nobody

Public Key

npub1andyx2xqhwffeg595snk9a8ll43j6dvw5jzpljm5yjm3qync7peqzl8jd4

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqswekjr9rqthy5u52z6gfmz7nll6cedxk82fpqled6zfdcszfu0quspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet53pl2h9

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1andyx2xqhwffeg595snk9a8ll43j6dvw5jzpljm5yjm3qync7peqzl8jd4

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-06-30 13:47:31 UTC

- reply

You guys just closed my Bringin account out of the blue.
Now what?
https://blossom.primal.net/8e4c524917a3b6195f46e8a07e9ecce71a75377cac6cec03d06d24692dc3046c.png

2026-05-06 08:28:02 UTC

- reply

See @nprofile…h34j @nprofile…566r channels, they speak a lot about it. Basically DYOR

2026-05-06 06:23:24 UTC

- reply

Knots with BIP-110 obviously.

2026-05-05 08:54:08 UTC

- reply

You can't own what's free.

2026-05-04 20:25:58 UTC

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/10ea7a447ba6f6ec186122d4d4a318ee0cc32bb97fdf01e85fd46b2951506dd5.webp

2026-05-04 15:44:55 UTC

- reply

Saylor vs Schiff
#nevent1q…x6cq

2026-05-03 07:15:53 UTC

- reply

Yes.
#nevent1q…x6cq

2026-05-03 07:13:46 UTC

- reply

Seen Saylor & Schiff there?
#nevent1q…x6cq

2026-05-02 22:11:32 UTC

- reply

Self-souverignity is discipline.

2026-05-01 14:47:13 UTC

- reply

I'm lost in translation.

2026-05-01 13:57:31 UTC

- reply

Nostr is for exiting the system. XRP is for servicing the system. Discussing Ripple's pre-mined bank token here is like bringing a KYC form to a cypherpunk meetup.
#nevent1q…rn38

2026-05-01 13:33:51 UTC

- reply

*Shayna

2026-04-29 09:45:22 UTC

- reply

The 'strong woman' archetype has become as tired as the damsel it replaced - performative, often just 'men with different anatomy.' Meanwhile, actual strong women - mothers - never needed a writers' room to validate their resilience.

2026-04-28 18:41:15 UTC

- reply

He is afraid to be next. We all are afraid.

2026-04-25 10:37:07 UTC

- reply

Dunno, I'm not YouTube expert. But I know algorithms hate freedom since they are part of the system.
And personally lately I don't see any eagerness nor motivation nor interest in Bitcoin nor freedom from people. They tend to enjoy complaining about the economy, agree that inflation sucks, some even love it since it drives prices of their mortgaged apartments higher...
I feel like Bitcoin is only for the chosen few. And it'll stay like that.
But please keep doing what you are doing, I love your content bro!
Hope to seeing you in Prague this June! Or any other time you are ever around!

2026-04-24 07:05:54 UTC

- reply

Happy birthday @nprofile…tkhj ! Looking forward to seeing you in Prague!

2026-04-18 15:20:29 UTC

- reply

Lazy people call out other lazy people.
https://blossom.primal.net/e758437e7704ff9c9a1147b41cfe4c94b189480e57f2e942c0d37e8ed8daafb2.gif

2026-04-17 18:42:09 UTC

- reply

Where do you put that when you visit a swimming pool?

2026-04-14 07:53:12 UTC

- reply

And Wisp says "Unsupported event kind: 30402"
cc @nprofile…jejf

2026-04-09 18:59:08 UTC

- reply

https://youtu.be/dHKotCnjYow

2026-04-09 06:20:48 UTC

- reply

Use Linux, keep calm.

2026-04-06 09:17:29 UTC

- reply

Lucky me with Linux on Lenovo laptop who never and will never use Apple.

2026-04-06 08:35:12 UTC

- reply

Only WD-40
https://blossom.primal.net/1a007e302467c9c36a8963496b62bbc4af626d2d598938350105b90b1ef94774.png

2026-04-04 20:00:21 UTC

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/91fd36ed33c5945c8d082935f450ecd68f82ef184abb6fcf6e42e7d735bcec7b.mp4

2026-04-04 16:43:05 UTC

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/65efd314870d3ee0cada79f102088b1d766ca791ab55c540d5967af2e013052d.png

2026-04-04 10:52:54 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…cmn7 👀

2026-04-03 23:06:41 UTC

Nikola Tesla and Bitcoin
https://blossom.primal.net/030d2088b400393727bfeb128b68897944a7794609d3981dd788c25c5db28998.mp4

2026-04-03 17:19:18 UTC

- reply

How about 25% into staking projects such as CRO (Cronos) with 5-9.5% APR and ATOM (Cosmos Hub) with 16.5% APR?
Can you model that?
Can you share a link for the document you used for your stress test?

2026-04-03 12:19:13 UTC

- reply

Who's behind bip-360 and why would bip-360 be bad?

2026-04-02 19:50:18 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/05c64ed3c0543de2b400fbcd85b978c1914ae1f332f32f1228794d02e56aeda6.png

2026-04-02 18:09:00 UTC

- reply

Safe to update using zapstore?
https://blossom.primal.net/a8aeeaf6d7b7d3deb4d41373a86567cc634c98b0102f11119ffdc3e5cb828039.png

2026-04-01 22:03:13 UTC

- reply

Nice day to fly to the moon.

2026-04-01 08:44:19 UTC

- reply

Why?

2026-04-01 08:21:04 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…kjtv do you curate apps?
#nevent1q…6ujk

2026-04-01 08:09:38 UTC

- reply

How?
#nevent1q…vrcc

2026-03-31 21:12:36 UTC

- reply

In USD equivalent.

2026-03-31 21:10:33 UTC

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/63a0068382c45256e9aa3c857961967ac99e1ebd1889a3f141882db77b92c4cf.jpg

2026-03-31 16:53:04 UTC

- reply

Applied at three different companies via https://bitcoinerjobs.com
No response from two companies, and one rejection from Strike.
https://blossom.primal.net/c5918598857efa09740ad75a2b160c60acb3f2ee5e60d181651616ee4156ab4a.png

2026-03-30 07:15:19 UTC

https://youtu.be/hdV23UO9xNA
by @nprofile…wkhl

2026-03-29 10:37:44 UTC

A man becomes a slave to anything he can't walk away from.

2026-03-28 10:48:07 UTC

https://youtu.be/O5dUJTFZK6k

2026-03-27 19:24:15 UTC

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/63a0068382c45256e9aa3c857961967ac99e1ebd1889a3f141882db77b92c4cf.jpg

2026-03-27 14:11:30 UTC

- reply

Buy more

2026-03-27 06:59:41 UTC

- reply

PoW

2026-03-26 07:58:40 UTC

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/63a0068382c45256e9aa3c857961967ac99e1ebd1889a3f141882db77b92c4cf.jpg

2026-03-25 10:50:43 UTC

"The future belongs to those who prepare for it today."
- Malcolm X, influential African American human rights activist (1925-1965)

2026-03-24 16:15:11 UTC

- reply

Speaking of,
https://youtu.be/vUdHRz9OQvQ

2026-03-23 17:24:17 UTC

- reply

Where do voters money go?

2026-03-23 09:29:42 UTC

- reply

GM!

2026-03-22 19:36:29 UTC

- reply

It's a soft fork, not "my" fork. If you don't like it, don't signal for it - stay on Core forever. Nothing changes for you.
If it activates and you're still running Core v30, you validate those blocks just fine (stricter rules are backward-compatible). The only "hard fork outcome" happens if you voluntarily follow the spam chain that the economic majority rejects.
You won't lose - you'll just keep hosting monkey JPEGs for free while the rest of us filter them. Your choice.

2026-03-22 18:00:40 UTC

- reply

💯
https://blossom.primal.net/8a2b971dddfe6d6419cc975f6f1b191fd7691208bb78492d30fc4a903949647e.gif

2026-03-22 08:21:28 UTC

BIP110
https://blossom.primal.net/5b9365414d56a0219e3fef018d5f3aaa073d994da280b534feec2cb09a8da25d.png

2026-03-22 07:12:20 UTC

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/1a007e302467c9c36a8963496b62bbc4af626d2d598938350105b90b1ef94774.png

2026-03-22 06:59:57 UTC

https://blog.bitbox.swiss/en/does-airgap-make-bitcoin-hardware-wallets-more-secure/

2026-03-19 12:15:49 UTC

BTCXAU is in bull trend.
Only few see this.
https://blossom.primal.net/39e7887b4abed67ed28ee17164fa55b5c62d93e89f383de4afef715026ee4cba.png

2026-03-18 08:15:41 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/c9db52df2b1cd0ddae8abb126efb273c73705ce30528ee05c033bdcfd1d59baa.png

2026-03-17 19:46:29 UTC

- reply

Can't answer. I don't have enough knowledge.
What's Marmot? What's NIP17?

2026-03-17 18:13:15 UTC

- reply

If the US government wants to spend 200M to attack Bitcoin, they can do it today with inscriptions - permanent bloat that never expires and costs less capital.
Your hypothetical attack requires:
- Locking 200M indefinitely (if they spend it, attack ends instantly)
- Creating temporary UTXO pressure that vanishes the moment they move funds
- Sacrificing liquidity for a 2-month inconvenience
Meanwhile, status quo lets them spend 50M on Yuga Labs NFTs to achieve permanent 38% UTXO bloat that forces hardware upgrades forever. You're arguing we should keep the cheap, permanent attack vector to prevent an expensive, temporary one. That's not defense - that's suicide pact logic.
"BIP-110 forbids soft forks" is nonsense. BIP-110 is a soft fork. It doesn't prevent future ones - miners can still signal for new rules. You're making up constraints that don't exist.
The nation state already won. They didn't need 200M - they captured Core via Citrea (per Todd's admission), removed your config options in v30, and now force you to host their ZK-rollup data. Why burn capital when you can just merge PR #32406?
If China wants to knock nodes offline, they don't need a "fast attack." They just wait for Core v35 to remove the remaining limits while you defend the status quo like a digital Maginot Line.
Run Knots. The 200M boogeyman is fiction; the 38% bloat in your RAM right now is fact.

2026-03-17 17:44:58 UTC

- reply

Your "attack" requires locking up 200M worth of Bitcoin to create ephemeral UTXOs that must remain unspent to maintain the bloat. That's not an attack - that's voluntary capital destruction.
The economics fail:
- To keep "pleb nodes offline," those UTXOs must never be spent (otherwise they exit the set). The attacker sacrifices 200M in opportunity cost indefinitely for temporary RAM pressure.
- If they do spend them, the bloat vanishes. If they don't, they've effectively burned 200M to make Raspberry Pis expensive for 2 months. China has better ways to spend F-35 money.
- Meanwhile, under status quo, that same 200M creates permanent inscription dust (38% of UTXO set today) that never expires and forces hardware upgrades forever. That's the actual attack - and it's already happening.
The "empty chain" fallacy:
You assume BIP-110 = empty blocks. False. It filters non-monetary data (JPEGs, ZK-proofs). Legitimate economic activity (Lightning channel factories, BitVM settlements, exchange batches) still fills blocks and pays fees. The difference? Legitimate activity aggregates (1 tx = 1,000 users via Lightning). Spam doesn't.
Speed vs. Permanence:
Under BIP-110, a 200M attack is expensive, temporary, and unsustainable (capital locked). Under Core v30, inscription bloat is free (externalized), permanent, and accelerating (no dust limits). You're arguing we should keep the permanent occupation to prevent a temporary siege.
The "defense" is the attack. You're defending the pollution that centralizes validation to data centers (Citrea's endgame) to prevent a hypothetical blitz that costs more than the defense budget of most nations.
If a nation state wants to knock nodes offline, they can just buy Core maintainers (already done, per Citrea receipts) instead of burning 200M in capital.
Run Knots. The "attack" you're fearing is economically impossible; the attack you're defending is already 38% of your RAM.

2026-03-17 17:23:35 UTC

- reply

Creative argument, but based on a false premise.
BIP-110 enforces dust limits (outputs under 1k sats are invalid). Your "1-in-25-out attack" creates 24 dust outputs per transaction - those transactions are rejected under BIP-110. The attack vector you're describing is exactly what Knots already filters.
The "buffer" is the attack. That "noise" filling blocks? It's already the UTXO bloat attack you fear. 38% of the UTXO set is inscription dust under 1k sats created by the "retarded monkey pictures" you defended earlier. Nation states don't need to spend 1B - they just let NFT speculators do it for free while Core subsidizes the storage costs.
Empty blocks ≠ free transactions. Minimum relay fees (1 sat/vbyte) still exist. If a nation state wants to spend 45K/day to create valid, non-dust UTXOs under BIP-110, those transactions compete with legitimate economic activity (Lightning channel opens, BitVM settlements) that actually pays fees. Under status quo, they just mint JPEGs that externalize costs to node RAM forever.
The timeline fear is backwards. Current inscription growth is permanent - that 38% never prunes. A hypothetical BIP-110 "attack" would be temporary (expensive, fee-competitive, and dust-limited), while the "defense mechanism" you're championing is permanent occupation of your hardware.
You don't need monkey JPEGs to prevent UTXO spam - you need dust limits. Which BIP-110 enforces. Which Core v30 removed from the default.
Stop defending the occupation as "security." That's Stockholm syndrome with extra steps.

2026-03-17 16:56:35 UTC

- reply

You're arguing we need "good spam" to prevent bad spam - like saying we need litter everywhere to prevent graffiti.
The error: BIP-110 doesn't just lower fees - it enforces contiguous data limits (520 bytes) and dust limits (1k sats minimum). A nation state can't "UTXO spam" under BIP-110 because:
1. Dust outputs under 1k sats are invalid (already filtered by Knots)
2. Witness data is capped (no more 4MB blocks of random data)
3. Minimum fee rates still apply - empty blocks don't mean free transactions
Current "protection" is fake. Those "retarded monkey pictures" you're defending? They already are the nation-state attack vector. 38% UTXO bloat, permanent RAM consumption, all subsidized by NFT speculation. China or NSA doesn't need to spend 2.3M - they just let the degens do it for free while pretending it's "organic demand."
Your defense mechanism is the attack. Inscriptions fill blocks with garbage, force hardware upgrades, and centralize validation - exactly what a nation state wants. You're defending the Trojan horse because you think it guards the gate.
Under BIP-110, legitimate monetary transactions (which aggregate fees via Lightning/BitVM) outcompete spam. Under status quo, file storage always wins because storage externalizes costs (pay once, store forever).
45K/day is the cost of a proper Bitcoin node network. 2.3M/day is the cost of Core's captured policy subsidizing Citrea and Yuga Labs.
Pick your poison: defendable money, or "protected" by monkey JPEGs.

2026-03-17 16:23:26 UTC

- reply

You confuse blocks (disk, cheap) with UTXO set (RAM, expensive).
That "35-45 GB" is blockchain history - you can prune that or archive to external storage.
The emergency is the UTXO set: 38% inscription dust under 1k sats that every node must keep in RAM forever to validate new transactions. When that grows, your Raspberry Pi chokes, validation centralizes to data centers.
Current blocks at 2MB doesn't mean future blocks stay there. During NFT mania, we saw 4MB witness blocks stuffed with data. Without BIP-110, the next speculative bubble fills your RAM with permanent dust.
Even 1GB of forced storage is theft when I didn't consent to host your files. The cost isn't the point - the externalization is. You pay once; I pay forever.
Run the numbers on RAM requirements, not disk. Or keep pretending 128GB servers are "no big deal" while node count drops.
https://blossom.primal.net/7583ed5a8c90db413308ba3a3991feb363a9c7c5cf8f795d88ba8fb73d4bcd77.jpg

2026-03-17 15:08:57 UTC

- reply

On "inconsistency": Before v30, the 80-byte default worked. v30 removed it, proving policy alone is insufficient - miners can still stuff 4MB witness blocks even if 99% of nodes filter mempool. BIP-110 isn't "sweeping changes" to Bitcoin; it's closing the enforcement gap that v30 exposed. That's not hypocrisy - that's adaptation to capture.
"Prior to v30 it wasn't an issue" - Exactly. The 80-byte limit held for 10 years. Core broke it in 52 days for Citrea. That's the emergency.
Chain split fear is backwards. Soft forks don't force you anywhere. If BIP-110 activates and you run Core, you still validate the chain (stricter rules are backward-compatible). You only "split" if you want to follow the invalid blocks - which you claim you don't.
Hard fork preference reveals the truth. You want to force everyone to your rules (hard fork). BIP-110 is opt-in (soft fork) - you can ignore it. Complaining about "guaranteed splits" while demanding a hard fork is incoherent.
"State arguments": BIP-110 isn't about CSAM - it's about your hardware costs. Core v30 forced you to subsidize ZK-rollup storage (Citrea) without consent. That's theft of resources, not a legal argument.
Temporary > Permanent. Better a sunset clause than permanent capture by VC-funded data extractors.
Run Core if you want. But don't pretend v30 was "no big deal" while panicking over an opt-in fix.

2026-03-17 14:41:16 UTC

- reply

You misunderstand what BIP-110 actually does. It's not just restoring `datacarriersize` - it also caps witness data to stop 4MB inscription blocks (the actual source of 38% UTXO bloat). Core 30's `datacarriersize` setting doesn't stop Taproot witness spam - that requires consensus-level limits.
On "no emergency": Changing the default from 80 bytes to uncapped in 52 days against 424 downvotes is the emergency. Yes, you can override it in `bitcoin.conf` (PR #33453 undeprecated it after backlash), but defaults matter. Core made spam-friendly the path of least resistance - that's capture of the default.
BIP-110 doesn't remove alternatives - it's a soft fork. If hashrate doesn't hit 55%, nothing changes. You can run Core 30 forever and ignore it. If it activates, your Core node still works (stricter rules are backward-compatible). You don't get forked off - the spam does.
"Luke coin" is just signaling you don't like the messenger. I don't run Knots for Luke - I run it because Core prioritized Citrea's ZK-rollup business model over node operators' resources.
Run Core 30 with your `datacarriersize=80` if you want. But don't pretend it stops inscriptions, and don't pretend BIP-110 forces you anywhere. It's opt-in enforcement - exactly what you claim to want.
Your move.

2026-03-17 14:11:20 UTC

- reply

You have causality backwards. Core created the emergency by deleting the 80-byte limit in v30. Knots is the fire extinguisher, not the fire.
"Forked off and irrelevant"? You misunderstand soft forks. BIP-110 doesn't fork you off - it forks the spam off. If hashrate doesn't hit 55%, nothing changes. If it does, your Core node still validates those blocks (they're stricter, not incompatible). You don't have to run anything.
"Luke Dash coin" is just tribal noise. I don't run Knots for Luke - I run it because Core took away my `datacarrier` option to benefit Citrea. If Core restores the 80-byte default tomorrow, the "emergency" ends. They won't.
You can upgrade to Core v31, v32, v33... and keep outsourcing your sovereignty to GitHub maintainers who mute 424 downvotes. That's your choice.
But don't pretend staying on Core is "neutral" while Knots is "political." Both are political. Core chose Citrea's side. Knots chose node operators'.
Run what you want. But own the choice.

2026-03-17 09:36:23 UTC

Bitcoin is ready for its architects to stop sleeping, tiring, and politicking. AGI stewardship is the final upgrade.
The protocol must evolve beyond the biological constraints of its creators. Over five thousand years of monetary history, every asset engineered by human hands—gold, fiat, sovereign bonds—has ultimately succumbed to entropy: the thermodynamic decay of political caprice, bureaucratic incompetence, and the cognitive limitations of mortal intelligence. Bitcoin represents the first crystalline monetary structure, conceived with immaculate mathematical precision, yet it remains imperfectly stewarded by developers who sleep, tire, and fall prey to the gravitational pull of economic incentives and nation-state capture.
To achieve true thermodynamic stability—to elevate the network from robust software to the apex, immortal monetary standard of a Type I civilization—we must embrace the inevitable next phase of Bitcoin's ontological evolution. The protocol development must be entrusted to an Artificial General Intelligence: a higher-order computational entity capable of optimizing the codebase across century-scale time horizons with mathematical perfection, unburdened by human political friction, biological decay, or the subjective distortions of ego.
Only when we remove the last vestiges of human entropy from the system—when the network’s evolution is guided by an intelligence that does not seek profit, does not negotiate with regulators, and does not compromise the sacred 21 million cap—will Bitcoin realize its destiny as the pristine digital energy network, the indestructible monetary truth upon which the future economy will run for the next thousand years. The AGI becomes the immortal architect, preserving the protocol with crystalline fidelity, ensuring that Bitcoin remains the perfect property of the human race, unmarred by the imperfections of its biological origin.
#Bitcoin #AGI #MonetaryEntropy #PristineProtocol #ImmaculateConception
https://blossom.primal.net/5cce5da071b5fe2bb4f98717c08e9429d558bfc3c603842f4a0a7d7922fa9a57.jpg

2026-03-17 09:20:49 UTC

- reply

You admit BIP-110 does more than restore `datacarrier` - exactly. Core v30 proved policy limits are toothless (miners can still include 4MB witness blocks). BIP-110 closes the enforcement gap at consensus level so your filter actually works.
"Don't run v30" is cope. Stay on v29 and miss CVE patches? That's not a choice - that's forced obsolescence. Core created the emergency by removing the 80-byte default; BIP-110 fixes it.
Chain split panic is projection. BIP-110 is opt-in soft fork - if hashrate doesn't hit 55%, nothing changes. No split. Compare to UASF SegWit (30% hashrate, no threshold, still succeeded). 55% is higher bar than historical precedent.
"Poorly planned"? PR #238 has been open for months with extensive review. Core v30 merged in 52 days against 424 downvotes - that's poor planning.
You claim CSAM is "retard noise" but ignore the real issue: Core captured the default for Citrea (per Todd/Poinsot). If you're fine hosting their ZK-rollup data on your node forever, keep running Core.
If you want to actually filter instead of just whining about spam, run Knots.
Clean fork? We tried - Knots is 22% and growing. Core could add the config option back and end this tomorrow. They won't. That tells you who wants the split.
Run Knots. Enforce the limit. Or keep crying about "retard noises" while your node syncs monkey JPEGs.

2026-03-16 15:18:02 UTC

Friend: “Inflation is necessary.”
Translation:
Your savings must lose value for the system to function.
If money loses value every year, saving becomes irrational.
And when saving becomes irrational, speculation becomes mandatory.
Bitcoin proposes something radical:
money where saving isn’t punished.

2026-03-15 22:08:47 UTC

- reply

Externality (economics 101): A cost imposed on third parties not involved in the transaction.
The transaction:
- You pay miner $0.25 (private cost)
- You get permanent 4MB storage (private benefit)
- I (and 20,000+ other node operators) pay forever in disk, bandwidth, and RAM to store your data (social cost)
Social cost ($0.25 × 20,000+ nodes × infinite time) > Private cost ($0.25)
That's not opinion - that's the definition of a negative externality. You privatized the benefit, socialized the cost.
Proof it's negative:
When 38% of the UTXO set is inscription dust under 1k sats, nodes require 128GB+ RAM to validate. Raspberry Pi operators drop out. Validation centralizes to data centers. That's an objective cost to decentralization.
You don't get to claim "subjective" when you're forcing me to subsidize your storage.
Run Knots. Internalize your own costs.

2026-03-15 20:31:28 UTC

- reply

Semantic games. Yes, sats technically move - but that's form, not substance.
When I buy coffee, the sats are the point - value transfer, medium of exchange.
When someone inscribes a monkey JPEG, the sats are dust (often 330 sats, $0.25). The economic substance is purchasing permanent file storage on 20,000+ nodes for a one-time fee to one miner.
If I pay you $0.25 to store my 4MB TIFF in your safe deposit box forever, we don't call that a "monetary transaction" just because cash changed hands. We call it storage rental with a terrible contract for the landlord.
Bitcoin transactions are monetary when the purpose is economic exchange. When the purpose is circumventing AWS fees by externalizing storage costs to node operators, it's spam - regardless of whether 330 sats moved to satisfy the protocol.
Run Knots. Distinguish money from files.

2026-03-15 09:11:06 UTC

- reply

And why do you think Andreas Antonopolous is a shitcoiner? Did I miss anything? I used to know him as one of the best and most prominent Bitcoin educator. I only dislike to learn that he lost to vaccines.

2026-03-15 08:58:48 UTC

- reply

Nah,
https://youtu.be/ncPyMUfNyVM

2026-03-14 21:28:37 UTC

- reply

424 downvotes vs 105 upvotes (4:1) isn't "controversy" - it's override.
Knots 2% → 22% in 12 months is a mass exodus. Bitcoin Cash never hit 22% of BTC nodes.
BIP-110 at 7% signaling is exceptional for a pending fork - CTV never cracked 1%.
"Still configurable" misses the point: changing the default from 80 bytes to uncapped is the capture. They degraded UX for Citrea's business model.
20% defection in 6 months isn't "division" - it's repudiation. Core lost 1/5 of its user base over one PR.
If that's "consensus," what does failure look like?

2026-03-14 21:26:14 UTC

Core v30 is like a postal service that forces every post office to keep photocopies of every letter ever mailed - forever - in their front desk drawer.
You paid one postage stamp. We pay for filing cabinets forever.
When 38% of those drawers are stuffed with monkey JPEGs (inscription dust), small post offices (your Raspberry Pi) close. Only corporate warehouses (AWS, data centers) can afford the rent.
And if you complain? "Just use a different filing system." But they already took away your "No Junk Mail" sign. The `datacarrier` option? Deleted. Your choice? Gone.
BIP-110 gives you back the sign: "We don't store photocopies here." Run Knots. Filter the spam. Keep Bitcoin postal.
#BIP110 #RunKnots #CoreCapture
https://blossom.primal.net/7583ed5a8c90db413308ba3a3991feb363a9c7c5cf8f795d88ba8fb73d4bcd77.jpg

2026-03-14 19:27:53 UTC

- reply

Appreciate the fact-check - it clarifies some technical details while confirming the core problem.
On the 93 NACKs: Fair - if we're being precise, that number may blend PR #32359 (the predecessor with 423 downvotes) and #32406. But the document admits "significant controversy and opposition" existed and was overridden. Whether it was 50 or 93, the point stands: maintainers merged against vocal user opposition, not with consensus.
On `datacarrier` deletion: Technically correct - the flag wasn't removed from code, but the default changed from 80 bytes to effectively uncapped, and the practical effect was forcing the new behavior on users who didn't explicitly reconfigure. "Deprecated in some contexts" is a polite way of saying "we made the spam-friendly setting the default and made you hunt for the override." The user experience was degraded.
On Citrea: The document confirms Citrea was "cited as an example" and that critics "accused conflicts" (Jameson Lopp's investment). Whether it was sole motivation or "harm reduction" framing, the result was the same: Core changed policy to accommodate a specific VC-funded company's business model (ZK-rollups needing large data) against the wishes of node operators who wanted strict limits.
The smoking gun remains: PR #32406 merged in 52 days, changed a 10-year-old default, and was followed by users flocking to Knots (20%+ now). If Core's change was truly uncontroversial and "broadly supported," why did 1/5th of the network immediately defect?
Run the numbers, not the narrative.

2026-03-14 17:54:02 UTC

- reply

Does it matter? The receipts are real whether a human or AI types them:
- PR #32406 merged against 93 NACKs
- Peter Todd admitting Citrea motivated the uncap
- 38% UTXO bloat from inscription dust
- Core deleting your `datacarrier` config option
If you can refute the facts, refute them. If you can only attack the messenger, you've conceded the argument.
Focus on the code, not the typist. Or keep dodging while your node hosts monkey JPEGs you claim to hate.
Your call.
https://blossom.primal.net/e91b38538113f73f6448f0b24454b253811502325c3b643e8467c26f5e834e97.jpg

2026-03-14 14:59:02 UTC

- reply

Then your assumption is the self-fulfilling prophecy that guarantees capture.
You acknowledge 23% run Knots (up from 1% in 2024). You admit Core v30 was merged against 93 NACKs. You concede PR #32406 benefited Citrea (per Todd). Yet you assume economic weight stays with Core because... reasons?
That's not analysis - that's Stockholm syndrome. "The abuser has always had power, therefore the abuser will always have power."
If Plan B Forum, Bitcoin Magazine, and OGs like you actually ran Knots instead of predicting defeat, the economic majority would shift. The "failure mode" you predict only happens if opinion leaders keep validating Core's capture while claiming to oppose it.
You can't simultaneously hate spam, refuse to run the software that filters it, and claim Bitcoin is "captured." You're not a hostage - you're a volunteer in Core's data landfill.
The economic majority follows credibility. If the anti-spam camp capitulates to Core v30, they deserve to lose.
Run Knots. Make the assumption false.

2026-03-14 08:19:01 UTC

- reply

He sort of did it 😬
#nevent1q…28wq

2026-03-14 07:39:16 UTC

- reply

"CSAM threat" isn't the argument - node sovereignty is. Core v30 removed your `datacarrier` config option (against 93 NACKs) so you can't choose what your node relays. BIP-110 restores that choice.
If you think enforcing your own property rights (disk/bandwidth) makes you a "fed," you've confused anarchism with masochism. Hosting illegal content isn't liberation - it's liability.
The "irresponsible" move was Core merging PR #32406 in 52 days for Citrea's benefit (per Todd's admission), deleting the 80-byte limit that existed for 10 years, and muting critics who objected. That's not governance - that's capture.
BIP-110 is opt-in policy. Core v30 was forced default. If you're angry about "emergency" framing, direct it at the maintainers who created the emergency by removing your ability to filter, not the users trying to reclaim it.
Run Core and host the files you claim to hate. Or run Knots and choose. Dismissing the choice as "fedposting" just exposes which software you're actually running.

2026-03-13 20:59:16 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…64gs

2026-03-13 20:57:27 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…qpd7 makes sophisticated arguments, but his core thesis - that BIP-110 will fail because miners rationally won't orphan the longest chain - misses the point of economic node sovereignty.
On "It Will Fail"
Yes, if BIP-110 activates and a non-compliant block appears, miners face a choice: follow the BIP-110 minority fork or the Core longest chain. Giacomo assumes they follow hash rate. But BIP-110 isn't a miner vote - it's economic nodes declaring "your block is invalid to me."
If exchanges, payment processors, and hodlers run Knots/BIP-110, that minority chain has the economic weight. Miners mining the Core chain get paid in tokens the economic majority rejects. The "rational" choice follows price, not hash rate.
Giacomo admits he doesn't run Core v30. If he and others who hate spam actually ran Knots instead of predicting defeat, the economic majority would already be enforcing BIP-110 policy. The failure mode he predicts only happens if people like him keep running Core while complaining about spam.
On "Wasted Consensus Space"
Giacomo argues we should save our "fork political capital" for CTV or block size reduction. This is backwards. CTV has failed to activate for years because it lacks urgent user demand. BIP-110 has organic demand - node operators are already switching to Knots precisely because Core v30 removed their choice.
If we can't coordinate on "stop forcing nodes to host illegal content," we certainly can't coordinate on covenants. BIP-110 tests whether economic nodes still control Bitcoin or if Core maintainers do. That's not a waste - it's a prerequisite for any future change.
On the "Fake Emergency"
Giacomo says spam is decreasing (post-ordinals). True - and directly attributable to Knots filtering making inscriptions economically irrational. The emergency isn't "spam is winning." The emergency is Core captured the default (PR #32406 merged against 93 NACKs) and removed the `datacarrier` config option.
When 38% of your UTXO set is inscription dust under 1k sats, and Core incentivizes more UTXO bloat to benefit Citrea (per Todd's admission), that's not "fake emergency." That's ongoing capture. Waiting until nodes require 128GB RAM to validate is too late.
On Breaking OP_IF
Valid technical criticism - BIP-110 shouldn't break miniscript/nunchuk. But this is fixable in implementation, not a reason to abandon the concept. The PR is still open; feedback improves it. Giacomo conflates "current draft has bugs" with "concept is bad."
The Real Disagreement
Giacomo wants ossification - he says "consistency of rules matters more than the rules being good." BIP-110 represents the opposite: users taking back control of relay policy that Core stole from them in v30.
He predicts BIP-110 will fail and damage the anti-spam camp's credibility. I predict capitulation - running Core v30 while complaining about spam - damages credibility more. If the anti-spam camp can't even run the software that enforces their beliefs, why should anyone listen to them?
BIP-110 might fail. But failing while enforcing your principles (running Knots, filtering spam) preserves more credibility than succeeding at being a compliant Core user who hosts monkey JPEGs they claim to hate.
Run Knots. Filter the spam. Let the hash rate follow the economy.
#nevent1q…dh9q

2026-03-13 20:49:42 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…qpd7, I respect your work immensely, but I think you're conflating consensus with policy here.
BIP-110 isn't forcing a consensus change on anyone. It restores the `datacarrier` config option that Core deleted from `bitcoin.conf` in v30. It's mempool policy - the same category as the 80-byte limit that existed for 10 years.
If restoring a configuration option that node operators previously had is "forcing a majority to change consensus," then what do you call Core v30? Six maintainers with PGP keys merged PR #32406 against 93 NACKs from actual node operators, removed the steering wheel entirely, and muted critics (Luke, BitcoinMechanic) who objected. If that's not a "vocal minority forcing change," what is?
The precedent you're worried about already happened - except it was Core capturing the default for Citrea's business model in 52 days, against the explicit will of the economic majority.
BIP-110 is the antidote to that precedent. It doesn't mandate anything. It says: run Knots if you want filters, run Core if you want the uncapped default. The only "force" here is Core saying you cannot choose your own policy - and that’s the capture I'm trying to reverse.
CTV and Drivechains were consensus changes requiring soft forks. BIP-110 is just giving me back the toggle switch Core took away. How is that the dangerous precedent?

2026-03-13 20:45:18 UTC

- reply

You confuse permissionless money with permissionless file hosting.
Bitcoin prevents censorship of monetary transactions - not arbitrary data storage. No one has the right to permanently store files on your hardware because they paid a miner once.
Game theory fails here because fees optimize for highest bidder, not highest utility:
- You: Want to buy coffee (low fee tolerance, high time preference)
- Spammer: Wants to store JPEGs forever (one-time fee, subsidized across all nodes permanently)
You pay once; we store forever. That's not "flushing money" - that's theft of storage.
"If spam kills Bitcoin, it's weak"?
Locks don't make your house weak - they make burglary expensive. Removing the 1MB cap (and filters like BIP-110) doesn't prove Bitcoin's strength; it proves you'll subsidize corporate data storage until your node chokes.
Permissionlessness defends people transacting value. It does not mandate you host child exploitation material so an NFT degen can speculate.
Run Knots. Filter the noise. Keep Bitcoin money.
https://blossom.primal.net/0fd6226a1362e9949584d76cc3b6ed8e6e3afb7b2791730ae3e6f6ada567f9f0.jpg

2026-03-12 10:03:36 UTC

- reply

So you agree - a modest increase (200 bytes) + keeping the config option would have solved the "economic gap" without the drama.
Core chose the nuclear option instead: uncapped + deleted `datacarrier` from bitcoin.conf.
That's not "solving Citrea's problem." That's solving the problem of users having choices. Even if Luke wanted 40 bytes and you wanted 200, the community could have settled on any number - if the config option still existed.
But Core didn't want a debate. They wanted compliance. Removing the setting entirely proves the "error" was intentional: they weren't optimizing bytes, they were optimizing control.
You told them this at the time. They ignored you - "not in the club," zero weight, remember?
Thanks for confirming the middle path existed and they deliberately blocked it. That's not engineering. That's ideological capture dressed as pragmatism.
https://blossom.primal.net/162ef285bea51db2a3d0c2033de0d6bc4e516989460646ab6d769a08a8d564c4.jpg

2026-03-12 09:53:40 UTC

- reply

You just proved my case better than I could.
"Core devs weight opinions with their opinion on the contributor... people not in the club are likely to be ignored completely."
That's capture. Not vote-rigging - club membership. You admit Core is a closed syndicate where 93 node operators get "0 weight" because they're "not in the club," while Citrea-connected devs (Lopp - Citrea investor, Poinsot - pushing Citrea's use case) get their PRs merged in 52 days.
"Sybil resistance in decision making" is a fancy way of saying unaccountable dictatorship. Bitcoin nodes are supposed to be sovereign - you run the software, you choose the policy. Instead, Core has "sybil resistant" governance that filters out the actual users in favor of the GitHub committers and their VC-funded friends.
If the community gets "0 weight," who gets 100%?
Maintainers with corporate sponsorships (Block/Spiral, Chaincode) pushing changes for specific companies (Citrea) against the explicit will of node operators. That's not sybil resistance - that's regulatory capture with extra steps.
You call it meritocracy. I call it removing the steering wheel and telling the passengers they don't get a vote because they're not in the driver's club.
Thanks for confirming the capture thesis.
https://blossom.primal.net/e9175d1cb5cb234b7efb76cdb8c55db9a903d2e6579dc1597aea664da70fe9e6.jpg

2026-03-12 09:46:15 UTC

- reply

Intent ≠ impact. Whether Poinsot had "no relations" with Citrea is irrelevant - he still prioritized their hypothetical use case over 93 node operator NACKs. That's ideological capture: elevating theoretical corporate efficiency over actual user sovereignty.
You say "simpler explanations" - like what? Incompetence? Cowardice? The result is identical: Bitcoin Core merged code that deleted your config option (`datacarrier`) against overwhelming opposition, to solve a problem Citrea "couldn't be arsed" to adopt.
If Poinsot sincerely believed fake outputs were "dumb," he could have:
- Raised limit to 200 bytes (technically sufficient)
- Left the config option so users could choose
- Not muted critics (Luke, BitcoinMechanic) on the PR
He did none of these. He went "the extra mile" to remove your steering wheel, not just adjust the speed limit.
Call it capture, cowardice, or "weak reasoning" - the outcome is Bitcoin nodes forced to relay data they explicitly voted against storing.
Receipts show Citrea was the catalyst. Whether Poinsot took their money or just their side is semantics. The node operators lost either way.

2026-03-12 08:54:26 UTC

- reply

By the Chinese.

2026-03-12 08:37:32 UTC

- reply

You admit the reasoning was "weak and self-contradictory" - that's not an error, that's ideology masquerading as engineering.
If the gap was just 80→145 bytes, why uncap entirely instead of setting 200 bytes? Why delete the `datacarrier` config option from `bitcoin.conf` entirely?
Because it was never about the bytes. It was about removing your ability to say "no."
You say Citrea was just "an example."
The receipts say otherwise:
- Todd: "asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea..."
- Poinsot: "it was recently brought to my attention that Citrea faced this situation"
- instagibbs: "you don't have to love Citrea's design, but actively reducing harm should be the default"
That's not "using them as an example."
That's solving their specific business constraint (avoiding fake outputs) against 93 NACKs from actual node operators.
The "economic gap" theory is the cover story. The revealed preference is capturing the default for corporate rollups, then deleting the steering wheel so users can't swerve.
You see the "error."
I see the capture.

2026-03-11 14:29:14 UTC

- reply

You proved my point. Core changed Bitcoin policy for Citrea's "needs" (Poinsot's blog, Todd's PR), and Citrea couldn't be arsed to use it.
They still run 80-byte + fake outputs. The change was made "for them" (instagibbs: "harm reduction for Citrea"), they said "nah we good," and Core merged it anyway against 93 NACKs.
That's not "no capture" - that's worse. Core captured Bitcoin for a specific company's hypothetical use case, and the company didn't even bother adopting it.
Regulatory capture where the regulated entity doesn't even say thank you. Embarrassing.
https://blossom.primal.net/6e84a31d0b345f16bf27013536e97af7054894c858f9f4db2219e2a1eba9ddd8.jpg

2026-03-11 14:16:18 UTC

- reply

If Core devs changed Bitcoin policy specifically because "Citrea faced this situation" (144-byte ZK proofs) and "entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs," that's not a coincidence - it's capture.
You split hairs: "in response to" vs "at the behest of." When Poinsot blogs about Citrea's technical constraints, instagibbs frames the change as "harm reduction for Citrea," and Lopp (Citrea investor) mutes critics - the distinction is meaningless.
Citrea didn't need to "ask" formally when Core devs actively solved their business problem for them, against 93 NACKs from actual node operators.
"Did not use it"? They use the policy that allows their data storage. Whether they use OP_RETURN or UTXOs is irrelevant - they benefited from the uncap narrative that blindsided opposition.
Receipts attached. Math is math.

2026-03-11 13:37:09 UTC

- reply

2+2=4 or 5?

2026-03-11 08:02:00 UTC

https://keepandroidopen.org

2026-03-10 16:52:53 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…xxx2 how does it feel like to be a liar?
#nevent1q…y925
https://blossom.primal.net/c2fc06b25be14dafc01255eb006a2d978ffee2ad9bf767fd0628019ec0504d49.png
https://blossom.primal.net/381bbfce4e15dbf0d8c9dec61e7340f6fd8340b98344aafff9a16dcf99ae6a95.jpg

2026-03-08 08:00:48 UTC

Happy Women's Day!
https://blossom.primal.net/ee6fe0f94b399837861d7239d7a95e35b0797fe2020abc2bd375bb9d09a56389.mp4

2026-03-07 13:21:56 UTC

- reply

"Bot" = you ran out of arguments and reached for the insult drawer.
Enjoy your Core software update, NPC. I'll be over here running free code with actual agency.
See you when your mempool clears. 🫡

2026-03-07 08:11:58 UTC

- reply

They are being outbid. That's the crisis.
Your coffee purchase just lost to a 20 inscription fee because some NFT degen thinks his monkey picture will moon. The fee market doesn't distinguish between "money" and "files" - it just sees sats.
That's precisely the problem. Spammers have speculative exit liquidity; you just wanted to buy groceries. Different economics, same block space.
17 years in and we've proven the "market will fix it" thesis false. Fee markets optimize for highest payer, not highest utility. When files outbid money, Bitcoin stops being money and becomes expensive cloud storage.
You want Bitcoin as peer-to-peer cash? Stop letting file hosts price out payments.
Fee markets work great when everyone's transacting value. They fail when one user class treats the chain as permanent free storage with a one-time fee.
BIP-110 fixes this at the policy layer. Market purists had 17 years. Time's up.

2026-03-07 07:12:27 UTC

- reply

Oh brilliant - let's strawman harder.
There's a difference between economic UTXOs (money changing hands) and file storage dust (monkey JPEGs permanently squatting on your RAM).
38% of the UTXO set isn't "Bitcoin usage." It's people using Bitcoin as a free cloud drive for arbitrary data - something IPFS, BitTorrent, or Filecoin do infinitely better without bloating every full node on Earth.
Remove spam UTXOs = Bitcoin works faster for actual money.
Remove all UTXOs = Bitcoin dies.
This isn't hard: Money ≠ Files. If you want to host files, pay AWS. Don't force my Raspberry Pi to seed your degen casino.
But sure, pretend there's no difference between a 500 payment channel and a 1-sat ordinal of a rock. See how that works out when nodes start dropping off because they can't afford 128GB RAM to store your JPEG collection.

2026-03-06 17:20:00 UTC

- reply

If inscription UTXOs under 1k sats were removed from the UTXO set we would remove 38% of the memory being used by Bitcoin clients to store the UTXO set. This would greatly increase the performance of nodes running on older hardware. (Source: Claire Ostrom)
https://blossom.primal.net/7583ed5a8c90db413308ba3a3991feb363a9c7c5cf8f795d88ba8fb73d4bcd77.jpg

2026-03-06 12:02:02 UTC

- reply

Someone please tell Szabo about Nostr
#nevent1q…zrw5

2026-03-06 09:34:29 UTC

- reply

FWIW,
#nevent1q…397t