lukedewolf
Luke de Wolf

Monetary Maxi. Running Knots. Running DATUM.

Co-host of the Bitcoin Infinity Show
Co-author of Bitcoin: The Inverse of Clown World
Co-founder of BTC HEL

Public Key

npub1fk8h6g8zhftw8c7pga2zjd84p2z949up5lc3qdchm9v4m0q7mwws7jcwld

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsymrmayr3t54hru0q5w4pfxn6s4pz6j7q60ugsxutajk2ahs0dh8gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsqvvh09

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1fk8h6g8zhftw8c7pga2zjd84p2z949up5lc3qdchm9v4m0q7mwws7jcwld

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-20 19:28:42 CET

- reply

This looks fantastic Martti, great work!

2026-03-20 09:05:55 CET

- reply

Merchants need inbound liquidity, this isn't just a typical use case. It's an essential one.

2026-03-19 15:54:16 CET

- reply

It's for inbound liquidity, the point isn't to be balanced.

2026-03-19 09:31:54 CET

- reply

Boltz closes channels with lots of liquidity on their side. I understand, they need to do channel management. But it doesn't work to keep an inbound liquidity channel open to them.

2026-03-19 07:29:40 CET

If you're a merchant and you want one, fat inbound liquidity channel, you want it to be reliable, and you want it to last a long time, who would you either pair with or buy the liquidity from?
Bonus points for 2+ options.

2026-03-18 18:56:03 CET

- reply

Thanks Derek, I'll try it!

2026-03-17 11:58:11 CET

What's the best Nostr key management browser extension these days? I've been using Alby but no longer use their wallet, I'm thinking an alternative would be better. What's out there right now?

2026-01-03 08:13:46 CET

- reply

Awesome, Max! I'll give it a read!

2025-12-04 11:48:14 CET

- reply

This is incredibly sinister. I had no idea! Thanks for drawing my attention to the issue.

2025-11-30 06:02:41 CET

- reply

Looking forward to hearing hour the next 22 hours went!

2025-11-29 19:05:02 CET

One of my favorite bands is Moonsorrow. 15, 20, 25 minute songs. Epic, pagan black metal. Lyrics almost exclusively in Finnish.
I put on one of their songs and feel instantly relaxed.
This is what I'm listening to now:
https://open.spotify.com/track/35tbcLF8iniGHOiIy9vPZ6?si=9d1325e9382543f7

2025-11-29 18:53:58 CET

- reply

My day started at 4AM helping my friend @nprofile…x32y buy Beef Bits before departing Finland.
My life is blessed. I love you all.
#nevent1q…he29

2025-11-26 18:21:26 CET

- reply

I really enjoyed this one, and I hope it provides value in this wider conversation.
#nevent1q…qf6c

2025-11-24 18:45:42 CET

- reply

You can subscribe to our episodes now if you'd like to support us, with ad-free episodes one day early!
We also forward 21% of our value for value to our guest, because we couldn't do it without them.

2025-11-24 18:40:41 CET

The latest @nprofile…k3zk Show is out now, with @nprofile…dgpe .
Check it out on @nprofile…cgkr
https://fountain.fm/episode/HiBPL8bQhcC4iZ3uEStL
With host @nprofile…3hw8

2025-11-22 13:43:36 CET

My local butcher accepts Bitcoin!
I just got back from Kotitila near Kalasatama in Helsinki. I picked up a couple of bags of @nprofile…xmql, some ground beef, and a keto pizza from @nprofile…jhnu. Paid in sats.
Check them out if you're in Helsinki, such as for @nprofile…58xa!
https://blossom.primal.net/dacfa5e41e2dc4118a35f0b63a225957717715e10d6a86ff2324a20f03fea23b.jpg

2025-11-18 13:00:30 CET

- reply

Cloudflare is down, right?

2025-11-15 07:08:36 CET

- reply

Good take Matey.

2025-11-15 07:06:20 CET

- reply

We had a good run :(

2025-11-14 07:18:31 CET

- reply

Look the evil in the eye. If you can.

2025-11-14 07:15:45 CET

- reply

This is a great series Jimmy. Thanks for covering this important issue.

2025-11-04 07:52:22 CET

- reply

That's not what it means. And I'm not kidding.

2025-11-03 19:20:07 CET

- reply

I would advocate for consensus changes to fix known exploits. Plus as many known theoretical attack vectors as possible.

2025-11-03 18:55:49 CET

Bitcoin is critical infrastructure.
What do I mean by that? I have a specific definition, stemming from my experience as an industrial cyber security professional.
Critical infrastructure refers to assets, systems, or networks whose disruption would have a profound effect on security, economic stability, public health and safety, or some combination. What this means in practice are those things that we can’t live without in our modern society: electricity generation and grids, oil, gas, and fuel infrastructure, factories, hospitals, transport networks. The list goes on, I hope you get the idea.
The Internet itself is critical infrastructure, as the communication network enabling most of our interconnected lives. Additionally, payment networks are considered critical infrastructure. You probably see where I’m going with this.
I put forward that Bitcoin is critical infrastructure. No government or agency has officially taken that position. Of course, within the Bitcoin community, this definition shouldn’t be surprising. If Bitcoin is the revolutionized monetary system, the replacement to fiat debasement and the antidote to centralized power structures, the freedom money that enables anyone in the world to save and transact freely, then it had better be considered critical.
Now, what is the point in my saying this, especially if it shouldn’t be controversial to anyone in the Bitcoin space?
It has to do with how critical infrastructure is defended.
As mentioned, I’m an industrial cyber security professional, which means that I focus on defending critical infrastructure and other forms of industrial control systems from cyber threats.
Critical infrastructure is treated differently from other types of network systems and assets. Whereas for most systems, confidentiality of data and the integrity of the system are considered most important, for critical infrastructure the focus is on keeping the systems running. Additionally, many of the cyber defenses that work for individuals and normal IT systems simply don’t work in critical environments (for many reasons, not overly relevant here).
With that in mind, critical infrastructure is defended based on the types of threats they are expected to face. ISA/IEC 62443 (they couldn’t have picked an easier number to remember /s) is one of the most widely used frameworks for industrial cyber security. It defines 4 threat levels and recommends controls based on those:
- Protection against casual or accidental threats
- Protection against intentional attacks using simple means
- Protection against sophisticated attacks using advanced tools
- Protection against nation-states or highly-resourced attacks
As you can probably gather, the defenses applied are targeted against more and more intense attacks, with greater motivation and resources each time.
One piece of necessary context is that “accidental” threats are still bad - we’re talking about untargeted malware floating around on the internet, for example. The accidental part mostly refers to basic security best practices not being followed (no passwords on a computer - it happens!).
Now, at this point, I’ll be clear: I considered non-monetary transactions to be a threat against Bitcoin: specifically against its availability. Non-monetary transactions displace block space and force a higher fee rate. In times of frenzy for some new inscription fad, transactions spiked to the point of pricing out whole categories of users from on-chain transactions, made lightning channel openings much more expensive relative to channel size, and hampered the network overall. Additionally, blocks themselves became much more full and the UTXO set increased rapidly, both putting significant pressure on node hardware requirements, risking decentralization. These points have been discussed ad nauseum and aren’t the point of this post, except for me to be clear that I consider these non-monetary transactions to be a type of threat.
I’ve analogized elsewhere that in Bitcoin, policy filters are effectively the defense against casual threats. Mapped to the framework above, the first two categories are essentially tackled by policy filters. Casual, untargeted threats are actually mostly handled by node implementation security features, and those are important in themselves for us to be able to have functioning nodes. Simple targeting Bitcoin itself through abusive transactions are effectively blocked through policy. Default tools and wallets don’t even allow submission of abusive transactions in most cases, because they follow default mempool policy. In the cyber security world, this is enough to deter whole categories of casual attackers, who simply move on to the next potential target. There’s no reason to think that this isn’t the case with Bitcoin also.
More sophisticated attackers are a different situation. They use bespoke tools and know what they’re doing. They’re able to bypass policy filters and use specific exploits to get their transactions on chain. The level to be able to tackle these attacks is at consensus level. I’ll save further discussion about that for another time, but I’ll emphasize another point here: this is what is done in the cyber security world all the time. Vulnerabilities are identified, tracked, and remediations are developed. Individuals and organizations either fix the vulnerability, put up some other defense to compensate, or leave themselves free to get exploited. An important distinction is also whether a vulnerability is being actively exploited. If that’s the case, it’s only a matter of time before they find and exploit you.
In other words: Bitcoin has a choice - fix identified and actively exploited vulnerabilities, or simply accept that this will continue to happen. Forever.
I don’t have any intention to imply that Bitcoin should be managed like a business or any other kind of centralized organization. Bitcoin is unique in that it is the only truly decentralized system in the whole world. All other cryptocurrencies have developers who make changes at their discretion, similarly to companies and individuals who can simply decide to do something and do it. It’s different with Bitcoin. The network has to agree. And that’s good!
It also means that if significant portions of the network do not agree that something is a threat or that a vulnerability is worth fixing, it may or even will not happen. At this point, those who think something needs fixing could either throw up their hands and decide to live with it, or decide to try to persuade network participants of their view.
I’ll finish with another cyber security principle: an attacker with unlimited resources and motivation will always breach your system. This might sound defeatist, but it’s a reminder that no set of defenses is ever perfect. The higher the value of the potential payoff, the more likely an attacker is willing to throw time and resources into exploiting the system to get what they want. In the Bitcoin context, this means that there will always be attackers looking for vulnerabilities, because what is a more valuable payoff than the best form of money the world has ever seen?
Does this mean we should give in to the inevitability that SOMEONE is going to attack Bitcoin SOMEHOW, and just give up? In my view, no. That’s not how things work outside Bitcoin. Critical infrastructure is actively defended. Threats and vulnerabilities are identified and remediated as best they can be. The cat and mouse game goes on, but electricity keeps flowing, gasoline gets to the pumps, factories keep pumping out products, ships bring goods to their destination, trains keep running, and water flows from the taps. We don’t notice when everything is working. We sure do notice when something breaks.
Let’s not let Bitcoin break. Bitcoin is critical infrastructure, and we should be treating it like it is, keep it running, and save the world.

2025-11-01 11:37:42 CET

- reply

Congratulations Matt!

2025-10-31 09:58:13 CET

- reply

I understand that perspective. Unintended consequences is always a thing.
Still, I don't see why we can't fix obvious exploits that are being abused. Otherwise, we just live with things as they are. Maybe it's fine, but maybe it isn't.

2025-10-31 08:14:39 CET

- reply

Tiresome. Oh well!

2025-10-31 08:07:38 CET

Cybersecurity is all about defense. Defending against attackers (threats).
There are a few basic types of attackers:
- The opportunists who will take advantage of an easy win but will stop when they meet trivial resistance
- Sophisticated actors looking for financial gain (think ransomware or extortion for data)
- Determined actors with extensive resources who want to do bad things (nation-states, industrial sabotage)
(As with all things, I'm simplifying a little)
In industrial cybersecurity (my day job, if you didn't know), defenses are all built around the type of threat actor they aim to stop.
The opportunists give up after very little resistance. Things like strong passwords or two-factor authentication or a locked door are usually enough to stop them.
More sophisticated actors need tailored defenses. You can't cover every attack vector, and it's pretty much a constant cat-and-mouse game. But it's necessary for pretty much all companies to implement some basic protections that stop most cyber threats. Again, you can't stop everything, but you can mitigate most damage.
The determined actors like nation-states are difficult. It's taken as a given that an actor with unlimited time and resources will breach your system. The whole idea there is to make it as difficult as possible to get what they want, and perhaps they give up.
This maps onto Bitcoin:
The opportunists are stopped by filters. If their transaction won't be accepted by most nodes, they just don't do it.
More sophisticated spammers try to find new vectors to attack the system. They've found various exploits to abuse.
And ultimately, someone who REALLY wants to put their data on Bitcoin will do so. But, we could make it difficult for them.
The whole reason I bring all of this up is: outside of Bitcoin, we play the cat-and-mouse game with cyber attackers. We have no other choice! The world enabled by the internet would be worthless if attackers could just do whatever they want.
We have the ability to fix some specific bugs which are being actively exploited. Outside of Bitcoin, this is a no-brainer.
We can also make it as difficult as possible to put arbitrary data on Bitcoin. This is how we attempt to stop the most determined threats attacking critical infrastructure.
Of course, Bitcoin is a distributed system and requires consensus. I don't want to change that.
Therefore, I advocate for building consensus towards putting up some basic defenses and fixing exploits that are being abused. That's how we can defend against threats to Bitcoin.

2025-10-31 06:34:06 CET

Insults are the thing now (again?) on Twitter. It's exhausting.
We can't have conversations with each other if the other side is dismissed with insults.

2025-10-30 19:31:25 CET

- reply

If everyone adopts the new consensus rules, it's not control.

2025-10-29 14:18:26 CET

- reply

So what is wrong with closing off the currently abused exploits and leaving OP_RETURN only?
Regardless, wanting less UTXO bloat is the best argument for this that I've heard. It would be nice if Core focused on that as the messaging.

2025-10-29 14:06:09 CET

- reply

👀In a good way I hope!

2025-10-29 13:58:47 CET

- reply

GM Derek!

2025-10-29 13:47:13 CET

- reply

I'd like to engage with you in good faith here. I hope you don't block me as a filteroor.
If the majority of the non-financial data (I like that terminology, by the way) is using some kind of exploit (OP_FALSE OP_IF or baremultisig, for example) then why is it bad to simply fix the exploit? These were not intended features, and in some cases the potential for abuse was raised ages ago.
I really don't see what the problem is with making arbitrary data as expensive as possible. Encode what you want in pubkeys, I guess. Pay full price for it. No discount. No multisig optimization.
I just don't buy that we have to stick to the existing consensus rules just because they are the existing consensus rules. If something is being abused, why can't we change it?
Again, I hope you take this reply in good faith.

2025-10-29 13:39:35 CET

- reply

I see no reason to make it easier to put arbitrary data on Bitcoin. I'm in this for Bitcoin as money. Not as data storage.

2025-10-29 07:40:01 CET

- reply

No thank you.

2025-10-29 07:26:15 CET

- reply

Very much so. I was in favor of policy-based filters up til the Core change.

2025-10-29 07:25:01 CET

- reply

🤝

2025-10-29 07:17:48 CET

- reply

"They have only been ineffective since Taproot because a certain core devs refused to patch the default policy run by 99% of nodes." - so they've been ineffective.
But I'm not disagreeing!
"Ineffective" in absolute terms. Effective by another measure, sure.
New changes to policy demand that the change be on consensus terms. IMO.

2025-10-29 07:14:17 CET

- reply

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.

2025-10-29 06:49:36 CET

- reply

Spot on. With that said: I am against REAL censorship - making addresses unable to transact. That's all.

2025-10-29 06:36:07 CET

- reply

I'll take that as a complement!

2025-10-29 06:24:02 CET

What exactly is censorship on Bitcoin?
Here's my answer: certain addresses being blocked on consensus level.
Changes to policy to limit specific forms of transaction is not censorship, it's discrimination.
I'll explain what I mean by that.
Bitcoin has always discriminated in terms of what can go into a transaction. It has never been possible to put whatever you want into a transaction, just like it's never been possible to double spend a UTXO. I'm glossing over a ton of minutiae here, for simplicity.
The previously agreed amount of data that is allowed in a transaction has been set to a reasonable level, through OP_RETURN. There have been disagreements as to that level, but even the most permissive amount was 80 bytes of data in practice. This has been more than enough, and it has been enforced by policy, not consensus.
Since SegWit and Taproot, more ways to put arbitrary data (spam) on chain have been discovered. That is to say, the ability to do these things was right there, as unintended consequences of development changes. Uncaught bugs, or a lack of forethought about human behavior.
Filters on the policy level have been ineffective in containing spam. However, they have provided individuals who are against spam with tools to control their own nodes and mined blocks.
Individual policy choices are a form of discrimination, not censorship. Discriminating against certain types of consensus-valid transactions is perfectly fine. I even go so far as to say that discriminating against transactions from certain address is also completely fine. These are all individual choices. Every individual on the network is free to make those choices. Anything short of that is coercion.
Consensus rules, on the other hand, are where censorship is possible. This is where it would be possible to block certain addresses from moving their UTXOs. As I understand it, this is usually termed confiscation. In practice, this would likely be the result of making some technical type of coin unspendable. In theory, some list of addresses could be drawn up that says they can never move their coins. Good luck getting that adopted.
Consensus changes that do not prevent certain addresses from moving their UTXOs are not censorship.
Making it so that transactions containing arbitrary data invalid is not censorship. Making those transactions more expensive is not censorship. Private key holders will still be perfectly able to move their UTXOs. They can even add some arbitrary data through OP_RETURN, or jump hoops (and pay fees) to encode their data some other way.
This is discrimination against certain types of transactions. Those which have no intention of using Bitcoin as money, or which misuse the network for their own purposes (I use the word misuse here to mean that they are using exploits which were not intentional developments). If the majority of the network decides to eliminate the possibility of those transactions in the future, that is not censorship. And, as previously mentioned, that has not been effective on a policy level. The consensus level is all that is left.
I'm not going to discuss the currently proposed soft fork in extensive detail, except to say that I think the proposal is technically extremely reasonable in my understanding. Compromises have been made to allow for other specific potentially useful data types by consensus. The language about legal consequences is completely unnecessary, and I hope it is removed. I hope this proposal or a similar one passes. Bitcoin is money, not data storage.
To hammer these points further: I might morally object to some miner rejecting transactions from specific addresses, but I can't do anything to force them to include those transactions in blocks they mine. I can put public pressure on them to change their view, but I can't force them to do so. This would still not be censorship. All individuals on the network are free to do what they want, including rejecting transactions they disagree with.
Here's the beautiful thing: we're not all the same! One miner might reject some transactions. Another one almost certainly will include those transactions. This is primarily why filters don't "work" - someone will always mine valid transactions. I still support filters on the node level. Nobody can force me to include transactions I don't want in my mempool.
In other words: as long as the consensus is not making it impossible for certain addresses to move their coins, it's not censorship. Discriminating against certain types of transactions or certain arrangements of arbitrary data is not censorship. Everyone on the network is still free to move their UTXOs. Bitcoin is useful as money. The best money. That's the important thing.
What do you think?

2025-10-28 15:08:17 CET

- reply

Agreed there. I'll try to make my investment count!

2025-10-28 15:07:12 CET

- reply

Thanks Mr Brisket! I'll do my best to stick around!
I've realized I'm not that great at social media. It keeps dropping down the priority list at times. But it's important for staying connected to people and being in the conversation. There's a balance!

2025-10-28 15:06:09 CET

- reply

This was a blast!

2025-10-28 15:05:39 CET

- reply

Is that all there is to it?

2025-10-27 10:05:36 CET

- reply

🧡

2025-10-27 10:03:13 CET

- reply

Thanks Jake, hope all is good with you!

2025-10-27 10:00:36 CET

- reply

Great work Joe!

2025-10-27 09:55:24 CET

GM Nostr!
I'm back after a bit of a self-enforced social media hiatus. It was Nostr, Twitter, everything.
I was more than a little burnt out after BTC HEL. I didn't really get a proper break after the conference, since I went straight back to my fiat job the next day. All I had energy for was keeping the lights on at @nprofile…k3zk .
I was also more than a little shaken up by Charlie Kirk's death. I won't say much more about that here, but the TLDR is I did a lot of thinking about the risks of being public and saying controversial things. I was strongly considering taking a big step back from the space.
Nope!
I'm back, and ready to get started on new things!
I got out to a couple of fantastic conferences, first BTC Balkans in Sofia, Bulgaria, then the Plan B Forum in Lugano. My Bitcoin batteries are fully recharged, even if I was pretty exhausted after a week of conferencing. Reconnecting with old friends and making new connections is what this is all about.
I especially enjoyed the Rockamoto in Lugano - I can't believe I get to do all this cool stuff! Thanks @nprofile…3hw8 , @nprofile…gud9 , and @nprofile…pykq for just being awesome! Looking forward to next time!
https://blossom.primal.net/a25c24b54be67d0034ca72f1fd101cca37eeb0e8c6a7aae79a07b11617c848d7.png
As for me, it's full speed ahead with the Bitcoin Infinity Show and the Bitcoin Infinity Academy! You may have noticed that I took a step back from the Bitcoin Infinity Show - it's just Knut now, at least in front of the camera. I'm still behind the scenes doing all the editing, but I couldn't keep my schedule flexible enough to join the recordings. I miss it, and I plan to change that.
And of course, I'm involved in the planning for next year's @nprofile…nzfe - stay tuned for all the details about next year's conference, and don't hesitate to reach out if you want to speak!
Thanks everyone for making this community amazing. I'm full of gratitude, and I can't wait for what's in store ahead.

2025-09-14 09:22:10 CEST

- reply

This is an extremely good write-up. I especially like the distinction made about transactions that raise the fee floor - I don't think that point is talked about enough. Read the full thing! What do you think about it?
#nevent1q…3h79

2025-09-13 19:36:54 CEST

- reply

Fuck, that hit me again man, not gonna lie.
I don't even know what to say here. Love to you and your family. Love to everyone fighting the good fight. Love to the Kirk family. I hope they feel all the love and support we can all give them. It won't make up for their loss. But it's something.

2025-09-11 05:57:38 CEST

Just before I went to sleep last night, I saw that Charlie Kirk had been shot, and that it didn't look good. I hoped for the best, but didn't have a good feeling.
I woke up to the terrible news that he had died.
This is hitting me harder than I expected. I hadn't followed his work closely. From what I saw, he had reasonable conversations with US college students, he supported his views calmly, and tried to change minds through persuasion and reasoning. It was admirable, even though I doubt I agreed with him on every issue (probably most, though).
And someone killed him for that.
Whats hitting me hardest is that he was not only younger than me by a few months, but that he had young kids close to the age of my son. Supposedly his wife and kids were in the audience. This is just awful.
Then there are people all over social media absolutely celebrating. It's sickening. Cheering for someone's death because you disagree with them. A young father.
This feels like an inflection point. I hope the world starts to see the difference between people who admired him and people who are cheering about his death. There is a good side and a bad side here.
RIP Charlie Kirk.

2025-09-10 13:25:01 CEST

- reply

How about I just don't relay garbage?

2025-09-10 13:17:24 CEST

- reply

We don't stream live. So that's why.

2025-09-10 09:53:30 CEST

- reply

Back to the Bitcoin Infinity Academy, starting this week!
#nevent1q…3rj4

2025-09-10 06:31:54 CEST

- reply

Nothing crypto about Bitcoin. If you're a Bitcoiner, you're not a crypto bro.

2025-09-10 06:31:03 CEST

- reply

Core should have taken this advice much earlier. Users aren't forced to use a certain Bitcoin client. If not acting is not upgrading to 30, I'm all for this approach.
At the same time, signalling the client policy you agree with also doesn't harm anything. To the extent that this is acting, it's neither a radical action, nor overly impactful. But it takes some power away from those acting without forethought (or worse, with it).

2025-09-09 09:04:43 CEST

- reply

Maybe! I'm not lifting anywhere near close to my personal bests, so maybe I'll avoid it. I'm trying to avoid injury, this time.

2025-09-09 06:56:45 CEST

GM Nostr! Back in the gym after a few months off. First day deadlifting again. Feels great!
https://blossom.primal.net/d5f1d6fd10fbab150d210aeb6f78087558b691035dbef1e58b0e1dafc5a0c716.jpg

2025-09-08 21:05:27 CEST

- reply

Hard disagree. This is elitist, gatekeeping nonsense.

2025-09-08 19:49:42 CEST

- reply

That's not all there is to being a Bitcoiner, serious or otherwise.

2025-09-08 19:47:41 CEST

- reply

Serious Bitcoiners means devs only, apparently.

2025-09-08 17:36:30 CEST

- reply

You're based, Ben.

2025-09-08 17:33:30 CEST

- reply

Core is operating by fiat these days.

2025-09-08 17:33:10 CEST

- reply

Yes ;)

2025-09-08 13:00:27 CEST

I can't believe how anyone can suggest without a hint of irony or sarcasm that you have to contribute to a specific open source project in order to have an opinion about Bitcoin.
This is simultaneously elitist and mind-bogglingly stupid.
It's correct that Bitcoin Core is an important part of the Bitcoin technology stack, but it isn't the only client available, which is a good thing.
Being able to understand the code of Bitcoin Core gives you the ability to do exactly one thing: understand the code of Bitcoin Core. It says absolutely nothing about your ability to understand the implications of changes to the system, of what users want, or the purpose of Bitcoin itself, for that matter.
Bitcoin Core developers are developing a product, and their customers are the users of the Bitcoin network. The Core developers don't get to dictate what the users are supposed to think. It's entirely the other way around. If the users don't like something Core plans to do, Core shouldn't make the change.
Core ignored its users, so now they're getting fired, by users switching to an alternate client.

2025-09-08 12:49:38 CEST

- reply

That appears to be exactly what he's saying.

2025-09-08 09:05:01 CEST

- reply

Absolutely reasonable take. Fully agree.

2025-09-08 09:02:42 CEST

- reply

Yes, and the Core developers are acting like they're the most important ones in the space right now.
They are not.

2025-09-08 07:31:57 CEST

- reply

Wow, that was quite a read. And I think it's pretty much accurate.

2025-09-08 07:29:55 CEST

- reply

Agree, it's "Core is wrong". I use Knots because it seems fit for purpose, but I don't need to. I am against Core primarily.

2025-09-08 06:34:35 CEST

- reply

The almost-universal rejection of the points therein is encouraging.

2025-09-07 18:58:01 CEST

- reply

I don't care who you are either if your argument sucks.
We've actually met before, by the way. Not that you care, apparently.

2025-09-07 18:56:19 CEST

- reply

I'll take you seriously when you stop making ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority and start making actual points.

2025-09-07 18:48:08 CEST

- reply

I didn't make that argument. And that's not the main argument against Core, nor the main argument for Knots. That's a weak straw man. Do better.

2025-09-07 18:47:21 CEST

- reply

Right, they don't need to resign because they're fired.

2025-09-07 18:03:43 CEST

- reply

This is a reasonable take. I don't deny at all the value of what developers do. The stuff needs to get built. But it's everyone else's decision to choose to use the things that get built.

2025-09-07 17:02:31 CEST

- reply

I'm doing my part here ser

2025-09-07 16:45:41 CEST

- reply

Top tier subnote.

2025-09-07 16:43:59 CEST

- reply

This is 100% not what JB and others are saying. So I can't agree with you here.

2025-09-07 16:33:17 CEST

- reply

I embrace that label 100%

2025-09-07 15:57:10 CEST

- reply

It's a battle of ideas. Noderunners, hodlers, and miners make their own choices. It's not just a battle of which codebase is most correct.

2025-09-07 15:51:54 CEST

- reply

Bookmarked for later!

2025-09-07 15:49:22 CEST

- reply

I didn't hear anything about the feet pics. Link?

2025-09-07 15:47:20 CEST

- reply

It's actually so cringe. He's made some amazing contributions, especially to Nostr! It's a shame to see behavior like this.

2025-09-07 15:43:53 CEST

The biggest flaw of the pro-Core position, in my view, is that it's purely an appeal to authority, specifically the authority of the Core developers. In Bitcoin, you're supposed to not trust, but verify. But we're being told to trust this group of developers who ram through a controversial change without listening to the community.
And you can verify what they're doing, too. This change doesn't need to happen. It's perfectly valid to oppose the changes made in Bitcoin V30.
It's sickeningly elitist to suggest that you're not supposed to have an opinion about Bitcoin unless you contribute to the code. That's not how this works.

2025-09-07 15:34:42 CEST

- reply

I really can't understand the view that insists that all users of Bitcoin must bow down to and obey the dictates of the Bitcoin Core developers. That they somehow have this secret knowledge that us plebs can't possibly understand.
It flies entirely in the face of the cypherpunk ethos and the principles of decentralization.
JB's argument is that Bitcoin Core is "meritocratic" - that's complete bullshit. They shut down ideas they don't like and do the things they're paid to do. Meritocracy is multiple implementations competing with each other in the battlefield of ideas.
Knots is gaining ground on that one.

2025-09-07 13:45:12 CEST

- reply

Bitcoin is not "ruled" by its developers. If others actors in Bitcoin don't like what the developers do, they can and should reject the changes.

2025-09-07 13:39:03 CEST

- reply

Bitcoin is far more than the technical people who do things to its code. Every holder, noderunner, and miner also gets a say.

2025-09-07 13:37:15 CEST

- reply

The tech is needed. Bitcoin needs to function as money. The base layer (the chain) makes Bitcoin work as a store of value and in a limited fashion as a medium of exchange. Lightning and other L2s make Bitcoin a much better medium of exchange.
But the tech only matters because Bitcoin is money. If Bitcoin is not money, it's worthless.
The tech is the enabler, not the end in itself.

2025-09-07 13:35:18 CEST

Bitcoin is as much an idea as it is a technology.
Bitcoin adoption doesn't happen because the code is impeccable.
Bitcoin adoption doesn't happen because the tech is cool.
Bitcoin adoption doesn't happen because you can put pictures on a blockchain.
Bitcoin adoption happens because it is the best form of money we've ever seen, and because the people who figure that out tell other people about it.

2025-09-07 13:31:20 CEST

- reply

Ridiculing opposing positions as nonsense isn't the best way to make your position more popular. The opinions of technical people aren't the only valid ones.

2025-09-07 13:23:13 CEST

- reply

I replied there just now. Tldr, #6 is where everything hinges for me.

2025-09-07 13:22:10 CEST

- reply

What is broken that Core 30 fixes is basically the winner for me. The OP_RETURN limit wasn't broken and it wasn't controversial. Those advocating to remove the limit were using a contrived hypothetical that having a limit drives people to other forms of spam.
The change itself was controversial, not the original limit. It should not have been implemented.
I will never run a Bitcoin Core node again. I will consider node implementations other than Knots if they are developed and Knots gives me a reason not to trust it. But Knots is not just perfectly fine, it does exactly what I want it to do.
But I'll repeat: I will never run a BITCOIN Core node again. That project is dead to me. I would consider a fork that removes the idiotic changes from the last few versions. But at this point, sticking with Knots is also find.

2025-09-07 12:14:49 CEST

- reply

TLDR: Bitcoin is money. If Bitcoin is not money, it is worthless, just like all the shitcoins.

2025-09-07 12:10:57 CEST

- reply

Ultimately, Knots, OCEAN, and DATUM provide optionality and methods of decentralization. You don't have to use them. But you can.
Frankly, the irrational shrieking from opponents of these tools just shows how captured some people are.
The belief that everyone must use Core and everyone must use the defaults that they decree is fiat as fuck.

2025-09-06 08:12:46 CEST

- reply

One of the coolest things to come out of BTC HEL is the Bitcoin Beef Bits project. Check it out!
#nevent1q…6cee

2025-09-06 08:11:58 CEST

- reply

100% agree!