<unnamed>

Public Key

npub19k7ufmdc4tt0xpk65r2uv3t26nw6e22vjqe4fj4r907ewf8v3t4svw2466

Profile Code

nprofile1qqszm0wyaku244hnqmd2p4wxg44dfhdv49xfqv65e23jhlvhynkg46cpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5q3camnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdsq3jamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdphkgmrzdashyepwdaexwqg3waehxw309aekzarnv9nk2tnc09aqgnqa7g

Publishing to

nos.lol

nostr.mom

nostr.bitcoiner.social

relay.hodlboard.org

satsage.xyz

Last Notes

2026-08-11 06:07:09 UTC

- reply

I don't think Adam's opinion on this makes much sense at all. I think he's also one of the people that fell for the "filters are censorship" argument.
It's already been shown (and you can check yourself by running the filters) that as you say the difference in fee estimation was overall marginal (at least for the kind of filters we are talking about currently), same for relay (read AJtown data for example. The effect was just marginal at best).
Not only that, but both the above problems have more effective and far more elegant solutions than forcing the entire decentralized network to run with the same mempool policies/filter (probably one of the most retarded things to attempt ever).
Bitcoin core still uses many filters (because, spoiler, they work as a disincentive if widely adopted) and added new policies BTW (like TRUC). And no, it's not incoherent to call it your mempool since it's literally your mempool.
Unfortunately, the bip110 retardation has discredited all the good rational discussion around filters.

2026-07-23 12:16:22 UTC

- reply

1% would just be bankroll management, and assumes a 1:100 ratio if you want to double your money which means you're basically DOA unless crazy shenanigans. Such a minority chain trying to take over would incur massive backlash, including stuff like counter softforks and the majority chain threatening to fire the miner. The scenario Jimmy describes has nothing to do with moving hashrate back and forth following the market. It's a specific speculative attack that requires miners to cooperate at a massive scale and face massive risks, including "career" threatening.
They can use the same bankroll strategy in a casino or trading or whatever they like that's much more doable and practical and has almost surely better returns.

2026-07-22 06:39:38 UTC

- reply

This is probably one of the most retarded thing I've read today. Miners can also gamble directly if they like, you know? Online casino? That would be simpler. People love to say game theory without any idea what it means lol. Miners would have to risk a bunch of coins in the hope that a minority chain (and the more the ratio the more the risk) will take over and possibly fuck up bitcoin anyway because of massive reorgs and what not. The unseen in the scenario Jimmy describes is so complex and again, risky!
Is Jimmy Song braindead? Rhetoric question.