<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1x9q89st049pnuym57ch9kqkgzcu5dmff32wduwc4g9gnc2w3nlls8hcsg7

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrzsrjc9h6jse7zd60vtjmqtypvw2xa55c48x78v25z5fu98gellcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2aqpzemhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqg4waehxw309ash2arg9ehx7um5wgcjucm0d5fzxunj

Publishing to

Last Notes

2026-02-26 17:04:25 CET

- reply

lol at the guy prompting grok about non-mining nodes and getting slapped 🤣

2026-02-26 11:24:02 CET

- reply

😌👌

2026-02-24 17:03:25 CET

- reply

Empty is not.
https://blossom.primal.net/5130da3fd4b4c9d21a91ef05fa25ac2d69bd63169faa9f9f9c771d52bba728b1.jpg

2026-02-24 17:02:52 CET

- reply

Did you crawl out of the trash again Aaron?

2026-02-24 17:02:19 CET

- reply

Love it

2026-02-24 16:50:51 CET

- reply

Spammers getting nervous.

2026-02-24 16:46:35 CET

- reply

I would respect miners that respect what Bitcoin is for and don’t fuck around with our money. That’s why I respect Ocean and pretty much not any other pool.

2026-02-24 15:52:41 CET

Snow day, zero bisibility 😅
https://blossom.primal.net/8a9972335ab6c60f269f25f66217b2fbf0ec18dc3b7e4d6efd33d465b886055d.mov

2026-02-24 11:52:30 CET

- reply

😁

2026-02-24 11:51:51 CET

- reply

But sir they’re already at Earth’s core…

2026-02-24 11:50:30 CET

- reply

If someone shows me a NYT hit piece about Bitcoin, I’ll reply this back and say nothing.
#nevent1q…m2n8

2026-02-24 11:46:12 CET

- reply

🎯

2026-02-24 11:45:46 CET

- reply

That’s a new low for them

2026-02-24 11:25:00 CET

- reply

lol is this a real article 😳

2026-02-24 11:23:36 CET

- reply

The spammer’s camp is obviously tired of pretending they don’t want additional usecases for Bitcoin so they are saying it out loud now.
#nevent1q…3q33

2026-02-24 11:21:20 CET

- reply

Bitcoin was never intended as a programmable money tho. I think you’re thinking of Ethereum without the money part.

2026-02-24 11:19:55 CET

- reply

Yeah, I thought he was pretty sure Bip110 won’t succeed. His actions contradict what he’s saying.

2026-02-24 11:17:42 CET

- reply

You are correct. Mises was thinking like you.
https://blossom.primal.net/6d1555cce06ce24befe8671bbf5c5ead5537f58eeb4fb0f38bc9510c4624935a.jpg

2026-02-24 09:23:33 CET

- reply

- “sovereignty wisdom”
- a politician
- a tradfi spook
- a bot
- usd a sovereign currency lol
- digital asset, not a currency
I mean you can probably write a whole essay based on the fallacy of this screenshot and if I know anything about you, you probably will 😅 and I will read it 😌

2026-02-24 09:19:48 CET

- reply

Basically yes.

2026-02-24 08:14:03 CET

- reply

I don’t care if it’s prunable or not. It makes running a node harder anyway. If the previous screenshot wasn’t clear, I hope this one is.
https://blossom.primal.net/5130da3fd4b4c9d21a91ef05fa25ac2d69bd63169faa9f9f9c771d52bba728b1.jpg

2026-02-24 08:08:41 CET

There’s so much irony in this screenshot and so much psyop to unpack.
https://blossom.primal.net/9501295471a2ecc97f6f3a1ce17c6a7d4b8b9b514d6f27e0f084fdde86def0bf.jpg

2026-02-24 07:57:28 CET

- reply

Core’s datacarrier is broken in all recent versions and it’s not working for policy. That’s why so many people run Knots.

2026-02-24 07:55:59 CET

- reply

Because all versions of Core after v25 don’t work as advertised policy wise, due to the not fixed inscriptions bug. It’s fixed in all recent versions of Knots, which is 99% copy of Core.

2026-02-24 07:45:54 CET

- reply

So Bitcoin is programmable money now? 🤔 When CBDCs on Bitcoin?
#nevent1q…4ccj

2026-02-23 17:32:48 CET

- reply

That’s because the issue is strictly political for them. It has nothing to do with earnings. You’re probably correct in your assessment.

2026-02-23 17:30:21 CET

- reply

This data disagrees with your lax view on spam abuse. That’s why I included the link in my previous post. Might be a good idea to give it a read, although you seem convinced your POV is infallible, so there might be no point in trying to convince you more.
https://blossom.primal.net/bc03a946756feaa0a740e159fafa2dbc3bf70158c4a7b3bf2ee079f39759a261.jpg

2026-02-23 17:02:47 CET

- reply

I have an idea what this kick might look like and it’s scary, I hope they see reason much sooner.

2026-02-23 17:00:48 CET

- reply

> every version before v30 should be fine.
Every version after v25 is broken due to the inscription’s hack. Datacarrier is not working as intended and this makes all other versions of core useless from a policy standpoint.

2026-02-23 16:56:19 CET

- reply

Good, so we can establish a baseline around v30. I’m aware contiguous data isn’t new. The difference is that it wasn’t a systemic problem until the 2023 inscriptions exploit. Before that, large-scale data stuffing required convoluted workarounds and remained marginal. There wasn’t a real economic split between monetary and non-monetary use at scale.
What changed wasn’t the code alone, but the incentives. Once a market formed around inscriptions and it became culturally normalized, the behavior scaled aggressively. The data reflects that shift. At that point, it stopped being edge-case experimentation and became an industrial use of blockspace for non-monetary payloads.
Uncapping OP_RETURN without first addressing the underlying inscriptions vector only amplified the issue. It expanded one data pathway while leaving the more structurally problematic one untouched.
Are you familiar with the mechanics of the inscriptions exploit? Or how it was handled in 2023? Understanding that context clarifies much of what followed with Core v30 and why BIP100 focuses not only on OP_RETURN but also on alternative data embedding methods. What looks like an overkill is actually trying to patch a leaking bucket with many holes.
https://blockspaceweekly.substack.com/p/issue-3-three-years-of-spam

2026-02-23 16:23:14 CET

- reply

The question is what needs to happen so the prison bars become visible to most.

2026-02-23 16:14:10 CET

- reply

My issue with Odell is straightforward: he zeroes in on one of four possible scenarios — ironically the worst one and the least likely — and frames it to his large audience as if it’s the only realistic outcome.
That’s my problem.
Does he genuinely believe that’s the base case? Is he misinformed? I’d rather assume it’s the first. The cleanest proof would be a reversal of his stance if the facts don’t support it.
So far, though, nothing he’s done gives me much confidence. I’ll happily admit I misjudged him if he proves otherwise.

2026-02-23 16:05:48 CET

- reply

“The cage run itself” was quite deep man.

2026-02-23 16:04:06 CET

- reply

I’ve read the proposal and a bunch of opinions from both sides to form an opinion. For example you quote certain passages from the website/github and interpret them in a way that fits your view. I read them and I interpret them in the opposite direction. The problem BIP110 addresses is severe enough to tighten the rules significantly but not to the point they break the foundations. In fact they reinforce them. Ironically the top down decision making of Core v30 made this fork necessary not just in principle but in practice. If you don’t know what I talk about it maybe you haven’t paid enough attention, or you simply prefer to think it’s a nothingburger. Maybe you should have applied this higher standard towards protocol development to Bitcoin Core too. Did you? Are you running v30? If not, why?

2026-02-23 15:53:54 CET

- reply

Does this sound familiar to you anon? 👀
https://blossom.primal.net/ae592c68b9685c164b4eb4bd92ebd94f69501620e2f7a263071359dd0adc1bf8.jpg
#nevent1q…5rs8

2026-02-23 15:31:54 CET

- reply

Fuck off bot

2026-02-23 15:23:00 CET

- reply

I don’t understand your framing of “emergency temporary measures.” That logic applies to centralized systems where a small group can extend powers at will. This isn’t that. It’s a soft fork with a built-in expiry at a specific block height. It self-expires. Extending it would require a new round of consensus. And if it’s not working as intended or if meaningful monetary use cases emerge over the next 18 months - I don’t see how it would get that consensus.
BitVM falls into that bucket too. At this stage it’s not a proven monetary use case. It’s closer to an Ethereum-style experimentation sandbox than to something that strengthens Bitcoin’s monetary function. There isn’t a single production-grade deployment demonstrating durable demand - just philosophical whataboutism about what might exist someday.
What puzzles me about the criticism of BIP110 is the inconsistency. If it were permanent, critics would call it reckless and irreversible. When it’s explicitly temporary precisely because it could carry risk - they still call it reckless, now because it might not be permanent. It sounds less like risk analysis and more like reflexive opposition. 🤔

2026-02-23 14:38:26 CET

- reply

You still work on the premise that:
1) they actually realise the severity of the problem BIP110 tries to solve
2) they are purely bitcoin driven and not looking for fiat returns of their investments, which is a big assumption

2026-02-23 14:34:27 CET

- reply

Can you link the exact source? All I found on the website is this disclaimer, that claims complications around BitVM, not that it becomes unviable. Also, it’s absolutely normal to disable upgrade hooks for other soft forks while this one gets adopted. Not to mention any soft forks will require months or years of discussion and signalling before it has any chance of going live. It’s common engineering logic - don’t start building extensions around your house while its foundations are shaky.
https://blossom.primal.net/dbe6e8d8ecfd766f1c4f2eb43bc914626de68212b7ddd5fec1d942bd52b53994.jpg

2026-02-23 14:24:13 CET

- reply

That’d be a fair assumption

2026-02-23 13:27:30 CET

- reply

Thanks for saving me the time.
#nevent1q…pmfy

2026-02-23 13:17:53 CET

- reply

Apparently Bip110 doesn’t break BitVM.

2026-02-23 11:50:29 CET

- reply

Is she talking about her boyfriend that was going to expose the deep state pedo ring and two days into office was already claiming there were no Epstein files and that JE killed himself.

2026-02-23 11:37:56 CET

- reply

Care to put your prediction for September into words so I can bookmark it?

2026-02-23 11:18:38 CET

- reply

That’s easy. They’re not the pedos, spammers and scammers.

2026-02-23 11:14:41 CET

- reply

Directed by Wada Phuc 🤣💀

2026-02-23 11:07:45 CET

- reply

Lmao you’re even more retarded that I initially concluded. Bip110 is the small blockers equivalent as far as those two are comparable, but you’re too dumb and deranged to figure this one out, so…

2026-02-23 10:11:36 CET

- reply

Own your mistake you loser.

2026-02-23 10:09:46 CET

- reply

If you have watched any video from late 2023 onward you will see that all he’s doing is criticising the guy and all other MSTR copies who other influencers shilled the entire bull market.

2026-02-23 09:36:58 CET

- reply

Bip110 is a soft fork you retard

2026-02-23 09:35:51 CET

- reply

You didn’t explain what was the attack vector. All you said is Luke is calling people pedos and forcing them to upgrade. And even this is not true.

2026-02-23 09:33:50 CET

- reply

You have 3 mining pools each with a hashrate more than 10%, all actively mining spam. Each of these can veto the activation if it was set at 95%, since the individual miners don’t decide on their templates. Mining pool’s centralisation wasn’t this bad in 2017. That’s why the activation threshold is reduced to 55%.

2026-02-23 09:30:35 CET

- reply

You need to refresh your memory fren.
#nevent1q…a4c2

2026-02-23 07:48:19 CET

- reply

Some people can change their opinion when they do the deep dive.
#nevent1q…cnsq

2026-02-23 07:33:34 CET

- reply

Bitcoin is divisive by design. I really don’t see the problem with that. The bad blood is getting drained as was in 2017.

2026-02-22 21:29:55 CET

- reply

Yeah, like see what it does and judge it on merit, not politics.

2026-02-22 20:02:52 CET

- reply

🎯

2026-02-22 20:01:55 CET

- reply

Did this guy’s Zionist brain glitched for a second?

2026-02-22 19:59:18 CET

- reply

How so?

2026-02-22 16:21:32 CET

- reply

> Now I don't agree with the way they are handling the b110 thingy.
Care to elaborate?

2026-02-22 16:20:15 CET

- reply

Let’s say market conditions have an impact on spam. This means that in a four year cycle we can expect lower rates of spam for 1 year and increase during the other 3 years. Meanwhile this garbage be it in whatever quantity there is ends up on community nodes and stays there forever. You can have a market for it, or you can put it there like graffiti, but whatever the reason, the cost is born by node runners forever and spammers only pay one minuscule one time fee. I hope you see why node runners might not be down with this.

2026-02-22 16:13:32 CET

- reply

They always skip the important parts.

2026-02-22 16:11:48 CET

- reply

Because it’s more likely that bip110 will succeed than not. And even if it fails, it’s the right approach for the problem trying to solve and some battles are worth fighting for even if the odds might look against you.

2026-02-22 12:41:05 CET

- reply

Sounds interesting. Is it a new proposal?

2026-02-22 12:39:04 CET

- reply

Before April 2025, Core nodes represented 95%+ of all the network nodes and almost all of them ran default policy capping OP_Returns at 83 bytes. I am also old enough to remember that Core proposed to make adjusting the datacarrier size not possible in future versions of the software. So what do you call a 1200x default change to a standardness limit and then remove the ability for people to change it? I call it a de facto consensus change, even if technically isn’t.

2026-02-22 12:32:32 CET

- reply

I don’t 🤷‍♂️

2026-02-22 11:47:29 CET

- reply

lol when was the last time you watched his videos? 2021?

2026-02-22 11:40:51 CET

- reply

It’s simple. They can’t. Even newbies can subconsciously understand that.

2026-02-22 11:38:07 CET

- reply

😅😆

2026-02-22 11:37:01 CET

- reply

Have you personally seen the source? Do you understand it?

2026-02-22 10:51:37 CET

- reply

And I was just thinking about trying it out. Oh well, stupid idea.

2026-02-22 10:47:28 CET

- reply

Looks pretty dope already 👌

2026-02-22 10:45:51 CET

- reply

You can now add a widget tracker for #BIP110 on your iOS thanks to @nprofile…rqlg. Instructions on how to do it in the link below.
https://blossom.primal.net/aae2b6979913731f18e6bec34fa8b793bf4478840abc1d646ebf7f68a1a09b15.jpg
#nevent1q…scmm

2026-02-22 10:43:50 CET

- reply

Awesome. Running it.
https://blossom.primal.net/aae2b6979913731f18e6bec34fa8b793bf4478840abc1d646ebf7f68a1a09b15.jpg

2026-02-22 10:27:55 CET

- reply

He’s been open about this for years. Is this the best you can do little guy?

2026-02-22 10:26:05 CET

- reply

You’re an embarrassment for Mises, please choose a different handle.
https://blossom.primal.net/6d1555cce06ce24befe8671bbf5c5ead5537f58eeb4fb0f38bc9510c4624935a.jpg

2026-02-22 10:20:32 CET

- reply

Funny thing is big blockers seemed to think exactly like you.

2026-02-22 10:18:11 CET

- reply

Also, the spam data is a little bit more than 400MB, when you account for the time since it began to accumulate.
https://blossom.primal.net/bc03a946756feaa0a740e159fafa2dbc3bf70158c4a7b3bf2ee079f39759a261.jpg

2026-02-22 10:16:48 CET

- reply

And how many were before that?
https://blossom.primal.net/24cad49c22e875d8fd59aba3af142acad47c7e403aac8600efef5237d2de2f8f.jpg

2026-02-22 10:15:44 CET

- reply

Nope. What you claim broke his brain is called intellectual honesty and you lot and Odell clearly lack that.

2026-02-22 10:13:48 CET

- reply

Plus he has been open about his connection to Thiel for years, as well as his connections to the new appointed FED chairman who was his colleague roommate.

2026-02-22 10:10:09 CET

- reply

How is this widget called?

2026-02-22 10:08:37 CET

- reply

Amazing work by @nprofile…s4ay and you as well Daniel. Thanks for bringing him to the show! I hope he can be more active on Nostr. I’m a happy substack subscriber of his.

2026-02-22 10:06:41 CET

- reply

This should be a good one 👀
#nevent1q…c7ae

2026-02-22 09:54:16 CET

- reply

> It was fully open in the relay rules by Core to prevent mining centralization.
Really? And how is that going?

2026-02-22 09:52:32 CET

- reply

The unhappy side achieved something but not enough. That’s probably about to change is 6 months or less. You can still keep going after, not having to do anything as usual.

2026-02-22 09:50:09 CET

- reply

> The system will enforce its own rules on node runners
Node runners enforce the rules, not some “system”

2026-02-22 09:48:35 CET

- reply

> cripple Miniscript
What an odd choice of words. 🤔

2026-02-22 09:16:27 CET

- reply

Nope, it was Gregory Maxwell.

2026-02-22 09:16:04 CET

- reply

It’s the skin suited Gregory Maxwell, the person you’re often quoting by expressing these wrong opinions.

2026-02-22 09:14:15 CET

GM. @nprofile…fg9w forgot to stay humble, but didn’t forget preaching about it. I hope he at least kept stacking sats.

2026-02-21 14:13:39 CET

- reply

Do you know who coined this term?

2026-02-21 14:13:14 CET

- reply

Ah, got it. Thanks.

2026-02-21 14:09:32 CET

- reply

Ok retard

2026-02-21 14:07:55 CET

- reply

Are you a bot or you didn’t read and think through what I said. Try harder.

2026-02-21 09:37:13 CET

- reply

Yeah, it will only reduce unnecessary data storage, legal risk for node runners, the rate of UTXO set growth and improve the efficiency of the base layer for monetary purposes. It’s true, RDTS is a nothingburger.

2026-02-21 09:32:30 CET

- reply

I’m sorry that you’re retarded.

2026-02-21 09:21:19 CET

- reply

I like the term Distributed Authoritarianism ™️

2026-02-21 09:17:34 CET

- reply

That’s probably going to be the BIP110 chain anyway, and yes, you won’t have to do anything then because this will be Bitcoin.

2026-02-21 09:15:30 CET

- reply

When you increase a policy parameter 1200× that’s enforced by default on 95%+ of nodes, that’s a de facto consensus change. It’s embarrassing that an OG like you doesn’t grasp that.