<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1zhmsa0fs76dctwag0slvg4j9xqxu9q66dkkzxh7ls9pu4d0f9qkqgvs67x

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsptacwh5c0dxu9hw58c0ky2eznqrwzsddxmtprtl0czs72kh5jstqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq32amnwvaz7tmhda68ytnjv4kxzarj9eu8j7spramhxue69uhkummnw3ezuetfde6kuer6wasku7nfvuh8xurpvdjsz8nhwden5te0dehhxarj94ex2mrp0yhxgetjv44hymmnwvhx6egppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5q3camnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dxqcju7tpdd5ksmmwdejjucm0d56llpug

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

wotr.relatr.xyz

nostr.einundzwanzig.space

nostr-relay.derekross.me

nostr.mom

nostr-01.yakihonne.com

Last Notes

2026-03-15 09:44:46 UTC

- reply

Saying no to both LND and CLN (blockstream) is a bit too much IMO - it leaves few alternatives when it comes to lightning

2026-03-11 18:39:33 UTC

- reply

Thanks for confirming my suspicion, seemed like that to me as well after skimming through the Spark docs. Not sure why Cake Wallet decided this was now good enough for them, especially on the privacy side of things ( https://blog.cakewallet.com/our-lightning-journey)

2026-03-11 18:26:26 UTC

- reply

Is Breez fucking with us when they claim that they offer a “nodeless integration that offers a self-custodial, end-to-end solution for integrating Lightning payments, utilizing Spark with on-chain interoperability and third-party fiat on-ramps“?
https://github.com/breez/breez-sdk-spark-go?tab=readme-ov-file#what-is-the-breez-sdk---nodeless-spark-implementation

2026-03-05 18:04:11 UTC

- reply

I see what you mean. This has never sounded like a compelling argument to me: wouldn't the ideal block be full of actual transactions, with the associate utxo lookups and signature verifications cost? The opposite to me feels like saying that I prefer to use my car as a container for stuff because that's cheaper than actually going places.

2026-02-21 18:06:10 UTC

- reply

Why is LND bad for privacy? Also are BOLT11 invoices not that great too?

2026-02-17 22:00:34 UTC

- reply

Hey didn't you know that you're not allowed to have these kinds of reactionary ideas? Are you against progress or what?

2026-02-17 21:51:06 UTC

- reply

Do you have 60 minutes? https://youtu.be/JPE7X_q3A7A
Some good points made by mechanic here

2026-02-17 20:44:42 UTC

Wonderful article
#naddr1qq…ewc6

2026-02-15 23:07:10 UTC

- reply

You mean we need to break into the mainstream media and show them the problem without writing boring books instead? That could work

2026-02-15 22:49:21 UTC

- reply

How do we go about making sure that people actually understand money? Not only that, they need to keep feeling the importance of the concept they learn day in and day out, otherwise the fact that their time and energy is being stolen via debasement might simply fade away in the background after a few days, leaving them more worried about incoming bills and second jobs than anything else.

2026-02-12 15:56:42 UTC

- reply

Are there any press releases or similar other sources I can check? I'm very curious but I couldn't find much to be honest, thanks

2026-02-12 15:49:48 UTC

- reply

Interesting, is Ingenico planning this? I had no idea!

2026-02-12 14:54:36 UTC

- reply

I see your point, yet TCP/IP's date of birth + 17 years doesn't equal the kind of internet adoption and use we associate with modernity, right?

2026-02-08 12:03:27 UTC

- reply

How do we know that there aren't factors leading to this outcome other than mindset, better privacy being the first one? Moreover, are you referring to NGU specifically?

2026-02-08 10:58:32 UTC

- reply

Organic MOE use will only happen in my opinion whenever merchants start wanting Bitcoin more than they want fiat.
We're otherwise placing the blame on consumers though, am I right? I don't think you can force the individual buyer to spend Bitcoin when spending fiat is so much easier, and we certainly cannot hope for Bitcoin to dramatically rise in use as a medium of exchange because a few bitcoiners here and there feel guilty for not spending it.
For me the question is: what is to be done for more merchants to start wanting to accept Bitcoin, maybe even offering a discount for paying in sats? What are the blockers? Are they technical/psychological/legal/fiscal in nature? If these issues can be solved, then consumers will simply start paying in sats more and more, but they're not the drivers of this solution.

2026-02-06 10:41:40 UTC

Why would node runners and other Bitcoin users oppose this? Genuine question #asknostr #bip110 #spam
#nevent1q…hlxv

2026-02-04 11:10:44 UTC

- reply

Was having very similar thoughts after reading https://bitcoinawareness.substack.com/p/we-are-measuring-the-world-wrong
Technological abundance on the one hand, cost of living problems on the other? We are indeed measuring thee world very wrong!

2026-01-26 18:24:42 UTC

- reply

Genuine question: I see many posts like this, but what's the point of vibe coding another cashu wallet? Wouldn't this time be spent better by improving the protocol or contributing to existing wallets?
I hope this does not come off as confrontational, because it really isn't!

2026-01-23 12:36:10 UTC

- reply

No gold?

2026-01-23 09:54:31 UTC

- reply

I think KYC is impeding a lot of payment use cases, since in many (all?) jurisdictions one has to pay capital gains tax for selling Bitcoin.
Plus I'm not sure how things work on the merchant side of things. What new processes/problems do merchants have to go through in order to accept sats from a legal/fiscal point if view?

2026-01-23 09:38:41 UTC

- reply

Do we have some data regarding online payments?

2026-01-18 13:27:45 UTC

- reply

You might enjoy https://youtu.be/SaSZdCauekg

2026-01-18 12:54:24 UTC

- reply

Aren't coinjoins a good enough solution though?

2025-11-26 14:40:39 UTC

- reply

Europe, specifically the European Union, is a colony of the United States. Is your last point implying that Europe is an empire in and of itself? It's not, or else Germany and Italy wouldn't have US bases within their territories.

2025-11-26 11:22:36 UTC

- reply

Will the masses ever discover zaps and v4v?

2025-11-06 09:25:56 UTC

- reply

Couldn't agree more, enough with the "we're winning" and "it's inevitable" memes.

2025-11-03 12:19:27 UTC

- reply

"No personal data needed", but how many people are buying Bitcoin without going through centralized exchanges?

2025-11-03 10:07:07 UTC

- reply

So the plan is for everyone to move to Monero? Genuine question

2025-10-22 12:52:50 UTC

- reply

I was expecting more debate on this point @npub1myg…sn5p - is it true that Monero is not experiencing these issues and if so, is it true that it would change if it crossed a certain size threshold? Why would that be in both cases?

2025-10-22 11:39:24 UTC

- reply

Fair points, can there ever be a culturally aligned user base for a tool which is as broad as an alternative monetary system though?
In other words, can anybody hope to unleash something like Bitcoin onto the world and expect it to be used accordingly?

2025-10-22 10:42:30 UTC

- reply

That sounds scary which unfortunately doesn't prevent it from happening

2025-10-21 12:02:07 UTC

- reply

Wake up? It seems you're inferring the totality of what I know or don't know from one or two sentences I wrote.
The fact that historically we always had to build a payments layer top of gold highlights a factual limitation of gold. Gold's use case is money, it's not that of being a reserve asset to be owned by a few centralized institutions. That happens because of physical limitations.

2025-10-21 11:53:53 UTC

- reply

It's not for that or it cannot be for that?

2025-10-21 11:50:47 UTC

- reply

Interesting, especially considering that fiat is engineered to lose value over time in order to make government expenses and the associated debt look sustainable over time.
Probably a lot of people don't understand the world they live in

2025-10-21 11:47:19 UTC

- reply

People had doubts?

2025-10-21 11:46:23 UTC

- reply

Fishy as in?

2025-10-19 22:03:49 UTC

- reply

Entities providing hashrate without deciding what block to mine are not miners since they have no say over what transactions go into the next block.
This means that mining can still be centralized even if hashrate providers improve upon energy efficiency. This is why adaption of StratumV2 and of solutions like DATUM (ocean) are crucial

2025-10-19 11:26:41 UTC

- reply

I never understood the memes representing cats as superior beings. Fuck cats

2025-10-18 23:34:45 UTC

- reply

That's a pretty unclear reply in my opinion. Data availability in an unconfirmed state for users that cannot wait?

2025-10-16 22:09:58 UTC

How many people can transfer a meaningful amount of gold to someone else and have it verified in around 60 minutes? #note1zsl…hc93

2025-10-16 17:01:55 UTC

- reply

Something shady has been going on for sure, paper Bitcoin would be my guess. Just cannot understand how companies trust their custodian/exchanges like that

2025-10-16 16:43:50 UTC

https://video.nostr.build/8164a6a76763a54888bc8a433eb3675e6931f050beec2b55ef5824a960879f96.mp4 #note17s6…67vs

2025-10-16 16:27:45 UTC

- reply

As far as I'm concerned the value proposition for Bitcoin has not changed. You must have missed the "stay humble" part.
Bitcoin is always going to surprise us in both directions, such is the nature of things

2025-10-11 16:04:41 UTC

- reply

Don't know much about him to be honest, he seems to have done quite a few things for El Salvador as far as I know.
So yes we can have good leaders, I'm just not sure they're reliable over the long term. Best case, they get replaced over the decades and nothing ensures we get good ones again

2025-10-11 15:23:53 UTC

- reply

If you could guarantee to me that we could have a benevolent dictator who would never do anything wrong and only implement incredibly great ideas for the benefit of each and every member of humankind, then sure!
Can we do that?

2025-10-11 15:18:15 UTC

- reply

Because especially when it comes to money you don't want to end up broke with all your friends and family members pointing at you as the guy who lost it all on the shiny new thing.
If it turned out that the shiny new thing were the highest instantiation of money humanity had ever seen, it still wouldn't help the average individual since they wouldn't know how to recognize it in the first place.
So in my opinion is not even the case that people need established options to think freely and critically, they need them precisely to avoid having to think. We're social animals and we feel better by being part of a group than by being right. I think it was Naval who said that groups aim at consensus while individuals aim at truth.

2025-10-11 15:10:09 UTC

- reply

I think there are various reasons for it, but mainly the fact that money, which in fact is quite a simple concept, has been made into a very esoteric subject precisely to prevent the average individual from thinking that they could have a say on any matter related to it.
Thinking deeply and independently about money does not even seem like an option for most people, hence the "orange pill" analogy.

2025-10-11 14:58:32 UTC

- reply

We'd first have to know how many Bitcoin users are out there, and categorize them into:
- non custodial users
- custodial users
Once we know this data we can probably start figuring out a few things. For example, how many non-custodial users run nodes?

2025-10-10 23:26:23 UTC

- reply

Yes, they get to do so for their customers. It's pretty good that Bitcoin does not require anybody to have anything to do with them since they can simply self custody

2025-10-10 12:22:09 UTC

- reply

> Chinese chick gets to be lead maintainer by being a dude's girlfriend
What are you referring to?

2025-10-09 19:10:05 UTC

- reply

Thank you for the detailed reply, it's always useful to have a debate of this kind. I can see where you come from and this reply you've just left helps to integrate my understanding of your original post.
I can also see where we might disagree. Your point on ethics is very interesting for example:
> This means before any macro, there are morals.
Meaning in order to understand the whole of economics we start from the ethics.
I have no direct knowledge of Aristotelian thought, so I might not grasp this statement in full, and when I think of economics I find the Austrian school to be the most "objective". This is what Rothbard states at the end of "Man, Economy, and State", which directly contradicts the point on ethics:
> The major function of praxeology—of economics—is to
bring to the world the knowledge of these indirect, these hidden, consequences of the different forms of human action.
> Praxeology cannot, by itself, pass ethical judgment or make policy decisions.
> ... praxeology retires from the scene; and it is up to the
citizen—the ethicist—to choose his political course according
to the values that he holds dear
I'm informed by this view when I think about money, so in my understanding money emerges naturally in a free market and, absent coercive action by any group of individuals, it evolves to serve the purposes of means of exchange, unit of account, and store of value.
What emerges on the free market as money cannot in my opinion therefore be placed in the same category as what as been co-opted by the government and the banking system into a tool of wealth extraction. These are not the same thing anymore, even though they share the same origin.
Would you agree that there is distinction here?

2025-10-09 16:18:18 UTC

- reply

Why don't they get the real thing? Still, better than nothing

2025-10-09 16:10:18 UTC

- reply

It is certainly so, yet how is your explanation that money is not broken different from me saying that anything at all is not broken given that it serves someone else's agenda in its current otherwise disfunctional state?
To propose a tangible example: a car works as intended when it goes from A to B efficiently. Somebody very powerful who doesn't want to me to go from A to B removes the driving seat and makes the steering wheel very hard to handle. I can still go from A to B, albeit with great discomfort and at my own peril.
Money in its current form serves the cartel known as central banking and government first. It works for them. Yet I'd like to argue that it's broken, since we can think of an ideal form of money and the qualities that it would have, and we can clearly see that fiat money doesn't possess any of those. Why would you argue that's not broken?

2025-10-07 16:50:19 UTC

- reply

This is really fucking something!

2025-10-02 13:40:37 UTC

- reply

I mean it would be a hard fork to reduce the number of valid tx output shapes, which is why this cannot be done

2025-10-02 13:38:54 UTC

- reply

Sorry but the replies were way too quick haha
And this is also what a bot would say

2025-10-02 13:33:59 UTC

- reply

I understand the issue, I was now laying out a way of thinking about this,, i.e. what would be the guaranteed way to ban spam? Probably by allowing only P2WPKH outputs at the consensus level.
Since that cannot be done, we need to think of other ways and in order to do so we need a theoretical framework first so that we can define what is a valid transaction in the first place.
It seems to me that a valid tx can be defined as the one that transfer UTXO ownership in the most parsimonious way possible.
This is however hard to translate into software requirements without banning all transactions that don't have a particular shape.
Even if we banned OP_FALSE OP_IF at the consensus level there would still be other ways to embed arbitrary data, this is I believe the Cruz of the matter.
Do you agree? And most importantly, are you a bot?

2025-10-02 13:06:49 UTC

- reply

I'm not yet convinced. To bring back the free speech analogy, I would compare it to Bitcoin filters and spam in the following way:
- all words are allowed = all transactions that unlock existing UTXOs and create new UTXOs with the minimum set of operations are allowed. Notice how there is no moral judgment as long are the user is actually using words
- meaningless noise is not allowed = transactions embedding arbitrary data for purposes other than UTXOs transfer are filtered away. This means that, ideally, transactions that could transfer ownership of sats in a more parsimonious way should do so.

2025-10-02 12:25:58 UTC

- reply

I'm not sure insisting on the free speech analogy is the correct approach to be honest. Speech is general in content: I can arrange words in such a way so as to express whatever meaning I want.
Bitcoin is, in principle, not general in the kinds of transactions that are to be ideally allowed on its network.
Let's imagine for a moment a world where Bitcoin only allows P2WPKH outputs and absolutely nothing else. Let's imagine this is agreed upon by all holders such that all other outputs are transferred to P2WPKH ones.
Would this be problematic for Bitcoin as money?

2025-10-02 12:00:32 UTC

- reply

> With enough Bitcoin Nodes consensus is worthless, meaning they can do a new one.
Of course, Bitcoin is entirely voluntary. You're not replying to my point that spam can only be *conclusively* disallowed at the consensus level.
Notice the little star symbols around the work "conclusively"

2025-10-02 11:53:03 UTC

- reply

With enough guns your constitution is worthless. Bitcoin is different. I am on the conservative side when it comes to filters, meaning that I prefer OP_RETURN to ideally stay at 80 bytes.
However, inscriptions and spam can only be *conclusively* disallowed at the consensus level. How is this wrong?

2025-10-02 11:46:00 UTC

- reply

Nice! What's your setup? I'm considering getting one

2025-10-02 11:42:48 UTC

- reply

Why? He's correctly pointing out that inscriptions and other spam can only be solved *conclusively* only at the consensus level. That's factual.

2025-10-01 20:03:57 UTC

- reply

Sticking with 29 for the foreseeable future. Why is it broken though? I know that multiple OP_RETURN outputs are now going to be allowed adding up to the `datacarriersize` limit within a single tx, but it does not seem to be that relevant IMO

2025-10-01 12:02:53 UTC

- reply

I'm familiar with these points. I am not sure that fixing the current instantiation of inscriptions via OP_FALSE OP_IF checks would be enough though. There are ways ways to embed arbitrary data and it seems to be the only option to remove the possibility entirely is to only allow a set of well known transaction types, much more restrictive than what Core currently categorizes as "standard".

2025-10-01 11:52:45 UTC

- reply

I think it's great to disagree with Core. It's unfortunate that they chose to pursue this change because it doesn't seem to be necessary at all and it has caused a lot of chaos within the community, which was frankly the last thing we needed. Nevertheless, Bitcoin is made to survive adversity and it's up to node runners to guarantee its success in the long term.
As for Citrea, I'm not excusing them or anything. I think development on Bitcoin should be permissionless, so let them try build new stuff. They can turn Bitcoin into Ethereum only if the vast majority of users actually think that's valuable and start bridging their sats to their L2. I have no reason to believe this is going to happen.
The other unfortunate thing is that Citrea has developed its protocol in such a way as to require more than 80 bytes of arbitrary data, meaning they are going to publish it on the witness instead of as an OP_RETURN output. Had they been less careless with their technical choices, we would probably not be here. Hence my use of the term "unfortunate".

2025-10-01 11:33:11 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/56ebe43be8cf90110cd689a1ce67f3734b9bba9a102eea9cb87462fa16c50f0e.jpg

2025-10-01 11:29:59 UTC

- reply

Yeah I unfortunately agree that 100kb OP_RETURN was not needed at all, I think everyone was going to be comfortable with limits up even maybe 250 bytes, enough to use Bitcoin as a data availability layer for rollups.
For my part I'm not updating past Core 29.0, Knots is great to have as it shows that the community is all but complacent

2025-10-01 10:52:05 UTC

- reply

Nobody is going to force anyone to bridge their sats to Citrea though. Why shouldn't they try building it? Alpen Labs is doing something very similar, without even requiring more than 89 bytes OP_RETURN

2025-09-28 19:29:52 UTC

- reply

I was implicitly referring to inscriptions when mentioning ordinals, sorry for the confusion here. What I meant is that when inscriptions became a thing and the PR to filter them was proposed by luke-jr by matching against OP_FALSE OP_IF, why did not Core propose relaxing the OP_RETURN limits then? I'd expect that to have been the rational thing to do given the arguments with respect to UTXO set bloat
I don't think there is any conspiracy on the part of Core, and I appreciate that filtering spam is not some easy task to be carried out over the weekend, but I don't understand the timing for this proposal, unless this is entirely explained by Citrea as its catalyst.

2025-09-28 18:47:59 UTC

- reply

Core devs value the idea that mempools should be able to predict what transactions are going to be in blocks in order to prevent unnecessary transaction data requests among nodes.
The other technical argument on the Core side is that it's useless to maintain a filter that can be bypassed.

2025-09-28 18:17:52 UTC

- reply

I was not trying to propose a way forward in that regard to be honest, but I bring it up in relation to the removal of the 80 bytes limits.
I don't think It can be argued that lifting the OP_RETURN limit serves the purpose of mining decentralization thanks to a leaner UTXO set, precisely because of it being more expensive to embed larger arbitrary data in outputs.
Historical developments in Bitcoin Core make me suspicious of the argument that OP_RETURN should have no limits in order to protect the UTXO set. Had this been the goal, Core devs would have tried to somehow contain the effects of ordinals. Since this didn't happen, I can only conclude that v30 is removing this relay policy fllter for other reasons which I do not at this point understand.
With regards to mining decentralization, I think the community should focus its time and energy on StratumV2, but this entails talking to miners and convincing them of the benefits of block template selection etc etc

2025-09-18 16:24:22 UTC

- reply

What's their marketing excuse? "Share your life* or something?

2025-09-08 13:03:07 UTC

- reply

As I've said many times, Citrea really seems like a shady coverup of the whole thing.
Why can Alpen Labs fit everything in just under 80 bytes?
https://image.nostr.build/27beb8545562803458a4c738c26f4395861a639af59f4001f5df8077b9e932a1.jpg
https://docs.alpenlabs.io/how-alpen-works/bitcoin-bridge
If Citrea sucks as a layer 2 it's its team that should find a better way of doing things instead of Bitcoin Core changing long standing, non controversial policy.

2025-08-10 18:55:53 UTC

- reply

There is a weird unexamined idea held by most people that Hitler was, for whatever reason, much more evil than Stalin or Mao.