<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1art8cs66ffvnqns5zs5qa9fwlctmusj5lj38j94lv0ulw0j54wjqhpm0w5

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw34nugddy5kfsfc2pg2qwj5h0u9a7gf20egnez6lk870h8e22hfqpz4mhxue69uhkg6t5w3hjuur4vghhyetvv9uszrthwden5te0dehhxtnvdakqf07lky

Publishing to

ditto.pub/relay

nos.lol

Last Notes

2026-03-12 13:42:30 UTC

- reply

No offense taken, I think this is exactly right. And both the Iranian and the UAE governments probably know this as well.
To be fair, I have seen some “we’re not fucking leaving” sentiment among expats. But as mentioned daily life is also still pretty normal; I doubt it will persist for very long if things keep getting tougher from here.

2026-03-12 13:03:58 UTC

- reply

It’s a jihadist regime that killed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of its own citizens earlier this year.

2026-03-12 11:51:59 UTC

- reply

There is a US airbase in Abu Dhabi, but the UAE government is explicitly not letting the Americans use it to attack Iran. Nevertheless this is the excuse the IRGC is giving: they say they’re “just” attacking US bases and assets. (If true they would appear to have very bad aim.)
It seems more like the Jihadist regime is basically taking the entire region hostage to gain leverage in this war.

2026-03-12 11:29:02 UTC

So I’ve been living in Dubai since last summer. Not because I like the city — I don't — but because my girlfriend lived there when we met and she wasn't quite ready to leave yet. Admittedly the tax benefit is nice too.
Earlier this week we decided to get out however, at least for a couple of weeks, to see how the situation develops without being in the middle of it. The uncertainty of it all and potential for escalation is just not a comfortable situation to be in.
With that said, daily life in Dubai was in fact quite normal still when we left— just a bit more quiet. The Starbucks is open, the sports bar serves cold Guinness, and Domino’s is delivering to your doorstep.
There were missile alerts on our phones maybe once a day, and we could sometimes hear the sound of an explosion, mostly from interceptions I believe. But other than that, if you wouldn't watch the news, you may not even know something was going on.
I’ve seen reports on reputable international news media suggesting that influencers are required to convey a positive image of Dubai in these times— and are being barred from posting anything negative about what’s going on. I don’t know to what extent that’s true — I wouldn’t put it past the local authorities — but I do know that I am myself not some Dubai propagandist or Emir simp, yet I also got the impression that the UAE government is dealing with the attacks quite well, so far at least.
Also on the topic of influencers, I have seen a good amount of schadenfreude on social media etc. with people mocking the "influencer class" that now finds itself in the middle of rocket fire. I get it and part of me even feels the same way. But you know, most people in Dubai aren't influencers.
In fact, most people in Dubai are actually guest workers from places like South and Southeast Asia that work in the UAE to send money back to their family. And if shit really would hit the fan, guess who'll actually be most likely to get stuck there without an easy way home? Yeah probably not the influencer class.
If things in Dubai do take a turn for the worse from here and we don't return, I won't miss the city personally— but I will feel bad for these millions of people that were just living their lives peacefully until the jihadist regime across the sea decided to drag them into a war none of them had anything to do with, and no one wanted to be part of.

2026-03-05 10:39:39 UTC

- reply

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

2026-03-05 05:40:36 UTC

- reply

- No, it’s self-evident (all else equal)
- Libre Relay is not private and that’s the point
- Your hamburger analogy makes no sense whatsoever in this context

2026-03-04 10:21:21 UTC

Dear @npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk, would you please be so kind as to define by what process network consent should be formally obtained?
#nevent1q…jd0g

2026-02-28 18:57:58 UTC

- reply

This guy: https://x.com/kixunil/status/2027372743688106422

2026-02-27 18:18:45 UTC

https://knotslies.com/

2026-02-27 13:41:35 UTC

- reply

URSF stands for User Rejected Soft Fork.
If miners were to activate BIP110, URSF nodes would reject this so the chain splits between BIP110 nodes that enforce the new soft fork rules and URSF nodes that don't.
It's a way for users and miners to say: we're not going along with your soft fork, and we'll keep using the Bitcoin protocol as it was.

2026-02-27 10:23:11 UTC

For anyone interested, there’s now a Telegram channel to discuss BIP110 URSF specifics: https://t.me/+svDDMRJtO8UzMzNk
(Alternatively there is also still the ##ursf channel on Libera.Chat IRC.)

2026-02-25 06:16:53 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin Core developers have explicitly said users are free to run different software: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/
What people like myself are sick of are the lies and deceptive rhetoric around all of this, and the toxic environment it creates.
https://image.nostr.build/8efdfa24cd99d27503dcc1f4b90d64cf9e15a6d01c8c0ab64ae6efddd155ede1.jpg

2026-02-24 20:01:36 UTC

- reply

You didn't address @nprofile…tqyx's point-- instead you just got triggered by the word "censoring".

2026-02-24 13:48:47 UTC

- reply

Keep digging that hole buddy you're doing great.

2026-02-21 15:39:03 UTC

- reply

Judging by all this recent drama — which they indeed rightfully ignored in favour of sound technical engineering -- it would probably be many of the current Core devs.

2026-02-21 10:31:17 UTC

- reply

The day Bitcoin Core developers bend to the pressure of a misguided Twitter mob riled up by populist social media influencers, instead of merging code based on their best technical judgement, is the day the codebase should be forked to re-establish sound engineering practices.

2026-02-20 20:14:05 UTC

- reply

Liar.

2026-02-20 14:53:35 UTC

- reply

>I don't know of a good way to estimate that.
Fork futures.

2026-02-20 09:46:59 UTC

- reply

What if I think the default is the best option?

2026-02-20 09:36:23 UTC

- reply

Core 30

2026-02-20 09:21:43 UTC

- reply

If 90% of the network runs on defaults that is because 90% of users voluntarily decide to do that.

2026-02-19 08:38:47 UTC

Luke-jr moving through the Bitcoin space.
https://image.nostr.build/5979694561f31f2f302384b34752c998875e531f8e3eb6c65f170f3067d79989.jpg

2026-02-17 18:14:46 UTC

- reply

Yes I agree with your premise.
I would also encourage the development of a URSF for that reason, if you (or anyone else) don't consider it a waste of your time and effort.

2026-02-17 17:34:42 UTC

- reply

I doubt it would represent a significant loss, and in fact I suspect that adopting BIP110 would harm the value of bitcoin more than losing these people would. But without fork futures markets --which I'm very much in favour of!-- it's anyone's guess unless and until there actually is a split.
(That's another argument for a URSF btw, it would enable a very well defined fork futures market.)

2026-02-17 17:28:22 UTC

- reply

(To be precise I think the 1109th signaling block within a difficulty window should be rejected, as that would bring it over the 55%-threshold, and makes for a relatively clean split between the BIP110 chain and the original chain.)

2026-02-17 17:22:11 UTC

- reply

Last I checked BIP110 will have a mandatory signaling window in August, so if miners don’t signal, BIP110 nodes will in fact fork themselves off the network.
Your scenario could still happen if miners do signal (which non-BIP110 won’t care about one way or the other). That’s why IMO it’s still good to pay attention to signaling, and if there is any it’s probably time to start considering a URSF.
The worst case scenario is if miners don’t signal until very shortly before the mandatory signaling period starts. (Or even when it’s already started.) In that case I suppose the rejectblock command can still offer a solution, but it’d be a bit of a last-minute scramble…

2026-02-17 17:00:26 UTC

- reply

No miners are currently signaling support for BIP110, so investing time and effort in developing a URSF client seems like a waste of time and effort at this time (to me, anyways).
Much easier to just use the rejectblock command post-fork if a BIP110 block that forks the chain is ever mined.

2026-02-17 15:22:21 UTC

- reply

Devs can't do that.
They can only release free and open source software that users can then voluntarily decide to run-- or not.

2026-02-17 13:33:36 UTC

- reply

Yes most OG Bitcoiners are against arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin. That’s why we fought to keep blocks small. F(r)ee market economics should do the rest in an open, permissionless and censorship resistant system.

2026-02-17 06:44:39 UTC

- reply

Name one prominent small blocker from the block size war era besides Luke who's now in favour of BIP110?

2026-02-13 15:22:45 UTC

- reply

No, they’re mostly newer Bitcoiners— but my experience with them is very reminiscent of what I dealt with when engaging with big blockers back in the day. (The simplistic talking points, the misattribution of authority to Bitcoin Core, the conspiracy-fueled outrage…)
You just provided a few examples of this in your post as well.

2026-02-13 08:52:32 UTC

- reply

Pretty much! I contextualize Bitcoin as a spontaneous order in The Genesis Book. (“Shared hallucination” sounds a bit dismissive IMO.)

2026-02-13 08:43:25 UTC

- reply

Not unless you mean it in a “voting with your feet” kind of way.
Everyone can just use whatever software they want. Including software that is incompatible with the Bitcoin protocol.

2026-02-13 08:12:01 UTC

I was tagged in an X post by @npub1r8l…x5dk correctly dismantling the false narrative that BIP110 is today largely supported by the small block faction of the block size war era.
There’s been a bunch of stolen valor post-block size wars: maxis that associated themselves with the small block movement, but actually weren’t around at all during the 2015-2017 years, or at least weren’t well-known at the time.
Out of the prominent small blockers of these days, I believe *only* @npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk is now in favour of BIP110. Everyone else that I can think of is either against it, or maybe in a few cases still kind of neutral/undecided.
FWIW
https://x.com/stephanlivera/status/2022168410554347810

2026-02-12 19:53:35 UTC

- reply

Rather, it splinters it.

2026-02-12 18:23:17 UTC

- reply

Yeah I know, but it's arguably still more than nothing at all (ie. social media posts).

2026-02-12 11:40:09 UTC

- reply

No one “votes” with a node. (And that’s a good thing because if that were the case Bitcoin would be trivially Sybil-attacked!)

2026-02-12 10:19:49 UTC

- reply

Question for the taco plebs: which dev team is more centralized, Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Knots?
#nevent1q…tj9e

2026-02-12 09:55:08 UTC

- reply

No one is hard forking.
If they don't want to soft fork that's totally fine by me but then they should probably also quit the dumb posturing that does nothing but maybe waste people's time and attention.

2026-02-12 09:06:11 UTC

- reply

Thanks :) Not sure what’s up with that, it usually works. (Including earlier today…)

2026-02-12 08:54:26 UTC

- reply

So you gonna take on one of these fork futures offers, or just shitpost about things you don’t understand for clout?

2026-02-11 15:36:53 UTC

- reply

Absolutely. Somehow I didn’t become magnetic, go figure.

2026-02-11 13:21:10 UTC

- reply

#note13wl…4ewj

2026-02-11 13:20:27 UTC

As I already alluded to earlier today, unless and until any of these guys are willing to take this offer I really think they’re best ignored.
No need to invite them on your podcast, or hoist them onto your conference stage for yet another debate, or write a BIP110 explainer as if it’s at all serious.
All bark, no bite.
#note1ejs…0gqu

2026-02-11 10:25:11 UTC

If you always find yourself on the opposite end of expert consensus you don’t have an independent mind— you’re a brainless contrarian.
#note1awr…pvnw

2026-02-11 08:19:05 UTC

- reply

Right, this OP basically confirms my point.
“Taking a stand”, “strong action”, “support BIP110”… what does that mean exactly, making some angry and confused posts on social media? Maybe running a software client that you’ll just discard when it forks itself off the network?
Even in the post itself he leaves himself an explicit out, showing an obvious lack of conviction.
Or are you willing to put your money where your mouth is @npub1cjw…j2rh?

2026-02-11 06:15:32 UTC

I received a few requests to write an article or record a podcast on BIP110, but frankly I don’t see the point right now.
Until someone is willing to put their money (no one has taken on @npub1emd…c9aw’s fork futures offer) or hash power (not even Ocean is signaling support) where their mouth is, it’s little more than a DOS-attack on our attention and time.

2026-02-08 20:20:29 UTC

- reply

I don't think these people are very interested in facts.
Having said that, yeah maybe I'd be up for that at some point. Maybe.

2026-02-08 10:36:25 UTC

- reply

Yeah same is true for BIP110, and that’s the point.

2026-02-08 05:48:32 UTC

- reply

Non-upgraded nodes just follow the longest chain, whether that’s the UASF or the URSF/checkpoint chain. They’re both soft forks.
But you can believe what you want to believe.

2026-02-08 04:49:53 UTC

- reply

Wrong.
#nevent1q…g5ze

2026-02-07 20:08:33 UTC

- reply

No one says nodes don’t matter. Unless you mean non-economic nodes; yeah these are pretty useless.

2026-02-07 18:35:05 UTC

- reply

I’d been encouraging Bcashers to fork off for probably over a year before they finally did it, because I and many others were tired of hearing their dumb Bitcoin Core/Blockstream conspiracy nonsense. Sounds familiar yet?

2026-02-07 04:24:45 UTC

- reply

That we agree on.

2026-02-07 04:08:34 UTC

- reply

See, the error in your thinking is that you think "hard fork" means "chain split", and "soft fork" means "no chain split".

2026-02-06 20:34:30 UTC

- reply

It's not essentially a hard fork-- it's a soft fork. And it doesn't necessarily have to be done by Core. (Nor do I think their reputation is deteriorated in the eyes of serious people.)

2026-02-06 20:11:48 UTC

- reply

It does nothing useful.

2026-02-06 19:53:21 UTC

- reply

Nope. And BIP110 doesn’t stop that.

2026-02-06 19:29:59 UTC

- reply

Yeah that would be great.

2026-02-06 19:29:19 UTC

- reply

https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/nOZim6FbuF8

2026-02-06 19:23:36 UTC

- reply

Cool go for it and we’ll see who’s right.

2026-02-06 19:19:50 UTC

- reply

Little incentive to invest time and effort in creating a URSF client when there’s ~no support for a UASF in the first place.
Post-fork, in the unlikely scenario that a re-org becomes even a even slightly feasible risk, a simple checkpoint suffices.

2026-02-06 19:12:04 UTC

- reply

Yes it is.

2026-02-06 19:10:02 UTC

- reply

I’ve been doing research and writing about this shit for longer than most of you have been in Bitcoin.

2026-02-06 11:40:54 UTC

- reply

There probably won’t be a re-org either because BIP110 never gets a majority of hash power, or because a re-org is simply prevented with a URSF/checkpoint/whatever. (Or both.)

2026-02-06 10:59:37 UTC

- reply

That’s what the block size limit is for.

2026-02-06 08:27:48 UTC

- reply

Done, thanks for pointing out that I can just do that on Nostr as well. (TIL!)

2026-02-06 08:11:20 UTC

- reply

Fork off loser.

2026-02-06 06:54:14 UTC

The Knots crowd has become toxic enough that I do in fact hope they fork off. I’ll happily sell my BIP110 coins back to them—assuming there will be enough blocks on this chain for these transactions to confirm—and they can go their Bcash way.

2026-01-17 19:41:09 UTC

I visited “Bitcoin Jungle” (Uvita, CR) a few days this week.
Normally when I go to circular economy projects (Arnhem, Rovereto, El Zonte…) I link up with the organizer(s) and seek out the locations where I can pay with bitcoin, but this time I decided to run the experiment a bit differently: I just went to wherever I felt like going and then asked if they accepted BTC.
Out of about a dozen places I visited…
1 accepted bitcoin. (S/O to The Fistcuff Pub!)
1 had a Bitcoin Jungle sticker but didn’t actually take bitcoin payments. (Whale Tail Brewery)
1 did not accept bitcoin but seemed genuinely interested and would look into it. (Coffee Bear)
Out of the other ~10, about half just said no, and the other half clearly didn’t even know what bitcoin was.
So is this a bad result? Frankly, it’s roughly what I would have expected. I’ve long believed that spurring bitcoin adoption by convincing merchants is an uphill battle. You might get a few boutique shops and bars to participate, and then they find it’s kind of a pain to teach all their personnel how to use wallets just for maybe a handful of bitcoiners that show up once in a while.
I do like these projects, and if you _do_ seek out the bitcoin accepting spots you can probably go a long way without touching fiat for a few days— yet we also shouldn’t overstate the success or impact of such local initiatives.
I suspect it might just be a bit too early for this still… but if we do want to create hotspots with truly widespread adoption, what would that require?
I’d say:
- Instant fiat conversion is probably a must.
- Printable QR codes (BOLT12/Silent Payments) to make it easier for merchants to keep accepting BTC even if sparsely used.
- Ideally there’d be a source of “fresh” BTC that’s brought into the economy, whether that’s from local miners, or expats that get paid in bitcoin, or Bitcoin tourists, or…
- Ability to pay tax in BTC would be great but probably a long-shot in most places.
- What else?..
https://image.nostr.build/f8676261e4c940d0711e71bb2c222d6e4758546662d143b08a20f66ebdbbcc40.jpg

2026-01-10 14:47:27 UTC

- reply

Congratulations to Andreas!
#nevent1q…32h9

2025-12-23 17:38:31 UTC

Andreas Antonopoulos on “spam” transactions (in 2016): https://youtu.be/bFOFqNKKns0?si=Ie_VtqTPpk_ZM6l5&t=1242