ryangrote
Ryan Grote

Public Key

npub14v3mt7epu2vfwu2vgr4dtdmgchu30exk77h20gdmyjlhwylwvjuqlvn7su

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs2kga4lvs79xyhw9xyp6k4ka5vt7ghunt00t485xajf0mhz0hxfwqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dskj2rsp

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub14v3mt7epu2vfwu2vgr4dtdmgchu30exk77h20gdmyjlhwylwvjuqlvn7su

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-08-11 19:22:38 CEST

- reply

To go along with your analogy- Yes, you get fired and then get a higher paying job somewhere else. Miners were fired by BIP-110 and are getting paid way more by the legacy chain.

2026-08-11 15:29:54 CEST

- reply

I get that. The good thing is that Bitcoin isn’t a democracy. It’s the free market.

2026-08-10 21:22:08 CEST

- reply

I do. It would be much less likely for them to ignore 90% of nodes. At that point, there’s the risk that 90% of the network follows a proof of work change, sells all their “bitcoin” and buys “bip-110coin”. There’s no risk of that now. Bitcoin price barely moved after bip-110 failed. I would have loved for bip-110 to succeed but it’s done. Let’s learn from this. If we want a change, we need more economic support in the form of more plebs mining or buying hash rate.

2026-08-10 21:09:48 CEST

I was a BIP-110 supporter and I’m returning to the legacy chain.
I would have liked the miners to flip the bit to signal for BIP-110 but it’s not worth it at this point. Here’s why:
BIP-110 didn’t fail because bitcoin is captured. It failed because there wasn’t enough support for BIP-110.
Less than 20% of nodes were running it. Much less hashrate was supporting it.
I want to try to draw a parallel to the physical world:
If the people of the Midwest decide they want to tighten the rules for the entire USA, why would the USA make that change if they don’t feel the need to?
The people of the Midwest say “We’re going to enforce these rules across the country and we think you should too.”
The rest of the country says, “How are you going to enforce that?”
The Midwest says, “Well, we’re all going to enforce it in the Midwest and about 15% of us have guns.”
The country says, “How are you going to enforce that if you only make up 20% of the entire USA and only 15% of you have guns?”
The Midwest says, “Just watch, everyone else will enforce it, so you should too.”
My point is that if you want to make a change, you have to make some sacrifice. In the physical world people make sacrifices for change by putting themselves at risk both physically and financially. Not enough BIP-110 supporters really put any skin in the game.
They ran BIP-110 nodes but they didn’t have enough conviction to put enough money into buying hashrate and mining bitcoin to actually enforce it.
Back to my analogy, it would be like the Midwest saying, “We’re not going to spend any money on guns because we think the rest of the country who owns guns will enforce our rule, even though they said they won’t.”
It doesn’t mean miners are completely in control of bitcoin. Less than 20% of nodes were running BIP-110 and miners ignored it. It was the more conservative thing to do.
If 55% of nodes were running BIP-110, I don’t think miners would ignore it, even if hashrate was initially low.
The whole BIP-110 movement was really about resisting centralization. It wasn’t about spam. It was that high rates of spam and arbitrary data would make noderunning more difficult and lead to centralization.
At this point, now that BIP 110 is the minority chain, they're much more centralized than the legacy chain. the whole point of BIP 110 was to stop centralization and now BIP 110 is more centralized.

2026-08-10 21:05:26 CEST

- reply

I was a BIP-110 supporter and I’m returning to the legacy chain.
I would have liked the miners to flip the bit to signal for BIP-110 but it’s not worth it at this point. Here’s why:
BIP-110 didn’t fail because bitcoin is captured. It failed because there wasn’t enough support for BIP-110.
Less than 20% of nodes were running it. Much less hashrate was supporting it.
I want to try to draw a parallel to the physical world:
If the people of the Midwest decide they want to tighten the rules for the entire USA, why would the USA make that change if they don’t feel the need to.
The people of the Midwest say “We’re going to enforce these rules across the country and we think you should too.”
The rest of the country says, “How are you going to enforce that?”
The Midwest says, “Well, we’re all going to enforce it in the Midwest and about 15% of us have guns.”
The country says, “How are you going to enforce that if you only make up 20% of the entire USA and only 15% of you have guns?”
The Midwest says, “Just watch, everyone else will enforce it, so you should too.”
My point is that if you want to make a change, you have to make some sacrifice. In the physical world people make sacrifices for change by putting themselves at risk both physically and financially. Not enough BIP-110 supporters really put any skin in the game.
They ran BIP-110 nodes but they didn’t have enough conviction to put enough money into buying hashrate and mining bitcoin to actually enforce it.
Back to my analogy, it would be like the Midwest saying, “We’re not going to spend any money on guns because we think the rest of the country who owns guns will enforce our rule, even though they said they won’t.”
It doesn’t mean miners are completely in control of bitcoin. Less than 20% of nodes were running BIP-110 and miners ignored it. It was the more conservative thing to do.
If 55% of nodes were running BIP-110, I don’t think miners would ignore it, even if hashrate was initially low.
The whole BIP-110 movement was really about resisting centralization. It wasn’t about spam. It was that high rates of spam and arbitrary data would make noderunning more difficult and lead to centralization.
At this point, now that BIP 110 is the minority chain, they're much more centralized than the legacy chain. the whole point of BIP 110 was to stop centralization and now BIP 110 is more centralized.

2026-08-09 02:56:03 CEST

BIP-110’s loss was like Thomas Massie’s loss.
The one with the best interest of the people lost to the side with more money.

2026-08-05 03:23:39 CEST

I've stopped stressing about whether BIP-110 wins or not.
I used to believe Bitcoin would slowly fail if BIP-110 doesn't succed.
I hear people say: "If miners ignore it, that means miners control Bitcoin and Bitcoin isn't what we think it is."
I don't think that's true.
If less than ~20% actually want BIP-110 and miners ignore it, the protocol will just stay aligned with the majority.
That doesn't mean nodes don't matter. It would be a different story if 60% of nodes were running it. I don't think miners would ignore that.
So if BIP-110 fails, that doesn't mean Bitcoin is broken.
It means not enough node runners cared enough to try to make this change.
I'm going to keep running BIP-110 on my node. I'm even renting hashrate for it.
I hope it succeeds, but if it doesn't I'm not giving up on Bitcoin.

2026-08-04 19:40:00 CEST

- reply

Here’s a theory on why all the stolen funds are being consolidated… The U.S. government is going to find the “thief” (patsy) and sweep all the stolen funds to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. If they reimburse the victims, it’ll be with a USD stablecoin based on the value of the BTC when funds were stolen.

2026-08-02 20:19:50 CEST

It seems like several people have lost money in the coldcard hack because they were traveling and couldn’t access it. I think more people should be talking about the importance of memorizing their seed phrase. I used to think it was overkill but I decided to focus on memorizing 6 words per week for 4 weeks. Then I set a reminder to go through the full 24-word seed phrase in my head one day per week. Unfortunately I’m going to have to do it over again because my seed was generated on an mk4 but at least I could move it before getting drained.

2026-02-23 01:16:05 CET

- reply

The Monte Carlo simulation and mainnet testing data both point in the same direction: limiting non-monetary data in Bitcoin transactions produces measurably better long-term outcomes for node decentralization, blockchain sustainability, and network credibility as a monetary system.

2026-02-23 01:14:50 CET

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/bfceec989a566b980044e697498e90a2ebe74e58d412fb851eee7bd627627d32.png

2026-02-23 01:14:20 CET

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/9319ba294c1440d63772ce4473a0c538b4bf8d3f5393a1190de77a26edf9483b.png

2026-02-23 01:13:44 CET

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/290ce1cdc99e93b9bcd7ccb8399ff5deef3bcbf97fd879fbe656da8dab9ccb78.png

2026-02-23 01:12:56 CET

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/5ae76a7c5b629a905e10dc17563d142d7424ac12ab0a4f11b0713ff08c7410ca.png

2026-02-23 01:11:27 CET

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/087d445b58d6b7180a9e32c99eb39304a8f41a1a0049a08b661a1c4827e44337.png

2026-02-22 20:52:47 CET

- reply

Monte Carlo simulation was constructed with 10,000 iterations across a 25-year horizon, modeling key variables under two scenarios: BIP-110 activated (and periodically renewed) versus the status quo (Core 30 direction continues).
The simulation incorporates:
1) Bitcoin halving schedule (2028, 2032, 2036, 2040, 2044, 2048)
2) Node count dynamics: Driven by storage costs, bandwidth
requirements, and community sentiment
3) Blockchain growth rate: Based on transaction volume and data
payload sizes
4) Fee revenue sufficiency: The percentage of network security
costs covered by transaction fees as subsidy declines
5) Governance crisis probability: Frequency of contentious
events that damage network credibility
6) Network credibility score: A composite metric incorporating
decentralization, monetary identity clarity, and stability

2026-02-22 20:49:11 CET

I've been spending more time than I'd like trying to parse out both sides of this BIP-110 debate. The problem is - way too much of the discussion is personal attacks and speculation on whether it's going to fail or succeed.
I care about one thing: giving Bitcoin the best possible chance to remain decentralized, censorship-resistant money for generations. That’s it.
I used AI to run a 10,000 simulation 25-year analysis to determine what things will look like for bitcoin in 25 years if BIP-110 succeeds and if it fails.
I think understand both sides of the debate.
Facts:
1) BIP-110's proposed changes will definitely limit blockchain bloat.
2) Soft-forking without broad consensus is problematic and sets a dangerous precedent.
My question is - can there be a compromise? It seems to me this would cause the least disruption.
I'll post some additional charts and information that AI provided me based on the 25-year 10,000 monte-carlo simulations. Please let me know if it's accurate.
#bip110 #bitcoin #knots #core

2026-02-21 12:22:08 CET

- reply

Thanks, that’s helpful. I really want to hear whether the anti bip-110 guys think bitcoin should only be money. I feel like that’s never really answered. They just say “we can’t stop spam, there will always be spam”. If they don’t want bitcoin to only be money, and BIP-110 doesn’t hurt legitimate monetary use cases, the decision is easy.

2026-02-20 20:39:55 CET

- reply

I agree, if that kind of image were to be put on the blockchain it probably would incentivize people toward knots/ BIP110. But why would they do that if the whole point of knots/BIP110 is to avoid images/non-monetary data storage. The image would be stored forever on both blockchains even if there were a fork, so what would they gain by doing that? Are you saying they would upload 1 CSAM image to get support for BIP-110 which would stop more potential CSAM images from getting put on the blockchain? Is that how you're framing the incentive? Help me understand what you're saying here.

2026-02-20 20:13:19 CET

I’m trying to fully understand both sides of the BIP-110 debate. I feel like I fully understand the pro BIP-110 so I’d like to hear from the anti Bip-110 .
Here’s what I'd like to know from those that don’t support BIP-110:
1) Do you want bitcoin to be used only for monetary transactions or are you OK with other use cases?
2) If BIP-110 succeeds and works exactly as intended, will the blockchain contain a less non-monetary data going forward?
3) If BIP-110 succeeds and works exactly as intended, will it hinder legitimate monetary use cases?
4) What changes would have to be made to BIP-110 in order for you to support it?
#bip110 #bitcoin

2023-02-20 18:50:52 CET

- reply

Thanks!

2023-02-20 18:23:18 CET

- reply

Is that only for specific notes? I’m using Damus and I haven’t seen a lighting bolt.

2023-02-18 21:51:09 CET

Test