hodlonaut

#Bitcoin Taco pleb. Hodling. Always looking to learn. Speaking my mind. Editing http://citadel21.com

Public Key

npub1cjw49ftnxene9wdxujz3tp7zspp0kf862cjud4nm3j2usag6eg2smwj2rh

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvf82j54enveujhxnwfpg4slpgqshmyna9vfwx6eace9wgw5dv59gprpmhxue69uhkc6t8dp6xu6twvaex2mrp0yhxxmmdqyd8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtn0wfskuem9wp5kcmpwv3jhv08w7sa

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1cjw49ftnxene9wdxujz3tp7zspp0kf862cjud4nm3j2usag6eg2smwj2rh

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-04-29 19:53:30 CEST

CAPTURE
An investigation across four articles into how informal power over Bitcoin Core was assembled, exercised, and defended.
Article Two: The Lever
https://www.citadel21.com/the-lever

2026-03-27 23:24:46 CET

CAPTURE
An investigation across four articles into how informal power over Bitcoin Core was assembled, exercised, and defended.
Article One: The Network
https://www.citadel21.com/the-network

2026-03-13 17:11:53 CET

- reply

How Bitcoin Core's developer selection, developer funding, and developer moderation were consolidated under a single informal architecture
#naddr1qq…8qzn

2026-03-12 08:41:45 CET

Human nature insures there will never be a time when Bitcoin does not need to be defended and fought for.
Complacency is an attack vector.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

2026-03-11 08:29:47 CET

By repeatedly adjusting default mempool policy to match what miners will accept anyway (large OP_RETURN uncapped because “they’ll just mine it via bypasses like Libre Relay, or direct APIs”), we are implicitly conceding that miner greed + economic incentives are the ultimate rule-setter, not node-enforced principles.
Meaning a (cleverly hidden) capitulation of Bitcoin as a decentralized project.
You could say that the “CENSORSHIP!” argument from Core and their supporters on the concept of nodes filtering is a roundabout way of critizing decentralization itself.
Nodes were always supposed to be the sovereign check, they decide what they accapt and relay.
When we keep loosening policy to align with whatever is the current grift “use case”, and by extension what is short term profitable for miners, it trains the entire ecosystem to treat restrictive node behavior as pointless theater.
Over time this hollows out node sovereignty: running a full node becomes more about passively observing the chain that miners + L2s + data-spammers have already decided on, rather than actively enforcing a monetary-first standard.
As a cuck bonus it also leads to higher resource costs for every honest node (bandwidth, RAM, storage) à fewer independent verifiers in practice
Decentralization starts looking like a performance act. Miners produce the blocks, a handful of relays and L2 sequencers steer the flow, and nodes just… validate after the fact.
It’s not a hard-fork capitulation (consensus rules haven’t changed), but it is a cultural, philosophical and operational one. The most profound capitulation in practice.
The philosophy flips from “Bitcoin should resist non-monetary garbage even if it costs us some short-term fee revenue” to “whatever pays miners gets standardized because resistance is futile.”
Once you accept “miners will do it anyway” as the justification for policy, you’ve already handed the character of Bitcoin over to the highest bidder. Nodes stop being the immune system and start becoming just a polite audience.
The OP_RETURN uncap looks a lot like another quiet step toward a two-tier network (miners + insiders set the tone, everyone else just watches. Keep doing this and running a node risks becoming a branding exercise instead of the actual source and guarantee of Bitcoin’s decentralization.

2026-03-10 13:58:34 CET

- reply

Yes

2026-03-10 12:32:58 CET

- reply

Spent some time researching this
#naddr1qq…3g0q

2026-03-05 17:26:50 CET

In July 2023 and September 2023, two pull requests hit the Bitcoin Core repository.
One tried to tighten data limits. One tried to remove them entirely.
They were moving in opposite directions. The people behind them knew what they were doing.
***
PR #28130, July 2023: Peter Todd files to remove the OP_RETURN mempool limit entirely.
PR #28408, September 2023: Luke Dashjr files to extend -datacarriersize to cover the SegWit/Taproot inscription loophole.
Luke tightening. Todd eliminating. Both active at the same time.
***
Todd NACKs Luke's PR, calling it censorship.
PR #28408 is killed. PR #28130 is closed without adoption — but it has done its job: established the position publicly and seeded the argument for next time.
Kill the defence. Advance the attack. The pincer has two arms.
***
What Todd does not disclose when NACKing Luke's patch: he operates Libre Relay.
Libre Relay is a direct-to-miner relay service routing non-standard transactions — including inscription-heavy ones — to miners, bypassing mempool policy entirely.
***
Todd's argument: filters are ineffective because miners include non-standard transactions anyway.
Libre Relay is part of the infrastructure that makes this self-fulfilling.
He built the bypass. Then cited the bypass as proof limits don't work.
***
April 2025: Todd files PR #32359 to remove the limit.
He later admits on Stacker News:
"This pull-req wasn't my idea. I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs instead of OP_Return."
***
Citrea: a VC-funded ZK-rollup whose business model needed more on-chain data storage.
The PR was not an organic expression of Todd's technical views.
It was a brief, handed to him by an unnamed active Core developer, to solve a corporate client's problem.
***
Samson Mow calls it "PR laundering" — routing through Todd to produce the appearance of independent initiative.
Antoine Poinsot (Chaincode Labs) connected to early discussions.
The same Poinsot who disputed Luke's CVE in October 2024. Both ends of the sequence.
***
Jameson Lopp publicly advocates for the PR.
He does not disclose he is an investor in Citrea — the same company whose data needs triggered the PR.
***
The PR draws 423 thumbs-down against 105 thumbs-up.
Ava Chow had stated publicly in December 2023: "If it is controversial, then we don't touch it."
June 9, 2025: Gloria Zhao merges it anyway.
***
PR #32406 does something beyond uncapping OP_RETURN.
It removes -datacarrier and marks -datacarriersize as deprecated — the switches letting node operators filter data-carrying transactions from their mempools.
Luke Dashjr authored those options in 2014.
***
The justification: the flag is "obsolete" and a "footgun."
Gloria's announcement tweet confirmed the deprecation explicitly.
The escape hatch was being closed behind the change.
***
Under sustained pressure, Core maintainer Ava Chow reversed the deprecation via PR #33453 — merged hours before the v30 release window in October 2025.
User configurability preserved — for now.
The 100KB default was not reversed.
***
Thirty-one Bitcoin Core contributors sign an open letter supporting the merge.
The letter uses the word "censorship" to describe any opposition.
***
Gloria's public statement on X:
"Demanding that Bitcoin Core prevent certain transactions from being mined reflects a misunderstanding of the relationship between open source software users and developers."
She deletes the account on May 15, 2025.
***
The community response is the largest organised opposition to a Core change since the 2017 block size wars.
Bitcoin Knots — Luke's alternative implementation — surges from ~2% of the network to over 21%.
5,114 Knots nodes at time of v30 release. BitRef data confirmed.
***
Dennis Porter, who had raised over $200,000 for Core developers:
"My faith in their work is now broken. I will no longer be financially supporting Core development."
***
Nick Szabo — pioneer cryptographer, silent on social media for five years — returns for v30.
"I strongly recommend not upgrading to Core v30."
He also flags criminal liability for node operators storing illegal content they can no longer remove.
***
Bitcoin Core v30 ships October 11, 2025.
Within weeks, downloads are pulled. The release contains a bug capable of deleting Satoshi-era wallet.dat files during migration — potentially destroying funds held by early holders who had not backed up separately.
***
A release delayed for weeks due to governance controversy shipped with the most serious wallet safety bug in years.
Knots supporters noted the contrast immediately.
***
One supporter's statement is worth preserving.
Ark Labs Ecosystem Lead Alex Bergeron stated publicly he intends "to use all of the additional OP_Return space and WILL use it to make Bitcoin more like Ethereum, except better."
A proponent confirming what critics warned.
***
2023: reject Luke's patch. 2025: merge the uncap using the open loophole as excuse.
2021: try to remove Dashjr as BIP editor. 2025: mute him on the OP_RETURN PR.
2014: Luke builds the configuration option. 2025: try to deprecate it in the same merge.
Not a series of independent events.

2026-03-05 17:22:09 CET

VC money is a helluva drug.
Symptoms include:
- sudden inability to define the word "spam", previously straightforward concept, now philosophically complex
- the word "censorship" begins to apply to things that were previously called "node policy"
- previously held view that "arbitrary data does not belong on a monetary ledger" becomes "who are we to say what belongs?"
- strongly held technical positions develop a mysterious flexibility

2026-03-05 17:20:46 CET

2026-03-05 14:35:51 CET

- reply

🔥

2026-03-05 10:42:35 CET

In 2025 Bitcoin Core removed a decade-old mempool policy default — a configurable limit on how much non-financial data nodes would relay. OP_RETURN was effectively uncapped.
Not a consensus rule. A default setting. But defaults govern what most of the network does. Which governs what miners see. Which governs what gets mined.
The justification: it wasn’t working anyway, data was getting in through a loophole.
What wasn’t disclosed: that loophole had been deliberately kept open.
Here’s the documented sequence:
2014: Luke Dashjr creates the -datacarriersize configuration option.
Its description: "Maximum size of data in data carrier transactions we relay and mine."
Broad by design. Covers all transaction components. That's the operative text for ~10 years.
***
Late 2023: Developer Marco Falke changes the -datacarriersize description in v26.0.
New wording inserts "scriptPubKey" — outputs only.
Inscriptions use the input/witness section.
That single word change surgically excluded inscription spam from the option's scope.
***
That change was not a typo fix.
AJ Towns ACKed it.
The diff is documented. The before/after screenshot exists.
The configuration option Luke built to protect the network had its scope quietly narrowed — while he was still maintaining the project.
***
Sept 2023: Luke submits PR #28408.
Purpose: extend -datacarriersize to cover the SegWit/Taproot witness loophole inscriptions were using to bypass existing limits.
A direct fix. Using the exact configuration option he built. Nine years earlier.
***
Gloria Zhao rejects it.
On-record comment: "History of this config option suggests datacarriersize is meant to limit the size of data in OP_RETURN outputs, so this statement is untrue."
She cites curated historical PRs to support the narrowed reading.
***
She does not mention that the operative description in the codebase had been changed in v26.0 by Marco Falke.
AJ Towns — who ACKed that documentation change — then gives an Approach NACK on Luke's patch.
The same man enabled the rejection and then ratified it.
***
Peter Todd also NACKs. Calls Luke's patch "censoring" transactions.
He does not disclose he operates Libre Relay — a direct-to-miner relay that routes inscription transactions around mempool policy.
He built the bypass. Then called closing it censorship.
***
PR #28408 closes. 11 Concept NACKs vs 9 Concept ACKs.
The loophole remains open.
Jan 5, 2024: Luke opens Issue #29187 and formally designates the bypass as a security vulnerability: CVE-2023-50428.
"Active exploitation... very harmful to Bitcoin even today."
***
Oct 2024: Contributor darosior disputes the CVE.
"The large majority of contributors disagree this is a security vulnerability. I believe the CVE system is being abused."
Next day, achow101 closes the issue.
The vulnerability is officially declared not a vulnerability.
***
April 2025: Peter Todd files PR #32359 to remove the OP_RETURN limit entirely.
He later admits: "This pull-req wasn't my idea. I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs instead of OP_Return."
***
Citrea: a VC-funded ZK-rollup whose business model needed more on-chain data storage.
Jameson Lopp publicly advocates for the PR.
He is an investor in Citrea.
This was not disclosed.
***
Samson Mow calls it "PR laundering" — routing through Todd to fake independent initiative.
Antoine Poinsot (Chaincode Labs) connected to early discussions.
The same Poinsot who disputed Luke's CVE in October 2024.
He sits at both ends of the sequence.
***
June 9, 2025: Gloria Zhao merges the uncapped OP_RETURN change.
The primary public justification: inscription data via the witness loophole is less prunable, so OP_RETURN should be uncapped to redirect it.
The harm reduction argument.
***
That argument is entirely dependent on the witness loophole remaining open.
If PR #28408 had been merged in 2023, the loophole would be closed.
The harm reduction argument would not exist.
It would have had nothing to reduce harm from.
***
The person who rejected the patch that would have closed the loophole is the same person who merged the change that used the open loophole as its justification.
That is not a coincidence.
That is a sequence.
***
The last entry in Luke's closed CVE issue reads:
"glozow mentioned this on Jun 9, 2025 — policy: uncap datacarrier by default #32406"
The issue opened to fix the vulnerability referenced from the PR that exploited the unfixed vulnerability.
GitHub closes the loop.
***
Every step is documented:
→ Docs narrowed (v26.0, ACK: Towns)
→ Patch rejected using narrowed docs (Zhao, Chow)
→ CVE designated (Luke, Jan 2024)
→ CVE closed (darosior, achow101, Oct 2024)
→ Removal PR commissioned (Todd)
→ Uncap merged (Zhao, Jun 9 2025)
***
Adam Back claimed the narrowed definition "was always the original intent."
The original 2014 text has no mention of OP_RETURN, scriptPubKey, or outputs.
That restriction was introduced in v26.0.
He treated an amendment as original intent.
***
The PR had 423 thumbs-down against 105 thumbs-up.
Ava Chow had said publicly in Dec 2023: "If it is controversial, then we don't touch it."
It was merged anyway.
Luke Dashjr was muted on the PR. Bitcoin Mechanic was muted on the PR.
***
Bitcoin Core's response:
→ 31 devs sign a letter calling opposition "censorship"
→ GitHub moderators mute the loudest critics
And:
→ Nick Szabo breaks 5-year silence: "run Knots"
→ 22% of the network switches to alternative software
***
The documentation was rewritten.
The patch was rejected using the rewrite.
The loophole was kept open.
The open loophole became the justification.
The justification enabled the uncap.
The person who rejected the patch merged the uncap.
All on the public record.

2026-02-25 22:57:12 CET

- reply

Any fiat financial outfit having the chance to do it but not doing it would surprise me 🤷‍♂️

2026-02-25 22:39:57 CET

“So then, the (21M) cap is irrelevant when Jane Street can fabricate unlimited synthetic supply through undisclosed derivatives stacked on top of its own ETF inventory.”
Now we know the answer to the price mystery. And color me not surprised.
Paper bitcoin…
https://x.com/1914ad/status/2026757796390449382?s=46&t=DG1JEc-EXQnoc72Rmx9dOA

2026-02-24 19:37:17 CET

The main justification from Core for the OP_RETURN uncap is “harm reduction”.
The argument is that inscriptions done via the segwit/taproot hack have potential to do more damage than inscriptions via OP_RETURN.
Thing is, LukeDashjr made a PR in 2023 to fix the vulnerability introduced by taproot.
PR #28408
It would “effectively limit arbitrary data carried via newer methods (including SegWit witness data and Taproot scripts), which inscriptions/Ordinals were using to bypass the existing OP_RETURN-based limits and embed larger payloads.”
If that had been merged, the current harm reduction narrative wouldn’t even be there.
It wasn’t merged. Core didn’t want it.
Peter Todd was among those who Nacked it with this rationale:
“The transactions targeted by this pull-req are a very significant source of fee revenue for miners. It is very unlikely that minres will give up that source of revenue. Censoring those transactions would simply encourage the development of private mempools - harmful to small miners - while making fee estimation less reliable.”
Note the use of the word “censoring” to describe fixing a very recently introduced vulnerability that opened up for ordinals.
Self inflicted wound, willingly not patched up, used as rationale for a new self inflicted wound.
https://blossom.primal.net/8d8e4fac15dff2a096f76f085bfe8896123140592f4c0986b1b56a0dd44db04a.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/53248fc0e9f32cbb552e594dffe933cec62bd994238636739b8cfc516b41cece.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/4d0d1f2b17c55c4d2df2520bab7dfec3267868d144e81e7a56db93e6546bf111.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/05bdf3aeb67290ba180744d593fb9a0de5752bb0aedfd27a51ab383125e0bc6f.jpg

2026-02-24 12:11:13 CET

- reply

You fail to understand the difference between x and 1200x? And cook that down to a lie about me being ignorant about the existence of op_return’s existence since inception?
Great jobb mRhOdL 👍
And yes, users can change the default, but very few will.

2026-02-24 11:50:24 CET

- reply

You think it will stay that way forever?

2026-02-24 11:48:11 CET

- reply

Working on it.

2026-02-24 11:42:09 CET

https://blossom.primal.net/5c68d995201ae84d0731c4c50d836cb9b63d861e8450712c097c8df94a7e7572.jpg

2026-02-24 11:05:16 CET

Premise: Bitcoin's core value is to be Money. As pristine money as possible.
Fee competition and congestion due to grift spam works as a tax on monetary use, which is obviously negative towards being pristine money.
But more seriously imo is that using Bitcoin for other purposes than money, introduces hidden economic dilution/inflation.
Spawning thousands of competing tokens, memecoins and NFTs on Bitcoin, leveraging its security and reputation, diverts capital and attention from BTC itself.
Speculators and normies chase these derivatives out of greed, instead of holding BTC for its scarcity and monetary properties.
This is like expanding the "pie" of BTC as a value carrier with junk assets. BTC's monetary premium gets diluted as the chain becomes a crowded data/token platform rather than pristine money.
Conclusion: Any standardizing or facilitating of non monetary use of Bitcoin undermines its core mission and value proposition.

2026-02-22 11:34:05 CET

- reply

Which has no place among stewards of our best shot to beat future tyranny

2026-02-22 11:31:18 CET

- reply

So you disagree with Adam that this standard is of no consequence? Meaning that the whole civil war in that case was predictably created for no meaningful gain at all?
Keeping up?
https://blossom.primal.net/b123f8489c5b001370639cfbb4e0e1e94549d7247c39d76a7ad4875588059c1e.jpg

2026-02-22 11:22:01 CET

- reply

I’m afraid the conclusion to our little back and forth is that you are the one REALLY not getting it 🤷‍♂️

2026-02-22 11:17:26 CET

- reply

4/5 people pushing controversial change maintains decentralization? 😂😂😂

2026-02-22 11:16:13 CET

Please, can someone explain to me how these two things can be logically compatible:
- the uncap (100kb) of op_return “doesn’t really matter”, and its value could basically just be decided by “tossing a dice”. It’s a nothingburger and in no way a philosophical pivot.
and
- the uncap being so important that it had to be forced through despite great opposition and controversy, predictably creating a civil war. And now the heels are being dug in harder than I’ve ever seen and people calling it out are labeled as “attacking bitcoin”.
https://blossom.primal.net/b123f8489c5b001370639cfbb4e0e1e94549d7247c39d76a7ad4875588059c1e.jpg

2026-02-22 11:03:20 CET

- reply

The “pressure” as you call it, was there long before they decided to merge the op_return uncap. From developers on GitHub. And from the Bitcoin community as a whole.
A small contingent of core devs decided to arrogantly push it through anyways.

2026-02-22 10:38:42 CET

https://blossom.primal.net/a847e5557734c6741a51db15b61cdfd6340c63e5e345323b9649adc04c731b38.jpg

2026-02-21 16:14:48 CET

- reply

Me too

2026-02-21 15:29:12 CET

- reply

Thanks. I agree

2026-02-21 12:36:33 CET

- reply

If it really was irrelevant, that would make Core’s insistence on uncapping it, and predictably creating this chaos for no reason, even HARDER to explain

2026-02-21 12:25:48 CET

- reply

I know that I would prefer to have Core show ability to course correct and return to signaling that Bitcoin is money, not grift ledger.

2026-02-21 11:28:16 CET

- reply

Amen

2026-02-21 11:13:43 CET

- reply

That's missing the bigger picture.
OP_RETURN was deliberately limited (80 bytes, one per tx) as a DISCOURAGEMENT mechanism for non-monetary data on the base layer.
It was never meant to be a general-purpose data dumpster.
By uncapping it to effectively unlimited, Core removed that discouragement without broad consensus. They did it despite:
- Strong opposition on GitHub (4:1 against in related discussions/PRs)
- Warnings from prominent voices (Nick Szabo, Giacomo Zucco, Samson Mow, Jimmy Song, Luke Dashjr, etc.)
- No real attempt to build social consensus first
This wasn't "conservative security-first." It was a reckless philosophical pivot towards turning Bitcoin more toward a general data settlement layer at the expense of its focus as sound, scarce money.
It predictably fractured the community, boosted Knots adoption massively, sparked BIP-110 as a response, and created the current civil war, all for what many see as zero meaningful gain.
Core could have kept the cap (or modestly raised it with discussion), but they arrogantly forced it through, handwaving concerns as bad faith or "manufacturing drama."
That's the real issue: bad stewardship from Core.

2026-02-21 10:47:37 CET

- reply

Core's arrogance and recklessness in uncapping OP_RETURN in the face of broad and real controversy is imo where the ego is found. It predictably created the current situation.
I get zero impression that Luke and Mechanic are driven by pure ego and desire for control/power, rather that they're trying to protect Bitcoin from eroding away from its core mission of being money separate from the state.

2026-02-12 09:01:11 CET

You know what would be REALLY bad for Bitcoin?
If everyone blindly trusted a centralized dev team, bent to appeals to authority and willfully ignored gigantic red flags.
If no one defended Bitcoin’s core principles and ethos.
That would be REALLY bad for Bitcoin.
As in a death sentence for the mission of separating state and money.

2026-02-11 10:54:05 CET

Independent minded people who don’t bend to peer pressure used to be considered a feature, not a bug.
Core v30 changed that for some reason.
https://blossom.primal.net/b182bd6259653d16ad01225c6ba868dad9ded0989985a4f6c041ed3b5719527f.jpg

2026-02-10 17:51:13 CET

A) I think v30, the rationale, the haste, the circumstances, the philosophical implications, the arrogance, the handwaving, the disdain for broad community outrage and more, shows beyond doubt that something is very wrong with Bitcoin Core and/or how it works right now.
B) That means I am taking a stand against it
C) This DOES NOT necessarily mean that I know for a fact BIP-110 is the best countermove, but it DOES MEAN that I think some form of strong action has to be mustered against it, if Core shows no willingness to accept they have acted recklessly and unwise, and start working to remedy the situation and heal the social fracture.
D) As of now I support BIP-110

2026-02-08 23:55:01 CET

- reply

*part of

2026-02-08 23:54:39 CET

- reply

Wow… you actually think you’re parting a priesthood that stupid plebs shall not question? Wild

2026-02-08 23:46:53 CET

- reply

You went straight to appeal to technical authority?

2026-02-08 23:42:43 CET

- reply

I don’t have a team.
I’m a concerned bitcoiner looking for the best way to make a principled stand that Bitcoin is money and not data storage.
And saying the argument is over is clearly plain wrong.

2026-02-08 23:29:31 CET

- reply

Solid argument there

2026-02-08 23:04:12 CET

Is one of the main arguments against bip-110 that not enough people support it?
Would some of the “reckless” and “dangerous” criticism go away if support was much higher? And would that criticism then deservedly go towards Core and v30 instead?

2026-02-07 11:46:27 CET

- reply

Is it a topic you prefer to stay out of?
What should the discourse focus on? Do you think there should be no pushing back against «wizards or whatever» standardization of spam through 1200x increase of OP_RETURN in Core v30?
Asking because I would really like to hear your fleshed out thoughts on this.

2026-02-07 07:43:20 CET

- reply

Why are you so retarded?

2026-02-06 22:48:46 CET

Adam ignoring this gives me more than enough answers.
Just so fucking disappointed 😢
https://blossom.primal.net/1bc5a3c9763bc7051130f1427649033d61599f215e2058d55e21cb5842c92027.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/b8ab358c7edce0d71fd925a5e882dfa3f5322ca5282e0044be033adfd9372ccf.mov

2026-02-06 21:19:03 CET

- reply

YES

2026-02-06 21:18:33 CET

- reply

Doing well! 🫡🧡
Hope you are too.

2026-02-06 16:51:43 CET

- reply

Hi Gigi!
Are you not worried about the obvious philosophical shift of Core?
Miss you.
https://blossom.primal.net/7c825f09ee463d0e054182877d1cafb027ef76ec2581d9eb9d95faf3131444da.jpg

2026-01-30 20:35:10 CET

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!!
Core v30 increased OP_RETURN size 1200x, to 100kb.
I just realized this is the same size BSV has had since 2009, bragged about by Faketoshi as one of the improvements over BTC to facilitate “having every bit of (the world’s data on chain”.
And proudly trumpeted by BSV propaganda blog Coingeek in this article as a great improvement over BTC’s 80 bytes.
Bitcoin Core basically merged six year old Craig Wright code in v30.
Absolutely fucking unbelievable.
https://blossom.primal.net/071d736547ae4c05b37e02ecc2f3c1e839a630c1816ed8aa8cb73a492f55971c.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/fad49ee25858d0bd9ed9d4cc55764a317c1a35f60d967dd40fa3527b485a16d5.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/95e7bdd5c760d570d8cddbc21b25e4f2d107b80d1cf577a941010d3765183e31.jpg

2026-01-30 18:30:10 CET

- reply

I was technically incorrect in saying Core v30 directly "enabled" Citrea's launch. As far as I now understand it would have proceeded anyway.
I apologize for this.
Still… the op_return uncap does expand the practical toolbox for projects like Citrea to embed non-monetary data (proofs, anchors, commitments) more cleanly and reliably on Bitcoin, meaning it incentivizes such activity.
My core criticism stands. v30 represents a stark philosophical pivot from Bitcoin's ethos as uncompromised sound money, to standardizing and facilitating grift-friendly data embedding under the guise of "harm reduction."
This sends a disastrous signal: Bitcoin is now open for "innovation" that prioritizes non-monetary payloads, expands spam attack surfaces, invites chain bloat and centralization risks, erodes first principles, and unites grifters while fracturing the social layer.
#nevent1q…t07p

2026-01-30 18:05:59 CET

Plebs matter because they're Bitcoin's immune system.
Agenda-free, grift-intolerant hodlers and node runners who enforce the "money, not grift database" ethos.
Corporate bros and grifters typically angrily dismiss them ("plebs never mattered") which is an obvious big tell proving their power.
- Plebs' nodes reject invalid chains.
- Plebs’ hodling & boycotts influence miners to follow the valuable fork.
- Plebs’ adoption patterns create demand corporations chase.
- Pleb discourse on X and other places expose grifters' deceit in real time, rallies pressure on devs/miners, and shift narratives to protect first principles.
- Plebs help turn the exposure of moral corruption into coordinated economic/consensus force.
- Without plebs, Bitcoin is destined for full corporate capture and philosophical dilution.

2026-01-29 16:54:44 CET

- reply

Agreed

2026-01-29 15:19:24 CET

Core v30 enabled this.
«No philosophical pivot» my ass.
Disgusting. 🤮
I am pivoting too.
Will run Bip-110.
Fuck the grifters. Bitcoin is money.
https://blossom.primal.net/70a114bf412bf4270c4235991f328a59c46d15758cc83c517dc14590108465cd.jpg

2026-01-28 22:39:59 CET

What is even spam, they say. 🚩
The Bitcoin plebs never mattered, they say. 🚩
You’re not technical enough, they say. 🚩
There is market demand, they say. 🚩
You are still living with a 2011 to 2014 mindset, they say. 🚩
This is ALL FAQ stuff which has been rehashed, they say. 🚩
Principles is pleb slop, they say 🚩
There has been no philosophical shift in Core, they say. 🚩
https://blossom.primal.net/d0d6e430c8e0c352e8ef342a56860da7385dde19075cf0596054c201108dca3f.jpg

2026-01-28 10:45:21 CET

“Don’t trust your eyes, your instincts, or your moral compass. Read this blog post by <insert very technical authority figure> and stop spewing your dAngErOus wrongthink”
Sorry, that’s not how it works for me.

2026-01-28 10:41:15 CET

I do believe that bitcoin is money and that all other «transactions» are spam.
I think it’s pretty obvious and self evident.
Bitcoin was created to separate state and money, not to scam people with Quantum Cats.
Trying to cloud what Bitcoin is, reminds me of trying to pretend there are countless genders and that men can be women.
It’s unprincipled relativism, and it will probably destroy Bitcoin if it not stopped.

2026-01-28 10:10:35 CET

I have a hunch that…
…many influential people stay quiet on the topic of Core’s philosophical shift because they are afraid of social backlash, professional consequences or the performance of their investments.

2026-01-24 20:32:37 CET

- reply

Sounds cool, but not sure it’s a very accurate analogy

2026-01-24 20:30:22 CET

- reply

Thank you for your contributions!

2026-01-24 12:39:33 CET

Would appreciate to hear people’s takes on BIP110

2026-01-20 20:42:18 CET

- reply

Still here now and then!

2025-10-18 17:31:05 CEST

- reply

Thank, you! Life is indeed good! 🙏

2025-10-01 21:42:38 CEST

What’s the sentiment on bitcoin nostr?
Core v30 or knots?
Or core v29 or older?

2025-08-08 23:13:51 CEST

My fiancé is making jewelry, and she’s pretty good at it.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMyDcPjtXAb/?igsh=anY2NWtnNXNseDB5

2025-08-04 20:13:18 CEST

- reply

He paid what he would have had to pay if the courts decided in UK. He has not paid the $400,000 verdict from Norway or any of my other costs there. He has no assets in Norway so no prospect for recovery.

2025-03-27 20:18:31 CET

X is down atm
Nostr not so much

2025-02-23 22:32:06 CET

- reply

What?

2025-02-23 22:30:52 CET

- reply

So cool. Surreal for me to see. Say hi to your daughter and tell her I loved it 🧡

2025-01-23 11:14:16 CET

- reply

Congrats!! Great perseverance from you and the team! 🙏

2024-11-29 23:43:32 CET

- Norway’s biggest milk producer launched “climate milk” a little while back, from cows given methane inhibitors to make them fart less.
- people didn’t want it, it didn’t sell
- so now they mix this frankenmilk with normal milk, and don’t mark the containers
- and by 2027 ALL Norwegian cows MUST receive these chemicals
Another disgusting and disturbing example of globalist insanity being forced on people against their will.
Source: https://www-document-no.translate.goog/2024/08/16/tines-fremtidsmelk-fra-kuer-som-raper-mindre-metan-ble-en-fiasko/?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp
https://m.primal.net/MkgB.jpg

2024-11-16 22:34:10 CET

I haven’t been this bullish and excited about the future in a long time.

2024-11-15 21:19:16 CET

https://m.primal.net/MXLp.jpg

2024-11-13 17:21:58 CET

You didn’t get lucky.
You were smarter, had more conviction and bigger balls.
You earned this.

2024-11-13 17:05:03 CET

The phone calls are coming
https://m.primal.net/MCCo.jpg

2024-11-06 21:20:45 CET

Let’s just rip straight to $100k
Long overdue anyways

2024-11-06 17:35:03 CET

Four years ago
- the Covid scam dystopia was running full blast
- Biden just got “elected”
- I was being aggressively sued and harassed by faketoshi
- BTC was sub $20k
- The woke mind virus was still on the rise
How things have changed! 🙏

2024-11-06 11:09:50 CET

This is a dark day for warmongers, groomers and enemies of free speech.
COPE AND SEETHE!

2024-11-06 11:09:15 CET

I am very happy and very optimistic about the future!

2024-11-05 13:53:17 CET

FREEDOM!

2024-11-03 21:52:57 CET

- reply

Yes, some of that too

2024-11-03 21:51:03 CET

I agree with Graham Hancock that humanity is a species with amnesia.
I will add that it seems like we’re also a species with dementia, since we manage to forget so quickly that communism and erosion of freedom is a very bad idea.

2024-11-03 21:23:30 CET

- reply

Why is that edgy?

2024-11-03 17:47:33 CET

It’s not brave to support the exact same narratives and causes as the state and mainstream media.
It’s actually cowardly as fuck.

2024-11-02 23:07:12 CET

First they come for the squirrels.

2024-11-02 16:06:24 CET

I really like non-insane people!

2024-11-02 16:06:03 CET

The straight lying from mainstream media is reaching a fever pitch.
More and more people see right through it.
The rest are getting hopelessly brainwashed into a delusional state of confusion about basic reality.

2024-10-31 19:39:19 CET

There is risk everywhere. But the greatest risk is to steal your own quality of life because you live in fear.

2024-10-29 22:29:18 CET

Mainstream media have dug their own grave. Now they get to RIP in it.

2024-10-28 20:42:37 CET

We will never see bitcoin below $50k or above $70k again.

2024-10-27 11:29:27 CET

Woke left about to embark on a little road trip
https://m.primal.net/Ljjk.jpg
https://m.primal.net/Ljjl.jpg

2024-10-27 10:17:33 CET

The almighty fiat gods once again showed their power, twisting the very fabric of time to their will in the midst of the night, making me wait an extra hour for my train this morning 🙏
#DaylightSavingTime

2024-10-27 10:00:53 CET

Gloves need to come off for common sense.

2024-10-27 09:52:56 CET

- reply

I’ve been postponing this for too long :)

2024-10-27 09:52:25 CET

- reply

Up for a starcraft 2 bitcoiner tournament? 😁

2024-10-26 23:43:11 CEST

It would be cool if they didn’t lie so much to us.

2024-10-25 22:49:41 CEST

The drones have spoken
https://m.primal.net/LiGv.mov

2024-10-25 13:58:18 CEST

About to enjoy this talk.
My Bitcoin Pizza, with Extra Nostr 👌
https://m.primal.net/Lhiz.jpg

2024-10-23 21:52:55 CEST

The more centralization, the more coercion.

2024-10-23 13:02:04 CEST

- reply

Absolutely not. Why would the elite consider him an enemy and viciously attack him if he was part of them?