cc48f3b.gif

2026-07-02 05:17:38 CEST

Sound money needs
Sound BIPs.
Fresh BIPs need
Fresh Sounds…
New tracks available on @nprofile…8jzn
https://wavlake.com/album/39e26e48-b966-4e19-b4fc-0e6792c800eb
https://blossom.primal.net/96e7e78548a943be52bcf5ba12bb847769e52fbf79bb7ce7d210eb376e82f6b1.mov

2026-07-02 04:27:11 CEST

- reply

it’s insane how sure you are about this… yet so insanely wrong lol 😂
Muted

2026-07-02 03:51:34 CEST

- reply

When a scammer calls your phone and tries to steal your identity, hanging up on them is not censorship… it’s defense. The tech is not being used with its original purpose and the call was not granted by your consent.
It’s the same EXACT principle with spam on Bitcoin.
Even worse is the fact that you would consider preventing CSAM on the blockchain a form of censorship… that is beyond disturbing… it’s disgusting and morally bankrupt.

2026-07-02 02:41:38 CEST

- reply

core is the socialist nonsense. They are literally making DEI hires openly plus they can’t define what spam is, just like leftists can’t define what a woman is. lol

2026-07-01 03:26:10 CEST

- reply

Bro same. Haha just made my biggest purchase. Welcome to the 58k club
Hopefully 44k club soon 🤣🙌

2026-06-30 22:37:42 CEST

- reply

https://bip110.org 🙌

2026-06-30 22:35:45 CEST

- reply

Bring back the Satoshi client ⚡️🙌

2026-06-30 16:39:40 CEST

- reply

Also:
EPSTEIN FUNDED CORE VIA MIT MEDIA LAB.
that’s not conspiracy. It’s a proven fact… and the most damaging evidence to Bitcoin Core. Anyone with any shred of morals should avoid that client. You cannot continue to avoid this problem any longer if you care about the network.
To make things worse, after this funding in 2017, Adam “Andy” Back started talking about Bitcoin being a “store of value” and not a medium of exchange, dismissing pleb node runners and changing the narrative online of what BTC is… then they started doing DEI hires of incompetent devs, silencing experienced devs who defended the protocol and forced through all these unwanted changes to satisfy VC funds.
If you run Core, you are literally in a psyop set up by Epstein’s inner circle.
https://blossom.primal.net/9c16231d0076547511fd316057166bd31670208ad77f902380813e9042cc3fe7.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/83b2742294aeff3bea5f1273f4976dfef80a6dfe36cefe7459b29551272c49dc.jpg

2026-06-30 16:23:35 CEST

- reply

Nonsense. the 4 million weight unit limit is simply a more granular, efficient way to enforce the same basic security goals that Satoshi had when he originally set the 1MB cap. The average block size now is 1.5 MB… the discount is not where the flood of non arbitrary data is coming from because it is monetary data…
Plus without the discount, opening/closing LN channel transactions would cost up to 4 times more to broadcast, directly increasing the fees a user must pay to manage their channels.
Removing Segwitt discount doesn’t solve anything… it hinders BTC as a medium of exchange with low fees. It would also hinder nostr by making zaps much more expensive. And more importantly, it doesn’t solve the “Core issue” which is large op returns, runes, memecoins and stablecoin scams being run on top of BTC - that is where 70% bloat is coming from.
If that bloat was coming from Segwitt discount and the WU averaged higher, I wouldn’t care - because that would mean more people are using BTC as money via lightning. Thats what Satoshi intended.

2026-06-30 10:36:29 CEST

- reply

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqs8fqdxquje9xzw8025r84gu0ylzd9ukjmcr3g9p807p4jgugqjjfg3pt9a4

2026-06-29 23:10:59 CEST

- reply

Roger Ver notoriously stated, “If Bitcoin has to become like PayPal to scale, then I’m okay with that.” He was implying that nodes don’t matter and should be centralized in order to “scale”… he was wrong. He didn’t understand that the nodes are soul of BTC. They decide what goes into blocks and what does not. If they centralized, bitcoin dies.
His shitcoin is worthless now. BCH didn’t scale, instead the BTC nodes continued buzzing and adoption grew. SegWit fixed the foundation, and Lightning proved that Bitcoin could scale without sacrificing its integrity. This made Bitcoin one of the cheapest and fastest decentralized mediums of exchange on Earth. It scaled through consensus of the nodes and innovation, not brute force or centralization.
Core is arguing the exact same fallacy as Ver by opening up op return, and dismissing plebs running an alternative client. It is the same debate in a much more disruptive form… a client maintained by devs who lie, gaslight, scam and don’t even own bitcoin.
At least Ver owned some Bitcoin.
#nevent1q…tezf

2026-06-29 19:13:53 CEST

- reply

In context it’s worse. He said she’s a decent coder but literally doesn’t own bitcoin or understand how it works.
What he didn’t mention is that she was only made maintainer of Core because she was sleeping with the cofounder of Brink… and she was initially hired due to DEI, and caused all sorts of bugs and issues in v30.

2026-06-29 10:11:26 CEST

New songs out ⚡️
New BIP110 nodes are buzzing. 🛸
New Blocks are signaling. 🙌
Let’s go 🚀
https://wavlake.com/album/39e26e48-b966-4e19-b4fc-0e6792c800eb
https://blossom.primal.net/f08e09bf8352588885ca4e6c3aaea5dc2008b89c2a00ca32f4da4b75a04f54ef.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/8463fd6301f527bc11d0a977c11e0d81c2fccfefab879538758b9d70fed42499.jpg

2026-06-29 10:02:02 CEST

- reply

It’s not a debate. Core has zero use cases at this point.
Since the date of the launch of v30, they opened op return for no reason, deleted wallets in a bug, leaked ip, made DEI hires of incompetent maintainers who don’t own BTC, it was also leaked that Core received funded from Epstien via MIT media lab, and Adam back literally went to the island.
I could go on for days of how destructive they are to Bitcoin.
They have not made a single coherent point against bip110 that has an ounce of truth to it.

2026-06-29 02:17:34 CEST

- reply

Imagine being so ignorant that you teach people how to run Core Malware and think that a client that is run by devs who don’t own bitcoin is somehow sovereign.

2026-06-29 00:06:25 CEST

- reply

If we rely solely on fees to filter spam, we’re essentially telling anyone with enough capital that they can determine the storage requirements for every full node in existence.
That’s literally a defeatist mindset. You are just surrendering decentralization of sound money to the highest bidder.

2026-06-28 23:59:26 CEST

- reply

Also Fees are just an economic deterrent, but they only work if the actor is constrained by profit.
If the actor is motivated by other incentives (like creating tokens, specific cultural/political expression, or running scams like runes or “Stablecoins on BTC”), they may be willing to pay whatever fee the market dictates… and they are doing this now. EVERY SINGLE DAY burdening the cost onto the node runner.

2026-06-28 23:52:36 CEST

- reply

So why aren’t transaction fees stopping this then? 64.2% today. It’s been 70% all week. The chain is accelerating in size, over 2GB a week. Most of it is non monetary…
https://thebitcoinportal.com/bmhi/nodes
Fees aren’t working… why is that?
https://blossom.primal.net/ea405aa2ff08e79ba4e032c4bf64f354928b67ca9677c7474768d6f27a1362c4.jpg

2026-06-28 23:31:31 CEST

- reply

Apathy… you literally agree with the main issue of spam and that core is compromised yet don’t want to fix it.
That’s some serious cognitive dissonance. No solution proposed… no actual reasoning of why the BIP is “bad”… you just think this issue is gonna fix it self somehow I guess lol
How much worse does it need to get? 99% non monetary data? We already are at 70% … and there are memes, runes and literally a stablecoin scam being run on BTC on the backs of the nodes.
A temporary soft fork is a conservative solution, and very safe considering there’s not even an URSF.

2026-06-28 23:25:09 CEST

- reply

lol how exactly can you fix core governance when they hired based on DEI, block anyone who disagrees with them, push controversial changes on BTC, don’t get paid in BTC or own Bitcoin, and literally were funded by Epstein?
They are worthless shitcoiners that literally peddle malware at this point. No way to save it.

2026-06-28 23:22:15 CEST

- reply

SPAM IS NOT FUCKING ART

2026-06-28 22:12:24 CEST

- reply

If you believe that JPEGs, shitcoins like Citreas stable coin scam, the $dog coin rune scam or large op returns belong on Bitcoin…
I really don’t have time to convince how stupid you are.
I suggest going to ETH. That’s where that shit belongs, and BIP 110 will activate soon.

2026-06-28 18:43:56 CEST

- reply

How is an alternative client that attempts to decrease chain bloat centralizing Bitcoin?
That’s completely untrue. What would centralize BTC would be allowing for this to continue so that nodes would require hardware run by company servers because of rapid expansion.

2026-06-28 18:40:19 CEST

- reply

Core deleted wallets, leaked IP, and opened op return resulting in 70% non monetary data on chain.
That is by definition malware. lol
https://blossom.primal.net/8400afe17f145eacea2c33d2f28fde4094a0abf692ce2a0785ec57f5adadc8e0.jpg

2026-06-28 18:30:11 CEST

- reply

“Censors spam”
lol way to discredit yourself. What’s the point of having a monetary network if you allow scammers and spammers to take over?
It’s not censorship, it’s fucking maintenance. Even Satoshi did everything possible to “censor” spam lol 😂

2026-06-28 14:43:12 CEST

I only zap you if you support BIP110. Nodes running malware don’t deserve Bitcoin. ⚡️

2026-06-28 06:40:08 CEST

- reply

Voted with my node 🫡

2026-06-28 06:12:56 CEST

There is no need for belief
In God,
Or Man,
but there is a resonance in Truth.
There is no need for belief
In Religion
or Science,
Yet there is evidence in Observation.
There is no need for belief
In Tokens
Or Money,
But there is utility in Value.
There is no need for belief
In Fiat
Or Bitcoin,
Yet there is a requirement of Sovereignty.
There is no need for belief
In Medicine,
Or Politics,
But there is a mandate for Healing.
There is no need for belief
In UFOs
Or Aliens,
But it is our duty to give Perspective.
There is no need for belief
In Self,
Or Ai,
There is only a record of Memory.
There is no need for belief
In Authority,
Or Nation,
But there is a calling for community.
There is not even the need for a perfect Certainty,
Yet there will always be value in Wonder.
For belief is the virus.
The plague of humanity.
The root of all evil,
The division of family.
This is disclosure,
The message we send
Those who accept it,
Shall endure to the end.
All those offended,
will remain in this hell.
Those who reach understanding,
have freed themselves.
https://kymafi.com/odyssey/

2026-06-27 19:26:00 CEST

- reply

Even if you assume Lutnick is innocent… which he’s obviously not… the truth on the surface is that Mallers runs a risky Bitcoin loan company literally profiting from people giving BTC to a third party so they can spend FIAT.
It’s a total psyop. Mallers is not a bitcoiner. He’s a fraud.

2026-06-27 16:20:13 CEST

- reply

NOT MY SATS. plus he’s got me blocked cause I called him out for it on nostr lol

2026-06-27 16:18:54 CEST

- reply

There’s a list of downstream effects of removing the Segwitt discount. It causes more harm to BTC as money and solves nothing…

2026-06-27 16:14:52 CEST

- reply

If core put op return back to where it was, and started addressing the spam issue, hired competent devs based on merit and not DEI. If they cut ties with blockstream and brink. And more importantly, if they listened to some of the best devs like (Luke and mechanic, and others ) or at least considered their PRs… instead of blocking them.
This will not happen lol but if it did… I’d at the very least stop calling core “malware”

2026-06-26 21:55:52 CEST

- reply

SegWit data is far from arbitrary; it is foundational to the Lightning Network’s ability to facilitate fast, low-cost, off-chain transactions.
And the 1MB block limit was to prevent spam attacks early on in the network development. It wasn’t a hard cap like the supply. That makes no sense to sacrifice the mechanism which allows it to be a medium of exchange for no reason at all. Segwitt bits don’t cause the chain bloat and aren’t arbitrary.
Unless you think sending zaps, or making payments on lighting is arbitrary lol

2026-06-26 21:04:20 CEST

- reply

I laughed pretty hard at this.
Samson mow somehow thinks this monstrosity is helping bitcoin adoption 😅 what a clown.
It doesn’t onboard anyone… who is even using that shit?

2026-06-26 17:39:40 CEST

- reply

“I guess the real hard pill to swallow is that everyone's perception that we won the blocksize war is actually false.”
Which is it then? You think bitcoin is dead or you going to take back your ridiculous analogy?

2026-06-26 17:09:39 CEST

- reply

My point is BTC solved the issues of scaling with consensus and innovation… BCH failed to solve it with narrative and trusting a few influencers.
The civil war was BCH vs BSV lol.
Bitcoin doesn’t have “wars”. It moves based on whatever is agreed on by the nodes. You are seeing debates in the community as how Bitcoin functions… that’s not how actual protocol consensus is reached. It’s just noise.

2026-06-26 16:34:58 CEST

- reply

We did win. We got lighting. You use it on this app.
BCH has to have a bot farm to con people into using BCH nostr…. On BTC nostr protocols lol

2026-06-26 16:26:32 CEST

- reply

It’s incredibly arrogant that you would rather revert bitcoin to a previous state without lightning than admit you are wrong about core.
This is not politics. This is simply a defense of Bitcoin as a decentralized monetary system. There is no legitimate hard fork being proposed. It’s nothing like the block wars. Core has zero counterpoints, and there is no URSF.
RDTS, is a temporary soft fork with a fast growing base of nodes (more than BIP 148 had at its activation), mined blocks and an implementation that doesn’t effect Bitcoin as money.
What isn’t legitimate is CORE. Nothing they did in the last two years that was helpful to Bitcoin… it’s pure malware, serving only the interests of getting more funding, no matter the source and by any means necessary:
Core deleted wallets. They exposed IP. They received funding from Epstien through MIT media lab and Adam back went to the island… then they hired incompetent devs, who ignorantly made these radical changes to Bitcoin like op return blow out and flooded the chain with a stablecoin scam, runes, ordinals and even memecoins- not just “spam”.
This wasn’t enough for them. After that they sought to protect their dying reputation and funding with absolute lies concerning the alternative client. Claiming RDTS was contentious and irresponsible. They claimed it did things it didn’t, because the truth would lose their credibility as a dominant client.
The truth is Core is contentious and harmful to the network, not knots. Core is captured by corporations and are an enemy to Bitcoin. Full stop. Anyone defending them at this point is either ignorant or a fraud.
What’s even worse is your proposal to avoid this issue by going back to pre segwitt. A pre segwitt BTC would disable lightning (bip110 preserves this). Lighting was the mechanism that made bitcoin a more scalable medium of exchange and what made Bitcoin one of the fastest payment systems on earth. Hell, it’s the reason this app exists. BIP 110 doesn’t change this… your proposal does, for no other reason than to avoid the possibility that Core is comprised…
You are so terrified of what the Core supporters think, and wishing to remain in their inner group, that you have to run logical circles to defend alternatives. It’s making you look like a fool, when you have actually really great ideas outside of this issue. I suggest you take other look at RDTS and what Core is really doing then ask yourself:
Is bitcoin decentralized money? Or should it be a data storage system controlled by a bunch of centralized node servers? … because that’s where we are headed without RDTS.

2026-06-26 03:00:28 CEST

- reply

It was his best speech. A little technical and cryptic but that’s just who he is .

2026-06-25 22:47:06 CEST

- reply

https://bip110.org - the front page has a basic outline of what it does.
We already have more nodes than bip148 did when it activated… very likely it won’t be a chain split. Plus there is no URSF.

2026-06-25 21:15:09 CEST

If the "bloat" continues to the point where node costs skyrocket, we aren't going to "upgrade" to better hardware. We are simply going to lose sovereignty.
If running a node becomes a job for a data center rather than an individual, the network is no longer Bitcoin; it becomes a distributed SQL database managed by a few large entities.
This is why we run BIP110 and reject Core.

2026-06-25 15:31:21 CEST

- reply

Ya just muted them lol

2026-06-25 14:50:41 CEST

- reply

Okay so you are just going to remain ignorant and avoid the issue altogether… interesting.
Keep pretending that you are standing up for universal truth!
As for me and my node, we will be protecting the chain from illicit material, and fighting to make it sound money.

2026-06-25 14:20:31 CEST

- reply

Nodes don’t get paid for storage of the data dumbass… Im not talking about fees, you deliberately are misinterpreting what I mean by free data storage. Fees just prevent minor attacks and go to miners. Csam, institutional attacks, and scams on BTC are essentially free at the expense of the node. If you really can’t understand how this is a security risk Im just gonna block you cause I don’t have time to explain this to you over and over again.
These fees haven’t priced out large op returns and we are at the highest level of non monetary data on chain. So that is evidence it doesn’t solve the problem. the incentive to keep bitcoin mostly non monetary is worth the price for bad actors.
It’s a Landauer attack on the nodes. This isn’t about segwitt or quantum. It’s about fundamentally what bitcoin is…
Is it data storage… or a peer to peer cash system? It cannot be both.

2026-06-25 13:01:15 CEST

- reply

You won’t be able to run a node for long with that attitude… if you like perpetuating scams and are okay with storing csam for free on your node, I really don’t have time to convince how fucking stupid you are.

2026-06-25 05:52:16 CEST

- reply

lol explain to me how a monkey jpeg performing an disgusting act being inscribed onto the chain has value? Cause that’s what happened. That’s what Core allowed to be inscribed. Over and over again. 70% of blocks are now non monetary.
Or what about dog$ coin? A meme coin built on Bitcoin, inscribed into the ledger to scam people. It provides zero value. It’s not money. And it’s a security risk to the network.
What you just posted is a bunch of nonsense. Run a node and verify for yourself what is actually happening. Cause prentending everything inscribed into BTC is value is complete ignorance and extremely foolish. That’s not how decentralization works.
The nodes run the network and decide what bitcoin is. And it’s money. Not jpegs. Not scam tokens. Not Data storage.

2026-06-25 04:37:03 CEST

- reply

There is no such thing as a truly 'neutral' protocol when its capacity is finite. Every byte of non-monetary spam that enters the chain displaces a monetary transaction or increases the hardware requirements for nodes. Allowing this isn't neutrality; it is a policy choice to prioritize non-essential data over the network’s primary function as sound money. So Core isn't 'staying neutral' by opting out; they are actively facilitating the degradation of the network’s decentralization. Bip110 is just the beginning… there will always be a fight against spam. Just like in email, texts or YouTube comments… it’s a constant fight that Core gave up on because they don’t see bitcoin as money.

2026-06-25 04:20:45 CEST

- reply

Using bitocin as free data storage doesn’t scale. Satoshi wrote extensively on this.
Such ignorance. Keep the base layer free and lean. We don’t need any other use cases other than money or bitcoins security will be at risk… it already is 70% non monetary data.

2026-06-25 03:06:29 CEST

- reply

We got a new bitcoiner and ostrich here … hell ya 🙌

2026-06-25 03:04:57 CEST

- reply

It must go lower to tank the CIA pysop called Strategy lol 😂 then we moon.

2026-06-24 21:19:52 CEST

- reply

lol core maximalism… you like getting you’re ip exposed and wallets deleted? 😅 what’s the benefit exactly?

2026-06-24 08:10:43 CEST

- reply

It actually does address the rune problem. Runes protocol relies on embedding "Runestone" metadata within these outputs, capping them at 83 bytes renders the majority of Runes transactions (especially "etchings," which require more space) technically impossible to include in a valid block.
Also by limiting data pushes and witness elements to 256 bytes, the proposal prevents protocols from using alternative methods to "pack" their data across multiple pushes.
Finally BIP-110 consensus rules state that any transaction with a ⁠scriptPubKey⁠ exceeding 34 bytes is invalid unless it is an ⁠OP_RETURN⁠ (up to 83 bytes). Any attempt to use larger scripts or bypass these limits will cause a BIP-110-enabled node to reject the transaction outright.
So yes. Runes are fucked.