<unnamed>

Public Key

npub10lrzse62vddqwsscqcmjurmhtxh545zf6q7ez9q25ddlc7p7saeqems9ug

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs8l33gva9xxks8ggvqvdewpam4nt626pyaq0v3zs92xklu0qlgwuspzemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0dehhvetdvfjhyp4xkqp

Publishing to

nos.lol/november

Last Notes

2026-08-28 19:28:44 UTC

- reply

Ignore the “put on some pants” crowd - “half-naked (maybe fully naked) dude walking through the desert” is your brand and it works!

2026-08-28 19:27:58 UTC

- reply

I enjoy listening to your questions and ideas. It would be nice if the video was better quality, but not essential.

2026-08-28 18:29:26 UTC

- reply

Box for mining rigs to be used as heaters.

2026-08-26 00:20:56 UTC

- reply

I think you’re oversimplifying how things played out.
The biggest problem I see from all this is that a relatively small group of influential people subverted a low risk BIP that was fairly well supported by thousands of node runners (almost 20%), and demonstrated that Bitcoin is in reality not decentralized because it would only take about half a dozen people to coordinate for (1) Core to ship a future soft-fork consensus change and (2) mining pools controlling more than 50% of the hash rate to signal support for it.
The main reason why I think there was coordination is that the lowest risk path for miners and mining pools was to allow BIP-110 to succeed but what we saw was absolutely none signaling for it besides Ocean.

2026-08-25 23:33:01 UTC

- reply

Park rangers have way more legal powers than you might expect. Here’s a crazy story by a seasoned hiker who couldn’t see the exact campsite in winter and was charged because he camped in the wrong spot: https://youtu.be/rCcXt6XZrdw

2026-08-25 00:12:52 UTC

- reply

I can relate - people keep offering me fiat opportunities and I just don’t want to do that stuff anymore.
Maybe there are off grid people closer to your location who would appreciate an electrician hooking up or expanding their off grid solar? That might feel less fiat and bring in enough cash for your expenses?

2026-08-12 06:36:35 UTC

- reply

I’ll be waiting until someone has credible receipts.
That way I don’t need to know if they’re batshit crazy or just highly motivated.
I do lean towards collusion as my default in this case. I acknowledge that I could be biased, but that’s just what I see the incentives, personalities and relationships likely leading to.
The idea that Samson wasn’t on the phone to miners to drum up support doesn’t seem realistic.
The idea that Saylor didn’t make a direct plea for miners to do what he thinks stabilizes things best also doesn’t seem likely.
Brian Armstrong and David (spam king) Bailey staying out of it also seems unlikely.
It smells like the NY agreement 2.0.
This was most likely a case of who can influence the miners enough based on relationships and reputation (and maybe coercion - Saylor had just flagged a large potential sale that might hurt miners).
They all have an axe to grind with Luke.
I didn’t see a lot of genuine discourse about the technical aspects of the BIP from those opposing it. E.g. “we need large op returns to support XYZ functionality”. It was mainly character attacks on Luke.
Maybe popularity, audience reach, reputation, relationships, and economic weight is a reasonable way to set consensus. If so, it doesn’t bode well for Bitcoin as money in the long term since many of the influential people want it to become Ethereum 2.0 to pump their bags.

2026-08-12 05:13:14 UTC

- reply

Ocean mined blocks on both chains during the split because they allowed those pointing their hash to choose. That doesn’t seem captured.
Didn’t see anything like that amount of decentralization from any other pool.
What makes you think that regulated corporate mining pools (that need to do what the government tells them) aren’t already captured - or at the very least at risk of being easily captured?
I don’t know with certainty that what I saw over the weekend was collusion, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck!

2026-08-12 04:32:48 UTC

- reply

Thuperthycle. 🐂 🚲

2026-08-11 23:18:58 UTC

- reply

Like most groups, BIP-110 had some people there for the cult, some following an influencer, and others who gave it a lot of thought.
It seems unwise to ignore the possibility that what we just saw was miner collusion rather than free-market game theory playing out.
From my perspective, BIP-110 was low risk and did very little to disrupt spam beyond closing the OP_RETURN vector that Core v30+ makes much easier to access anonymously. It made more economic sense for miners to support it and avoid alienating the 15% of monetary maximalist node runners. Nobody else needed to do anything, and probably 65% didn’t care about the outcome (the 60% of node runners who didn’t upgrade to Core v30, plus the 5% running Knots without BIP-110).
Without collusion, no single mining pool could have certainty they were not wasting money mining during the chain split.
We’re starting to see allegations of collusion now - let’s hope we get to the bottom of it because miner centralization seems to be a serious problem.

2026-08-10 22:38:20 UTC

- reply

I hope you’re right, but there are Bitcoiners who think “tail emissions” to reward miners are not inflationary.
https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary

2026-08-10 21:17:32 UTC

- reply

We need a lot more people mining Bitcoin like you are to decentralize mining. I hope you keep mining Bitcoin even if you adopt Monero.

2026-08-10 04:48:21 UTC

- reply

What Bitcoin needs is for NPCs to wake up and do some thinking. Far too many NPCs for Bitcoin to succeed. We need to change this.
I haven’t met a BIP-110 person who didn’t do the work to think about long-term outcomes for Bitcoin. Doesn’t mean they were right - but they did the work.
What disappoints me is the NPCs who did zero work to understand what was at stake and treated the BIP-110 issue as a sport where they could pick a team without doing any work or thinking.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

2026-08-09 21:10:01 UTC

- reply

There’s a limited amount of effort focused on decentralization (e.g. Jimmy Song pushing for another node implementation, or stratum mining from Ocean).
Meanwhile “big bitcoin” is funding quantum security that’s probably irrelevant for another decade.

2026-08-09 21:05:40 UTC

- reply

We have a massive centralization problem in many dimensions and that needs to be addressed. That’s what I see.

2026-08-09 21:04:30 UTC

- reply

Core dev funding is arguably directed by only a handful of key people.
Problem or not a problem?
https://www.citadel21.com/

2026-08-09 21:00:08 UTC

- reply

Most Bitcoin influencers must not upset David Bailey or their access to large conference audiences could be cut-off.
Problem or not a problem?

2026-08-09 17:30:46 UTC

- reply

“We have real adversaries, financial censorship, regulatory overreach, CBDCs, and an army of rent seekers who want Bitcoin locked down.“
Isn’t that exactly the same group of influential people who just ensured BIP-110 failed?
My takeaway from the BIP-110 failure is that it proved how centralized things have become. A handful of Core funders/developers, a handful of bought and paid for influencers and a handful of large miners control things. That’s not good for the long term. We need to decentralize things much more than they are now.

2026-08-08 23:46:08 UTC

- reply

It’s a troll. Just ignore it.
“Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.”
I’m for sure rewatching this movie tonight:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808

2026-08-08 23:10:24 UTC

- reply

You did an amazing job promoting BIP-110. You can be proud to be on the right side of history.

2026-08-08 23:08:38 UTC

- reply

Agree with the analysis: Bitcoin is obviously currently captured by miners. Suitcoiners/shitcoiners will pump our bags in the near-term. We need a hard fork and proof of work change and 10 years from now when the shitcoinery eventually fails (as it always does), the fork will embody the true intent and ethos of Bitcoin.
My node is staying on BIP-110 until I find a better alternative, and I’m never going back to Core. I’d rather shut it down than support the spam industrial complex.

2026-08-07 06:20:59 UTC

- reply

That is not helpful at all.
For those who can’t follow the breadcrumbs, Linux has /dev/random (that is truly random and suitable for cryptography) and /dev/urandom (that is pseudo-random and not suitable for cryptography).
Other devices have similar random number generators (RNGs).
Coldcard has a bug where they use pseudo-random numbers that are not random enough to create a seed.
So whatever device you used to create your seed needs to have used true random numbers or manually entered dice rolls or coin flips from unbiased dice/coins.
If your seed lacked randomness at creation it doesn’t matter what wallet it’s in now - it’s still vulnerable to having all funds stolen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//dev/random

2026-08-06 03:39:12 UTC

- reply

Total - utter - nonsense.
I expect that you know it’s nonsense, so the real question is what are the incentives that lead to you doing this particular social signaling.
We can and should mitigate non-monetary data payloads that abuse the Bitcoin network. It’s going to require ongoing effort - just like security does.
The arguments about fees and proof of work are distractions. Proof of work has no opinion about spam - it is about preventing an attacker from rewriting the chain of transactions because PoW requires real world energy.
Fees can’t price out spam because there’s always someone willing to pay to graffiti the blockchain. Spam is about 0.05% of miner revenue at the moment, so it’s not about helping miners to secure the network. In the future the block rewards will be more valuable in fiat terms, so they will grow in value to continue incentivizing mining.
The only credible way to mitigate spam is careful periodic consensus rule changes that gradually disrupt spammers, scare away their VC cash, and eventually make spamming so unrewarding that most spammers just go elsewhere.
I expect better from people who write code. If you can’t see why spam is bad for Bitcoin or refuse to see how it can be mitigated, then maybe Bitcoin doesn’t need you writing code anymore. Go write some more half-assed pseudo-privacy tools.
https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2025/07/bitchats-big-claims-meet-harsh-reality.html

2026-08-06 02:46:46 UTC

- reply

Jack - I agree with your views on the need for BIP-110, the Bitcoin influencers and idols who are compromised and that we need to go even further than BIP-110. You inspired me to do my own research into the Fabians.
I appreciate your work and want more people to understand what you’re saying.
It would be great if you used AI to make your notes more coherent because the last few seem to ramble.
For example I used AI to rewrite this “AI is simply the threshold of compressibility and predictability is memory space.” as this “AI appears once a system can compress the world’s data into a compact, predictive model; that model is its memory.” That seems easier to comprehend.
Thanks.

2026-08-05 22:44:46 UTC

- reply

Thanks for explaining.

2026-08-05 22:42:55 UTC

- reply

I don’t know of a service that does it for you, but it’s definitely possible, maybe these folks wrote custom code?
https://www.galaxy.com/insights/research/bitcoin-wallet-opreturn-salomon-brothers-abandoned-property-constructive-possession

2026-08-05 21:45:23 UTC

- reply

You could dust some wallets with that in OP_RETURN.

2026-08-05 21:31:53 UTC

- reply

https://bluewallet.io/docs/manual-entropy/

2026-08-05 03:54:15 UTC

- reply

You can get 3D-printed exhaust flanges that are designed to perfectly fit HVAC ducting.

2026-08-05 03:52:07 UTC

- reply

If there was a cost-effective immersion system that eliminated the noise, I’d get back into home mining. I know I could build one, but that’s such a PITA and the dielectric fluids are expensive!

2026-08-05 03:41:29 UTC

- reply

How do you backup the wallet descriptor so it’s fire proof? I understand how to backup a 24 word BIP-39 seed on steel, but not a descriptor.
Seed hammer seems too expensive and the descriptor is very long to hammer out manually. What do you recommend?
https://seedhammer.com/article/the-seedhammer-metal-plates

2026-08-05 03:17:17 UTC

- reply

It’s a very small change (about 70 lines of code). That’s tiny compared to a typical update of Core, or a UASF like SegWit.

2026-08-05 02:02:19 UTC

- reply

Yeah - I vaguely remember something about no factory reset option when I setup my Coldcard. So maybe they did need to destroy inventory because they couldn’t flash the firmware. Then again - maybe that was all lies and they can flash the firmware. Who knows. Frankly who cares. I’m never buying another product from them.

2026-08-05 01:52:41 UTC

- reply

Isn’t Seedsigner just one dude with almost no funding? How’s he going to do security reviews?

2026-08-05 01:43:51 UTC

- reply

Interesting perspective. Strike is fully KYC and as you point out, that’s not really aligned with true Bitcoin ethos.

2026-08-05 01:39:48 UTC

- reply

That’s going to be difficult. If you like your local priest/pastor, they may be a good resource for how to work through this tragedy.

2026-08-05 01:16:52 UTC

- reply

Thanks for sharing. Interesting software. I don’t want to spend the time auditing it, so won’t be using it. I’ll probably do the dice and paper method to create a BIP-39 seed for my next wallet.

2026-08-04 21:25:45 UTC

- reply

If there are no devices to worry about - do you really get a benefit from multi-sig that’s worth the complexity compared to putting 1/3 of the seed in each location?

2026-08-04 19:13:04 UTC

- reply

It’s virtue signaling by a few LARPers, funded by opensats to greenwash that they had someone as toxically arrogant as NVK on the board for so long.
Real security experts and developers have been using LLMs for years. So have hackers. Even NVK claims he used LLMs a few months ago and found no problems with Coldcard.
Having a couple of Odell’s unqualified buddies spend $10k/day on LLMs is far less effective than just paying real security researchers to do the work.

2026-08-04 18:54:15 UTC

- reply

Didn’t need AI to find this bug.
A normal routine code review by another developer before shipping the code should have found this. They used a #defined constant incorrectly - that’s a rookie mistake.
There’s an article online that speculates the Coinkite dev just tried things until they got it to compile and run (without understanding the impact of what they were changing) - hence the commit message “runs.”
James O’Beirne claims he warned them in May 2025 about using the poorly supported ngu library instead of directly calling the crypto library they wanted and they ignored him.

2026-08-04 18:46:43 UTC

- reply

I agree - arrogance not malice.

2026-08-04 18:44:17 UTC

- reply

We were all taken in by the cypherpunk look and the shilling by Odell (and other podcasters) who kept saying it was the best.
With 20:20 hindsight why would anyone trust their life savings to software/hardware developed by a company with half a dozen employees? They clearly didn’t have enough people to have serious security review capabilities in-house.
I’m just lucky that I hated the user experience of my Coldcard so much that I only used it with tiny amounts I was willing to lose, then left it in the drawer as a momento to my stupidity for listening to podcaster shills.

2026-08-04 03:39:51 UTC

- reply

I don’t diversify into shitcoins because they are almost all scams that are on their way to zero. I diversify beyond BTC with Gold, Land, Stocks and USD.

2026-08-02 22:00:35 UTC

- reply

I doubt that very much. They will flash the firmware and keep selling.

2026-08-02 21:53:04 UTC

- reply

Agree about the back room dealers being untrustworthy. Also stay away from anyone with a goddamn discount code. It’s infuriating to see clueless influencers shilling shitty wallets at the moment.
I’d say lean towards knowledgeable plebs in your local (face-to-face) Bitcoin community because some of the unlikeable people also offer bad advice. Jamison Lopp for example.

2026-08-02 20:45:33 UTC

- reply

Diversify across multiple vendors you trust for a multi-sig setup - If you’re comfortable with multi-sig and have tested your backup and recovery to ensure you backed-up the XPUB and not just the BIP-39 seed phrases.
Or diversify across multiple trusted vendors with single-sig so you don’t lose 100% if one wallet gets hacked.
For a KYC stack, you can also put some with a couple of custodians you trust (like River & Strike). Or use a service like Unchained or Casa to handle multi-sig if you worry about your family being able to do multi-sig recovery.
I think the “best” approach will be slightly different for everyone depending on their circumstances, so do your own research.

2026-08-02 20:10:36 UTC

- reply

Bottom line for me is I think this rookie mistake with a #define statement should have been found in a code review before the code was shipped, so I simply won’t trust Coinkite again and my Coldcard is now a decorative momento of this horrific period in Bitcoin.
Someone reported that the new firmware worked ok the first few times before bricking their MK4 as they were creating new wallets. I can’t confirm if that is true though.
Also saw Luke claiming the new firmware still had problems - can’t confirm that either.
https://engineering.block.xyz/blog/predictable-rng-fallback-and-32-bit-reseed-in-coldcard-firmware

2026-08-02 14:01:46 UTC

- reply

NVK has always been super arrogant. Probably didn’t want anyone talking poorly about Coldcard.
Even this time around NVK initially did not accept that Coldcard had a vulnerability and blamed the user for uploading their own weak seed phrase. Then he said it was limited to MK3, and only in the face of research by Block did NVK finally accept that ALL Coldcards have weaker entropy than they should.
NVK also lied about deleting customer data after 90 days to protect people from wrench attacks. He just sent emails to people who bought Coldcards 5 years ago.
My Coldcard is purely a paper weight now. I’ll never trust Coinkite or NVK again.

2026-08-02 13:30:24 UTC

- reply

Here’s the marketing speak Blockstream use to make you feel comfortable about how Jade is cheaper for them to produce because it doesn’t have dedicated secure element hardware onboard. Even iPhones have secure elements onboard. Jade does not. And by default it only works if Blocks “blind oracle” service is online and allows you to transact. You can work around needing the blind oracle by entering your BIP-39 recovery words, but honestly who needs that kind of hassle? Just buy a wallet that isn’t trying to turn you into the product. Also stay away from Ledger because they offer “Ledger Recover” which means their hardware can extract the seed and send it to a remote service.
“Why does Jade use a blind oracle and not a secure element?
We developed our unique security model using blind oracles as a way to avoid needing a secure element for wallet protection, which allows Jade to be truly open-source, more accessible and easy to DIY build yourself. Secure elements are typically covered by NDAs, are more expensive, and drastically increase the complexity of building a DIY device.”

2026-08-02 12:50:04 UTC

- reply

I don’t have a promo code because they don’t pay me. Trezor are having a sale at the moment. Also - if you can walk into a reputable distributor like Best Buy and pay cash you avoid having your info linked to the purchase.

2026-08-02 12:36:24 UTC

- reply

Wow! A valid (non-spam) use case for Slipstream. Maybe there is some hope for Marathon.

2026-08-02 03:28:52 UTC

- reply

https://trezor.io/trezor-safe-7-bitcoin-only

2026-08-02 03:24:49 UTC

- reply

Why do you think a team that can’t use #define correctly, and either didn’t do a code review of the most important code or missed that rookie mistake in the code review, hasn’t messed up somewhere else too?
I will keep my Coldcard as a historical artifact but never trust it as a wallet.
https://engineering.block.xyz/blog/predictable-rng-fallback-and-32-bit-reseed-in-coldcard-firmware

2026-08-02 03:11:20 UTC

- reply

I think this has more entropy.

2026-08-02 02:06:19 UTC

- reply

My tin foil hat is too weak to see that conspiracy. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t a conspiracy - just that it fooled me if it was.

2026-08-02 00:40:02 UTC

- reply

It’s not ok to give Coinkite a free pass on this. When a company sells a product that is not fit for purpose, there should be consequences for the company.

2026-08-01 23:43:44 UTC

- reply

If you can spare 10 minutes, I urge you to read the BIP. It’s simple to understand and that’s all you need to agree/disagree with.
None of the personal attacks are relevant. None of the slippery slope stuff is relevant. Running BIP-110 doesn’t mean you need to run whatever Luke suggests in the future.
The rule changes are simple. They close the OP_RETURN spam vector (that always existed but Core v30 made more easily accessible and normalized), limit how much arbitrary data can be stored in some scripts as a minor disruption to spammers and more importantly a clear message to their VC backers that spam will not be tolerated.
It’s a small step in the right direction, and it needs as much support as possible over the coming week to ensure it succeeds. Switching to Knots+BIP-110 only takes a few minutes and no initial block download is necessary because it uses your Core nodes existing block chain data.
https://bip110.org/

2026-08-01 04:46:01 UTC

- reply

They are susceptible but apparently not as much as the MK3. Still prudent to carefully move to a more secure wallet.
https://blog.coinkite.com/coldcard-mk3-seed-generation-warning/

2026-07-31 22:46:47 UTC

- reply

He was smug and arrogant, but I suspect he was making plenty of money from the company and wouldn’t destroy the company to rug only the people running an old version of his hardware. If it was deliberate, I’d expect he would have rugged everyone.
Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - or in this case, hubris and arrogance.

2026-07-31 22:40:00 UTC

- reply

A computer runs software that does things in a predictable (deterministic) way. It can run an algorithm that generates numbers that look random (called pseudo-random numbers) and are good enough for something like a video game but aren’t really random enough to secure money.
Most computers also have dedicated hardware that measures small physical characteristics like heat, power draw, light (e.g. camera), keystrokes, physical movement etc… they use that to produce truly random numbers, but the catch is that the truly random numbers take a long time to produce, so the truly random numbers are only used for things that are really important like cryptography or wallets.
The Coldcard bug meant they were using the not very random numbers produced by predictable software instead of the truly random numbers from the hardware.

2026-07-31 20:53:53 UTC

- reply

I use primal on IOS and it only supports KYC wallets last time I checked. Can’t be bothered changing to get a few bucks worth of zaps. I’ll think about adding a picture.

2026-07-31 20:48:26 UTC

- reply

Yeah - dice rolls for the win.

2026-07-31 08:47:40 UTC

- reply

Mechanic said he knows someone who had an MK4 drained today.
I would assume it’s possible they might have moved a seed that was generated on MK3 to MK4, but it’s also possible that MK4’s low entropy is within reach of the amount of compute that’s being thrown at this attack.
Safest bet is to carefully move funds from any Coldcard to a new known high entropy wallet (and Coldcards new firmware claims to fix the entropy bug on MK4/5/Q, so it might be possible to reuse some devices if you still want to trust Coinkite).

2026-07-31 06:03:13 UTC

For anyone worried by the Coldcard vulnerability today and wondering how Trezor generates a seed, here’s there explanation:
https://trezor.io/guides/trezor-devices/trezor-fundamentals/what-is-entropy-and-how-does-trezor-generate-your-wallet

2026-07-31 05:21:05 UTC

- reply

No profile pic and no wallet for zaps. I prefer stronger privacy.

2026-07-31 05:14:48 UTC

- reply

And for anyone following this thread - that’s usually where any civil discussion of BIP-110 ends because “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”.
Ben was on a panel at anti-BIP-110 David Bailey’s Bitcoin conference in 2025 and probably would like another opportunity in the future. He also gets frequent advertising of his business on anti-BIP-110 outlets like Odell’s RHR and Walker America. So “thinking for himself” is likely driven by financial incentives and maintaining relationships with influencers rather than technical aspects of the BIP.
This is why we need lots of unfunded hard line Bitcoin node runners who are willing to do what it takes to keep Bitcoin focused on being money. Not influencers (and their friends) who are captured by the financial incentives of their “big Bitcoin” sponsors.

2026-07-31 03:10:12 UTC

- reply

Yeah - it’s very interesting to watch this closely.
I wasn’t running a node or really paying attention during the block size wars.
At the time it sounded reasonable to me to increase the block size for scalability reasons (the idea of an L2 payment layer like Lightning sounded too complex compared to increasing block size) - but it didn’t seem reasonable to keep algorithmically increasing block size, so I was not really a fan of either option.
Perhaps the people sitting this one out are similar to how I was back then - not thrilled about any of the available options?

2026-07-30 21:20:45 UTC

- reply

I think a block size decrease, eliminating Segwit discount, and scaling back taproot are more likely now than ever before because Core v30 vs. BIP-110 has woken up a lot of Bitcoiners to these problems.
BIP-110 is worth running because if it succeeds, it fixes the OP_RETURN spam vector that v30 made easier (it already existed but was rarely exploited because the network didn’t accept it by “default” until v30).

2026-07-30 21:14:08 UTC

- reply

I rarely watch Bitcoin content on YouTube, but I watched a few midwit youtubers gaslighting BIP-110 last night - to try to understand their perspective.
It was so disappointing to watch, but the comment section really inspired me because 95% of comments were from BIP-110 supporters who I’ve never seen on NOSTR. There’s a real movement behind BIP-110 and almost no opposition by real Bitcoiners.
All the captured podcasters are shrieking into the void at this point. I think us average pleb Bitcoin node runners have a solid chance to get Bitcoin back on track as money because if the monetary maximalist Bitcoiners leave Bitcoin, then whats left behind is a far less valuable chain. Any miner that takes a minute to think about that should take the 0.01% revenue hit from lost spam fees to avoid the uncertainty of disrespecting the monetary maximalist Bitcoiners who are the backbone of Bitcoin.

2026-07-29 20:49:29 UTC

- reply

I’m gonna run whatever node Fauci tells me to run if he stops pleading the fifth long enough to let us know where the science stands on this topic.

2026-07-29 20:37:18 UTC

- reply

You’re not alone. Many people make similar choices - with a range of different vices. I think it’s often to escape the pressures of the fiat world and after doing that for years it becomes a habit that carries on even after leaving the fiat world and moving to their “sanctuary”. I used to have a couple of beers on the train home at the end of the week to unwind. Many people on that train were doing the same. Other people choose different vices. You’re not alone. Self improvement is a constant process that never ends in my opinion.

2026-07-29 20:23:53 UTC

- reply

I’m tired too. Hang in there for another couple of weeks!
So many refuse to take 10 minutes to read BIP-110 and see there’s nothing scary there for Bitcoin as money. They will, however, spend hours parroting misinformation and making jokes about the people supporting BIP-110.

2026-07-29 04:29:13 UTC

- reply

Glad you have read the BIP. What part of it did you disagree with?

2026-07-27 23:59:40 UTC

- reply

Welcome new node runner! Is it reasonable to assume it’s a BIP-110 node?

2026-07-27 23:26:45 UTC

- reply

Another amazing Vlog Dave. You’re the new HODL of NOSTR in my opinion. Complex topic - not sure that I have anything to add. I think you’re right that it’s a fine line between a ritual and an addiction.

2026-07-27 05:19:39 UTC

- reply

Will Prowse hates them: https://youtu.be/1xlvM2fpFGM

2026-07-27 05:06:24 UTC

- reply

Yeah - the idea that Bitcoin needs STRC to be money is nuts and shows you how Saylor has taken things too far with his financial engineering. Bitcoin already is money - people buy your wine with sats.

2026-07-27 05:01:46 UTC

- reply

The white paper called it a “peer-to-peer electronic cash system”. That’s never been what Saylor was about. He saw it as a “store of value” hedge against fiat money printing, which it is. Then, because he is incredibly smart and one of the first to realize the opportunity, he wrapped it in a Wall Street friendly way and pumped MSTR sky-high. Now he’s gone way out in front of his skis with STRC, and he’s feeling the pain.
If he ever buys your wine himself (not an assistant) and pays with sats, then you will know he’s truly using it as “money” which is a medium of exchange AND a store of value.

2026-07-27 04:43:26 UTC

- reply

💯

2026-07-27 04:41:39 UTC

- reply

Yep - well said. It’s just a small cautious step in the right direction.

2026-07-27 04:40:16 UTC

- reply

That’s a very insightful plebs take!

2026-07-27 04:35:07 UTC

- reply

Yes - and the appropriate response is to not run that shit. We need more options Knots vs Core is too easy for people to argue about - needs to be more like cars or Linux distros. Some people still argue, but at least there’s a lot of options.

2026-07-27 04:12:39 UTC

- reply

Ben - you should stop listening to the influencers who need to go to the Bitcoin conference every year to grow their number of followers. It’s run by David Bailey who invested in a LOT of spamming companies. That means influencers need to sit this one out or attack BIP-110. If they support BIP-110 they might not get on stage in Nashville next year.
Arbitrary data is harmful for node operators. It doesn’t matter if it is because they worry about legal, ethical, moral, or resource concerns - that’s their personal decision. As node operators decide not to run nodes anymore, nodes gradually get centralized like mining pools and miners already have and Bitcoin will be easier to capture.
When you send an on-chain payment transaction that typically uses less than 300 bytes (you can verify this by opening your Bitcoin wallet and clicking the link to see one of your transactions in the mempool). Even opening or closing a lightning channel that uses multisig and time locks is typically less than 600 bytes.
On chain payments and lightning channels account for almost all financial use cases in Bitcoin.
So… that begs the obvious question of who needs 100,000 bytes of OP_RETURN data for a monetary use case?
Enshrining the 83 bytes OP_RETURN limits from before Core v30 in consensus rules so even if node filters get bypassed by miners, those transactions are still invalid is the main thing BIP-110 achieves. It also causes minor disruption to ordinals and limits how much data can be embedded in some scripts.
Perhaps most importantly, it signals to VCs that spam is not welcome so they should reconsider before investing in spammers.
Take 10 minutes to read the BIP. There’s going to be nothing there that you disagree with. That will get you to start questioning what your heros have told you about the BIP.
https://bip110.org/

2026-07-27 03:09:15 UTC

- reply

Excellent way to frame it.
A typical peer-to-peer on-chain payment transaction is typically less than 300 bytes. Even opening or closing a lightning channel typically only needs less than 600 bytes. Those are probably at least 95% of all financial use cases.
Who is using 100,000 bytes in OP_RETURN for a financial transaction?

2026-07-27 02:01:03 UTC

- reply

Would you trust a battery supplier who multiplied 51.2v x 100Ah and got 2560wh as the answer?

2026-07-27 01:40:53 UTC

- reply

Your Friends & Neighbors is one of my recent favorites.

2026-07-27 01:39:47 UTC

- reply

I watched the first couple of seasons, then stopped. Is season 3 any good?

2026-07-27 01:33:31 UTC

- reply

Not gonna dox the location but just to the left (not in your image) there is a small building with a tiny museum inside.

2026-07-27 01:27:10 UTC

- reply

Just saw your banner image and recognized where it is. Beautiful spot! There can’t be many folks on NOSTR who have been there.

2026-07-27 00:10:39 UTC

- reply

Your problem about not enough use as money is legitimate.
That doesn’t mean spam is not also a problem.
We should fix both problems.
Folks are working on improving spending - look at what Square recently did to accept payments at many small businesses.
Spam is disincentivizing node running and driving centralization. BIP-110 is a very small cautious step in the right direction to mitigate spam. We will need to keep doing more periodically, but it’s a start.

2026-07-26 23:57:26 UTC

- reply

I’m pro BIP-110, but to be fair, Core v30 changed node filters not consensus rules. It was already possible to store that arbitrary data in transactions via Slipstream and Libre Relay that bypass the nodes - Core v30 just made it easier by getting Core nodes to relay spam to miners by default.
The upside of Core v30 is it woke a lot of us up and we’re now pushing to tighten consensus rules via BIP-110 so some spam attacks will be more difficult.

2026-07-26 23:45:09 UTC

- reply

💯 - there are no credible arguments against BIP-110 that I’ve heard, and believe me I’ve tried to find them.
It’s a minimal low risk change to consensus rules that sends a message to VCs that spam is not welcome. It’s only a minor disruption for ordinals but does reduce the amount of data that’s allowed in OP_RETURN to the levels Core node filters allowed before v30 and reduces the amount of data (i.e. spam) that can be embedded by some scripts. It’s a small step in the right direction and we will need to do more soft forks periodically to cautiously mitigate spam.

2026-07-26 20:29:45 UTC

- reply

I still don’t understand the game theory and why you’re so confident the UASF approach works.
Is there a good summary of the rationale somewhere that I can read? I’ve heard mechanic explain it a few times, but I still don’t quite get it.
There’s a saying in trading that “the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent”. Why can’t miners, exchanges, and economically dominant nodes like those run by wallet providers also be irrational and not take the path of least resistance with the soft fork for BIP-110? Surely after several hours, the game theory is over and nobody’s going to disrupt them by signaling BIP-110 and have enough hash rate to re-org the chain and take back block rewards they thought they already earned (but were waiting 100 blocks to spend).

2026-07-26 20:05:55 UTC

- reply

“They can code all they want, just like anyone else -- it's an open GitHub.”
Sure - but it won’t get merged or shipped as part of the popular Core implementation. Just look at Luke’s contributions to mitigate ordinals.

2026-07-26 20:02:50 UTC

- reply

The use case seems clear “enforce how a UTXO can be spent”.
I can see how that’s appealing to vaults, inheritance planning, etc… and how it can enhance security in the sense that if someone steals your private keys they can still only spend the UTXO in a predefined way. It just doesn’t seem very important to me.

2026-07-26 19:46:47 UTC

- reply

I’m not so sure your take on this is reasonable. Humans are corruptible and when they depend on money and belonging to a group for their comfort or safety they are willing to go along with the groupthink, which is heavily influenced by the leaders.
I think the capture of Core has been a subtle almost unintended capture by the funders. They fund people who they like and who share their views, and promote people who are particularly well aligned.
There’s zero chance Gloria (or anyone straight out of college with limited experience) would, like, you know, like, reach a like, position of like authority in a well run like meritocracy.

2026-07-26 05:41:46 UTC

- reply

Good point though - after running a few AI queries, I think a lot of this table is total garbage.

2026-07-26 05:37:37 UTC

- reply

Depends on your prompts to AI. Here’s my AIs answer about the “virgin birth” stories.
In comparative religion, “virgin birth” often gets used loosely to mean a birth that is miraculous, divinely caused, and not the result of ordinary human sexuality. Under that wider definition, Horus, Krishna, and the Buddha can all be placed in the same category because each is born through supernatural intervention and is marked out as extraordinary from the start.
Horus
The pro-virgin-birth argument for Horus usually says that Isis conceives Horus through divine means after Osiris’ death, so the birth is not a normal human conception. In this reading, the point is not biological virginity in a strict sense, but that Horus is generated by sacred power rather than ordinary sex. That is why popular comparative myth arguments often label the story a virgin-birth myth.
Krishna
For Krishna, the argument is that Devaki’s pregnancy is so overwhelmed by divine action, prophecy, and miraculous circumstance that it functions like a virgin-birth narrative even if the tradition does not always use that exact term. Krishna is not portrayed as an ordinary child; his coming is cosmic, protected, and preordained. So the story can be framed as a miraculous conception story that serves the same mythic role as a virgin birth.
Buddha
The Buddha’s birth is the easiest to describe in this broader way, because the tradition presents his arrival as supernatural and set apart from ordinary human reproduction. Queen Maya’s dream, the extraordinary signs, and the sacred nature of the event all support the claim that this is a virgin-birth style narrative in symbolic terms. The emphasis is on a holy, transcendent origin, not on a mundane family birth.

2026-07-26 04:40:54 UTC

- reply

And let’s not forget all the paper bitcoin that enables price manipulation by large players in the market. It’s the exchanges, ETFs and Treasury companies creating the paper bitcoin and offering leverage and loans against Bitcoin. Savvy traders use that paper bitcoin to whipsaw prices and force people out of leveraged trades and bitcoin loans.

2026-07-26 04:32:01 UTC

- reply

What we are seeing is a multi-faceted attempt to control Bitcoin by large corporations and shitcoiners.
David Bailey invests in many spammers and controls the Bitcoin media - podcasters can’t criticize spam if they want to be invited back to the Bitcoin conference where they will increase their audience and progress their career.
A handful of people fund most core development, and they seem to be funding mainly young developers who have little to no skin in the game because they’re too young to own much Bitcoin. They also want to build non-monetary users cases on top of Bitcoin. There’s even a “bitcoin development philosophy” book from Chaincode labs that’s required reading for grant recipients to ensure developers think about Bitcoin the way their funders do.
The shitcoiners/suitcoiners/stablecoiners are the ones with influence over politicians and will shape the regulatory landscape in their favor.
Mining is already highly centralized with the top 3 mining pools having over 50% of the hash rate.
Node software is too centralized with Core owning about 80% of the market. For now the number of nodes is still large and decentralized, but that’s going to change as smaller node runners leave due to ethical/legal/cost issues related to running a node.
So if this trend continues, then a closed door agreement between a few people will be sufficient to drive Bitcoins direction. If the vocal minority of monetary maximalist BIP-110 node runners that are almost 20% of the network (albeit probably not the most economically significant nodes) can’t have an impact, then Bitcoin is doomed.