thymekeeper
ThymeKeeper

I keep thyme

Public Key

npub1h5lh83vgalk4cjf8vjdfcy8wvl2ex0h24g58fd28evhpgujh6d7ql6l03p

Profile Code

nprofile1qqst60mnckywlm2ufynkfx5uzrhx04vn8m4252r5k4rukts5wftaxlqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0uzuvad

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1h5lh83vgalk4cjf8vjdfcy8wvl2ex0h24g58fd28evhpgujh6d7ql6l03p

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-05 12:31:33 UTC

- reply

I actually don't bother protecting against fire, lol. My seed phrases are 3d printed onto cylinders that I keep inside aluminum capsules.
The reason I don't worry about fire is because if my house burns down, the other two seeds can recover everything. The likelihood of losing two seeds to fire in a single day is remote.
I just keep the descriptor backed up digitally. (Usb sticks, proton drive, etc). The descriptor doesn't give anyone signing authority without the seeds, but it does give me the ability to create new read-only accounts. That's why I like to keep it a little more accessible.
https://blossom.primal.net/ee7906834c500d3518f405daa9d1af41e57b8df5c5c8d1921653962d4891de30.png

2026-08-05 01:45:47 UTC

- reply

👋

2026-08-05 01:03:33 UTC

- reply

Infuriating or not, it's true

2026-08-05 01:03:03 UTC

- reply

Yes, let's recreate the tradfi system where we all trust the bank

2026-08-04 23:34:32 UTC

- reply

As a matter of fact, I used to do exactly that. I put 16 words in 3 locations, so recovering 2 of those parts would reconstruct the full seed.
Doing that absolutely works, but it means if a bad actor gets one of those shares, they only need to brute force 8 words (or 7 if the checksum is not in the share they stole)
Multisig means that if one share is stolen, they are still at least 24 words away from having signing authority.. and they also need the descriptor.

2026-08-04 23:29:31 UTC

- reply

You can try ignoring plebs, but if 19000 nodes go offline, leaving only miners and exchanges, BTC will lose all of its credibility.
The plebs are the network.

2026-08-04 13:56:30 UTC

Three weeks of tracking Bitcoin BIP110 node signaling
https://blossom.primal.net/1d6b56a3f1a228b7291f885c5472d7e382c70e25ee18b88b7e045c8938fabb8f.png

2026-08-04 13:38:05 UTC

- reply

I'm uncomfortable with the way Bitcoiners are dividing into camps that support different for-profit companies.
I thought the idea of self sovereignty was to put the burden of ownership on yourself instead of trusting your security to someone else.
My security works like this:
- one hot wallet with small amount of funds for spending (proton wallet).
- one 2of3 multisig not linked to any devices at all. The seeds is divided into 3 locations. This is my cold storage.

2026-07-31 15:54:59 UTC

I genuinely don't understand why (in an ecosystem that is supposed to remove the need for trust), everyone keeps blindly putting their trust into hardware wallets.

2026-07-31 12:50:58 UTC

Is BIP110 censorship?
https://youtu.be/9911LvO9Jcw?si=knIAJs4nJWnZIagK

2026-07-31 00:19:27 UTC

2 weeks of tracking BIP-110 adoption
https://blossom.primal.net/4ce4cba9dd75dc16ac599324952cc1f601f47edce409372945fc025e917989a0.png

2026-07-24 23:00:47 UTC

I've been web scraping stats from bitdis.org for the past 10 days
https://blossom.primal.net/18c3bbd39b31059af452c63b399e46cb151df6dda88f06e7a828ff679d327486.png

2026-06-14 00:59:41 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin Core can. All they need to do is continue diluting the focus of Bitcoin. Bitcoin only survives if BIP110 fixes their corruption

2026-03-04 16:07:52 UTC

Just in case you needed more proof that Bitcoin Core node developers are corrupt:
https://rumble.com/v75tyny-bitcoin-code-governance-jon-atack-plan-forum.html
Bitcoin needs more node implementation decentralization.
Bitcoin is money, not data storage.

2026-02-16 15:58:33 UTC

- reply

Slipstream absolutely was an attack on the network, but it was only possible because the filler was only applied in policy, not in consensus.
Bip110 would reject blocks containing transactions from slipstream.
Core v30 didn't fix anything, it just opened the door for abuse wider.

2026-02-16 15:52:59 UTC

- reply

This is a disingenuous argument, BIP110 does more than restore the op_return filter, it also fixes the taproot inscriptions fiasco and several other things.
I did an analysis of my own, and found that BIP110 would have saved the blockchain from 650mb of garbage in January.

2026-02-16 15:45:12 UTC

- reply

Are we forgetting that OpenAI themselves used to be a non-profit foundation too? I don't really trust their concept of a "foundation"

2026-02-02 03:06:49 UTC

- reply

Illegal material in the chain *is* an attack vector. Even if node runners aren't liable, the reputation of Bitcoin goes down the drain, just like BSV when they got flooded with it.

2026-02-01 23:58:01 UTC

- reply

You'd understand if you ever try to post anything contrary to the Core dogma on the dev email list or on the core git repo.
All the core devs do is flag your post as "off topic", then they unblock it long enough to ridicule you, then they freeze it again.

2026-02-01 21:15:42 UTC

- reply

You can't be a Core supporter without blocking everyone else. Core Devs do it, so the worshippers need to as well

2026-01-31 20:53:56 UTC

- reply

Hah, I was just about to say the same thing.
I only wish the core devs could extend the same olive branch.
Good luck, mate

2026-01-31 20:45:54 UTC

- reply

You have a very fucked up view of what content control is.
Please enlighten me, what limits are currently preventing a transaction from consuming an entire block? (And therefore selfishly congesting the network)
BIP110 makes it so you have to pay MORE fees for storing more data, making it MORE fair to people who actually want to move money instead of store porn.

2026-01-31 20:39:56 UTC

- reply

Yes nostr is a communication protocol, so they chose caps that are appropriate for communication.
Bitcoin needs caps appropriate for monetary transactions.. are you saying that while one protocol needs caps, another protocol should have none at all?
Have you ever written code before?

2026-01-31 20:30:32 UTC

- reply

Nostr has a 64 kb cap on text, are they censoring you?

2026-01-31 20:22:19 UTC

- reply

Bip110 is completely agnostic to whatever data flows through the network, it simply puts a cap on the size to prevent abuse.
Real engineering puts guardrails in rather than telling everyone that a legitimate use for the building they designed is to burn it down

2026-01-31 20:16:10 UTC

- reply

A global service that needs to live in personal computers.
If you want to store the entire Encyclopedia somewhere, use Dropbox, not the world's perfect money.

2026-01-31 20:10:52 UTC

- reply

When you order a pizza, does the web form allow you to type the entire Encyclopedia Britannica in the "delivery instructions" field, or is there a character limit there?

2026-01-31 18:38:11 UTC

- reply

Imagine what the transaction cost would be on sending a video in a single transaction instead of 1000 transactions. That sounds like a deterrent to me.

2026-01-31 18:28:28 UTC

- reply

Forcing them to split the witness elements across many transactions increases the cost of spamming the network. That would mean fewer people do it. It also means more money for miners.
The biggest win would be that it would effectively kill the image/audio/video inscriptions. Only the text based inscriptions would be practical after being split.
But ultimately the point is to send a message to them that non monetary transactions aren't welcome. But instead Core chose to open the doors for them.

2026-01-31 18:05:32 UTC

- reply

I just checked my node. Here are the violations according to the BIP110 rules for January 2026:
Witness element over 256 b: 0.2428%
Output over 34 b: 0.117%
Taproot annex: 0.0009%
Data push over 256 b: 0.0005%
Op_return over 83 b: 0.0005%
Control block over 257 b: 0%
The total sum of bytes over these limits is 681 Mb this month. 99.8% of that excess came from inscriptions.

2026-01-31 17:01:48 UTC

- reply

Are you able to zap me now?

2026-01-31 16:49:08 UTC

- reply

I'm new to the whole nostr thing, I'll see if I can get that set up

2026-01-31 16:48:07 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the ad hominem 👍
The whole point is to make it less practical.
The policy filters were doing a halfway decent job of keeping spam out.. it wasn't 100% effective, but it at least created a barrier against low effort spam.
But Core rolled out the red carpet and now even allows the low effort spam in.
Think of it like an ad-blocker. They're not 100%, but they do a decent job. It's better than NOT having an ad-blocker... The problem is that the entire node network needs to run the filter for it to work.

2026-01-31 16:40:38 UTC

- reply

There's a lot of rhetoric flying around, but underneath all that, this is what Knots is about:
Core used to have a mempool policy which set a default limit on certain field sizes... Since most people ran the default settings, it worked and allowed the mempool to (mostly) keep people from abusing the blockchain by using it to store data unrelated to monetary transactions.
But Core chose to remove that policy filter. This fundamentally changed Bitcoin from being a monetary network to being a file storage network..
Knots is a response to that change. Knots restored the field size limits as part of consensus code so it can't be removed..
Knots has no intention of filtering legitimate transactions of any kind, it just caps field sizes to prevent it from being used as anything other than pure money.

2026-01-31 16:28:10 UTC

- reply

I can't really speak for everyone in a community, but running BIP110 is the only (current) option for anyone who disagrees with what Core did.
I really don't want my node to be file storage for people who aren't using Bitcoin as money.
I'm happy storing any any all monetary transactions, but arbitrary files that are unrelated to monetary transfer? Absolutely not
We used to be able to manage this through policy, but Core removed that, so consensus is our only practical option at the moment

2026-01-31 16:21:03 UTC

- reply

And yet the Core developers have created a cabal where no one can have any influence on the protocol except them. They block people from commenting on the email chain and on their git if they don't like it.
And then as soon as another node implementation starts gaining traction, they start spewing fud about it so they can hold onto their power.

2026-01-31 16:16:53 UTC

- reply

I think you have a false idea of what knots does.. knots is completely agnostic to what a transaction contains. It simply sets a limit on the SIZE of the transaction.
The best money in the world doesn't need to be a file storage service to be money..

2026-01-31 16:14:13 UTC

- reply

You're absolutely right, BTC is indeed the best money.
But your concept of "the entire Bitcoin technical community" ignores the fact that there is another "entire group" that disagrees with what Core developers are doing.. Core is allowing Bitcoin to deviate from its function of being money by forcing my node to act as a permanent Dropbox for people who aren't using it as money..
BIP110 corrects this, and returns Bitcoin to being the best money.
I have no opinion on nostr.

2026-01-26 15:48:21 UTC

It's interesting how all of the grifters and scammers are boycotting BIP 110, and supporting Bitcoin Core.. I wonder what their motivations are..

2025-12-16 17:01:24 UTC

- reply

Even though I'm a Bitcoin maximallist. I'm losing faith in its ability to stay decentralized when the node software is clearly captured by devs who are paid off by miners and ethereum wannabe startups.

2025-11-28 18:33:37 UTC

- reply

Which coin confiscating BIP? The only BIP I'm aware of is the one that sets reasonable limits on fields designed to hold short text, not blob data.

2025-11-28 18:29:31 UTC

- reply

No, I'm just annoyed by all the ignorant people who want BTC to turn into ETH

2025-11-28 17:19:11 UTC

- reply

Running Core to allow large op_returns is like writing a novel in the "delivery instructions" section of a pizza delivery order, and then saying "don't get mad, bro" when the kitchen receipt runs out of printer paper.

2025-11-28 17:17:27 UTC

- reply

Censorship is forcing node runners to relay everything regardless of what their beliefs are.. knots allows you to speak your beliefs without being forced to conform to the corrupt Core developer's goal of turning BTC into a garbage can.

2025-11-24 14:14:14 UTC

- reply

Using the op_return as blob storage is like writing a novel in the "delivery instructions" field in a pizza delivery order.
I would like you to imagine this: what if Google Drive or Dropbox's business model was to use your hard drive space to store other people's viruses, documents, and images? How much would you want them to pay you for that privilege? Because at the moment, Bitcoin nodes are not being paid to store your crap.

2025-11-22 12:24:41 UTC

- reply

Let's keep plummeting until all the leverage gets crushed

2025-11-20 16:15:22 UTC

New BIP proposal that actually addresses the inscription plague: https://bip444.github.io/
BIP-444 implements temporary consensus limits on data fields to make inscriptions technically and economically impractical while preserving ALL monetary use cases:
- 34-byte scriptPubKey limit (covers all modern payment types)
- 256-byte data push limit (kills image storage)
- Disables unused opcodes being exploited for spam
The economic case is simple: Monetary transactions pay once for one-time value. Inscriptions pay once for PERPETUAL hosting by every node forever. It's an arbitrage exploit where miners capture 100% of revenue while node operators bear 100% of eternal storage costs.
This isn't censorship - it's fixing a specification bug. Every protocol has boundaries. We already limit block size, script size, and disable certain opcodes. This just aligns the boundaries with Bitcoin's actual purpose: money.
The temporary nature (1 year) gives time to develop longer-term solutions while immediately protecting the network. Though honestly, these limits should be permanent. Bitcoin is money, not a decentralized Dropbox for your jpegs.
Core devs will fight this because they've confused "neutrality" with allowing network vandalism. But node operators who actually bear the costs understand: inscriptions are parasitic.
Run Bitcoin Knots. Support UASF if needed. Protect Bitcoin as money.
#Bitcoin #BIP444 #Inscriptions #NodeRunners #BitcoinKnots

2025-10-22 14:27:44 UTC

- reply

Except you trigger a different tax called capital gains.. you are taxed on avoiding inflation.

2025-10-20 13:35:44 UTC

- reply

As Michael Saylor said, if he wanted to destroy Bitcoin, all he would do is hire 100 developers and tell them to "make Bitcoin better"

2025-10-20 13:18:29 UTC

- reply

Taking my ability to filter my node as I see for is taking away my ability to speak my values.
I run knots because it allows me to transmit the mempool that I believe in. THAT is freedom.

2025-10-20 13:13:39 UTC

- reply

Run knots to save Bitcoin. Large op_returns will cause mempool congestion, slowing down real transactions, just so some greasy startups can flood the world's best store of value with cat pictures.

2025-10-17 14:00:58 UTC

- reply

I would love to spend my BTC, but I live in a city of 1.5 million people and nowhere accepts BTC.

2025-10-17 13:10:25 UTC

- reply

You sounds like you would fit right in with the UK government. Their Internet oversight and licensing are right up your alley.

2025-10-17 13:07:42 UTC

- reply

We need to close the inscription bug and hardcode an 83b op_return

2025-10-17 13:01:56 UTC

- reply

Filling up the mempool with images and non monetary op_returns benefits nobody.
Genuine transactions get crowded out of blocks, slowing down the speed of real transactions.
We seriously need to hardcode an 83b cap on the op_return, and close the inscription bug.

2025-10-16 22:52:22 UTC

- reply

Hey there Luke, what do you think the likelihood is of successfully forking BTC to hardcode the op_return filter, and eliminating the inscription exploit?