<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1dgesr3zcgyjv2z0050h7auzdlf88gycry7tlk7wsypmgngy97yxqv4mccn

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsx5vcpc3vyzfx9p8h68mlw7pxl5nn5zvpj09lm08gzqa5f5zzlzrqpqqqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0dsp43dds

Publishing to

nos.lol

Last Notes

2026-03-14 13:06:54 UTC

- reply

i don't do that. extremely comfortable with using the r word.

2026-03-12 11:47:08 UTC

- reply

there is that saying "what goes around comes around!"

2026-03-12 11:09:43 UTC

- reply

"If the community gets "0 weight," who gets 100%?"
veteran core contributors that they hold in high esteem because of all the years of saying smart shit and doing the work.
but this is a form of social capital someone compromised by say a intelligence agency would lose very quickly. while they could hang on to it among the general population longer, the core contributors would mentally decimate their weight immediately if they saw any sign of compromise. it wouldn't matter if a million twitter personas agreed with the rogue core dev.
so as you can see the system has it's uses. but it naturally perceives review bombing PRs as a sybil attack and is extremely resistant to it.

2026-03-12 10:47:42 UTC

- reply

"It's outside of the fiat, corrupt, currency system."
not anymore.

2026-03-12 10:13:35 UTC

- reply

"So you agree - a modest increase (200 bytes) + keeping the config option would have solved the "economic gap" without the drama."
not only agree in retrospect, i suggested them to do exactly that, multiple times.

2026-03-12 10:12:24 UTC

- reply

"That's capture." yes, in a way and from a certain perspective it is a technocratic capture and an obfuscated shadow governance structure. but it is fairly decentralized and resistant to outside forces trying to capture it (which was a big concern of the OGs).
anyhow if you all are upset about OP_RETURN, i can't wait for you to learn about the taproot annex!
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1974#issuecomment-3324451016

2026-03-12 09:55:08 UTC

- reply

the slow erosion is already visible. but most people still can't see the writing on the wall. this is all downstream consequence of perverse narratives winning in the bitcoin memetic space for a decade now.

2026-03-12 09:53:18 UTC

- reply

> If Poinsot sincerely believed fake outputs were "dumb," he could have:
> - Raised limit to 200 bytes (technically sufficient)
> - Left the config option so users could choose
> - Not muted critics (Luke, BitcoinMechanic) on the PR
i agree, that would have been sufficient, and i did tell them that at the time, multiple times. mind you Luke would still have been very upset about raising OP_RETURN he actually wanted it lower and claimed before the real "consensus limit" was 40 bytes payload.

2026-03-12 09:51:26 UTC

- reply

"against 93 NACKs from actual node operators"
i told that Camina person who no longer exists the same thing: it's not voting.
core devs weight opinions with their opinion on the contributor. people not in the club are likely to be ignored completely (ie they get 0 weight).
you don't get a vote with core. you can say something and if they think it's smart, they will listen, if they think it's dumb, they will ignore it.
you can say "that's bad because it means outsiders will be disregarded", but this is how core achieves sybil resistance in decision making!

2026-03-12 09:35:00 UTC

- reply

i'm saying (not admitting, wtf?) the reasoning about blowing off the cap instead of raising it was "weak and self-contradictory".
i'm also saying you are jumping to conclusions hard. i have my own beef with core devs, i think they are behaving like cowards and traitors, but i simply don't believe what you have concluded has any merit. there are way simpler explanations for what happened.
Antoine Poinsot was the man with the crusade in this case. and as far as i can tell he has no relations with citrea. other than trying to convince them to use OP_RETURN instead of fake outputs and going the extra mile, clearly because he believed it's the best way to do it.

2026-03-12 00:50:06 UTC

- reply

"the policy was changed because of their business model"
no, that's a non sequitur. the policy was changed because core devs understood that there is a gap between the old OP_RETURN limit and what is economically rational to inscribe in witness script (commit-reveal). between 80 bytes and like145 bytes or something it was "economically rational" to use fake outputs. they didn't like this realization.
citrea was definitely used as an example in their debates tho. the reason they gave for not putting a new cap on OP_RETURN is very weak and self contradictory tho. that's why i said it was an error imo.

2026-03-11 14:47:05 UTC

- reply

> The change was made "for them"
i think not even that is entirely true, but at least partially true.
Antoine wanted citrea to use OP_RETURN, citrea was reluctant to admit they could be bullied into using large OP_RETURNs.
the core devs understood the underlying incentive problem. and they wanted to get rid of it. and so far so good. but then they made an error in reasoning. instead of increasing the default to a level safely above the incentive misalignment (160 or 200 bytes of payload), they assumed this would be a never ending story and decided to remove the setting.

2026-03-11 14:41:54 UTC

- reply

not everyone has what it takes to be a maintainer of the reference implementation of bitcoin. in fact most people don't. it's true that anyone can fork a repo, but that does not mean the fork will have any network effect. knots is probably the largest hub after core. so people are assuming it would take over in a hypothetical scenario where the core devs disappear. idk.

2026-03-11 14:34:08 UTC

- reply

are you familiar with the phrase "stated preferences versus revealed preferences"?
citrea revealed that they dgaf (as they stated), it does not matter to them. their software runs with v29 just fine.
even if you wouldn't take their word for it. citrea also stated that the transaction in question would almost never occur anyhow. so the core devs would have tossed out the proposal if it was _just_ for citrea.
now if you want to blame core devs for making a wrong call, that's a different story. but then you kinda should let go of this nonsense angle.

2026-03-11 14:22:50 UTC

- reply

"Citrea didn't need to "ask" formally when Core devs actively solved their business problem for them"
again you slipped into something factually not true. core did not solve any business problem for citrea. we kinda have evidence they did not lie when they said they dgaf.
https://x.com/4moonsettler/status/2030246159491473630

2026-03-11 14:18:48 UTC

- reply

he controls the knots repo. not a bit moves in there without Luke's blessing.

2026-03-11 14:08:44 UTC

- reply

i think the original claim was "bip-110 is about firing core". and then who will take their place?

2026-03-11 13:54:51 UTC

- reply

there is nothing in this above post i disagree with btw.
just one thing. why are we entertaining an LLM with replies?

2026-03-11 13:52:02 UTC

- reply

i agree. i did not deserve a 1.2% annual return over 5 years.

2026-03-11 13:44:07 UTC

- reply

the changes were made in response to citrea deciding to use fake outputs.
the changes were not made at the behest of citrea, they did not need it, did not ask for it, and did not use it.
you are saying these sentences are in conflict, but they are not. both true.

2026-03-11 13:26:02 UTC

- reply

yeah lightning has truly shitty liquidity dynamics. one more reason why i fear credit networks will take over. they are not constrained by on-chain liquidity. which from one perspective is hugely positive, but from an other an unmitigated disaster.

2026-03-11 13:13:33 UTC

- reply

it's not strictly a math problem, because human behavior plays a big role in how it plays out actually.
157 million tx is the rough capacity of the bitcoin network on-chain. how many on-chain transactions a person needs to do per year to use lightning? 1 on average per year? 2? i'm using a channel made many years ago, but before that i opened and closed many. how optimized this can get in the future? will channel factories be a thing?

2026-03-11 13:07:54 UTC

- reply

i did. many times. but ofc it's possible that 20-100 million is too optimistic. but i'm pretty sure the 1-10 million is too pessimistic. 10-20 million seems like what neither of us would find unimaginable.

2026-03-11 13:06:16 UTC

- reply

you guys have reading comprehension problems?

2026-03-11 10:45:33 UTC

- reply

"but you can't gain meaningful scale via layering to even 10 million active users in current conditions"
no that sounds wrong. 20 to a 100 million is closer to the current limit. and increasing the blocks to 20MB would not be a meaningful challenge technically speaking.

2026-03-11 10:42:30 UTC

- reply

"there is a non-zero chance your car will break down and you have to finish your journey on foot. therefore cars are stupid, they don't provide comfort and saving of time, we shouldn't build them! let's just keep walking!"
#nevent1q…k6x8

2026-03-11 10:35:56 UTC

- reply

a game theoretically stable system has no incentive to cheat. that's what we are trying to build on bitcoin as "layers". but the moment some actor can print their own money by pledging non existing sats to their clients, there is a huge incentive to cheat. a lot of money and wealth to make.
i'm not gonna argue that unilateral exit does not fail at the extreme edge of centralization and everyone needing to exit all at once. i think the math is simple there. however that's a pretty drastic assumption. why would everyone need to exit all at once?
an other way to think about this is covenant pools fall back to trust and a custodial relationship in all but name at the extreme end of black swans and it's temporary. how is that an argument in favor of not even attempting it and instead coping about custodial scaling?

2026-03-11 10:27:34 UTC

- reply

some people may think credit networks will be an alternative to banking. but the original relationship between banks is a decentralized credit network. the whole thing naturally and gradually centralized and that's how we got to this shit today.
you may look at "p2p" credit as something between people sovereign individuals who know and trust each other. problem is that's mentally exhausting even if the tech helps with impeccable accounting. the fact that someone owes you and something can happen to them is a drain on your energy.
so it will naturally trend towards a "b2b" as in bank-to-bank relationship with neo-banks and other money service providers. this is the inevitable end-game. and when banks use credit networks to settle among each other, you have finally left behind all pretenses to on-chain scarcity.

2026-03-11 10:22:40 UTC

- reply

they require on-chain tx-es as a fallback with a low probability. layers can absolutely scale bitcoin, lightning scales payments but not ownership, this is specific to lightning not a general property of all layers.

2026-03-11 10:20:37 UTC

- reply

bitcoin is a probabilistic system all the way through, it's finality, it's cryptography, the property rights, everything is probabilistic. L2s can provide probabilistic compression of on-chain footprint and therefore scale the number of users who can exist outside of custodial fractional reserve relationships. this is not a question. your mantra is false.

2026-03-10 11:48:53 UTC

- reply

"A machine is better than you. "
i have yet to experience that when it comes to development. but pretty used to it when it comes to chess.

2026-03-10 10:15:51 UTC

- reply

bitcoin is under attack from so many angles and so many actors, but it's always the same story deep down.
OGs convinced themselves that bitcoin can only be debased on-chain via a hard fork. that was super delusional and completely wrong.

2026-03-10 09:49:11 UTC

- reply

yeah i know. i'm shouting into the void. nothing stops this train. at this point, the worst outcome is pretty much guaranteed. it's not just the "p2p" people who are doing it, but also the "institutions". all i can do is watch and yell at the train.
at least now i know where i'm going.

2026-03-10 09:43:36 UTC

guys, this is serious. once you make it so, that #bitcoin payments between ecash mints and other custodial wallets can be routed via a "p2p" credit networks instead of lightning, it's game over!
back in 2017-2018 the cashies kept saying this is how "lightning" will end up. a network routing IOUs. some even went as far as to claim HTLCs are IOUs. but there is a huge difference. and it's a very important difference.
you accept this tiny level of convenience instead of resisting it at all cost, and you literally reinvent the fiat system with modern fictional reserve banking overnight. if this is how bitcoin scales, it offers nothing new to the world. all the "revolution" is undone.
some people that push these may mean well. but they are still undoing satoshi's work.

2026-03-10 09:31:18 UTC

- reply

obviously there are levels of trust in every interaction yadda yadda... the important distinction is will the protocol be actually constrained by the on-chain supply or not?
credit networks with ecash mints will not be in any way constrained by what is going on on-chain. credit ecash spent via lightning is absolutely constrained by what exists on-chain.
Ark and other covenant pool constructs and rollups can not double pledge sats, every satoshi is expressed on-chain. and i know for a fact there is an easy magnitude of scaling there. with a level of trust (it's not completely trustless) but no perverse incentives and no capability to issue paper bitcoin IOUs.
trust is not inherently evil, but fall-back on settlment without trust and unilateral exit capability are necessary, not optional.

2026-03-10 09:18:49 UTC

- reply

let me help you understand what is going to happen. you think you are normalizing p2p credit for Alice and Bob and Carol who are like normal people or small hawala brokers.
but that's not what's going to happen. yes there will be credit network emerging to solve the liquidity issues with lightning and ecash mints and other custodians will start using it for their transfers and "settlements".
that's what happened every time before and that's what is going to happen again on this path where we don't scale bitcoin without trust.
and when that happens, the bitcoin in these credit networks will quickly far exceed the total on-chain supply. which will absolutely obliterate long term NgU as new demand will meet new paper claims, which will make bitcoin completely pointless as it adds no value whatsoever to the world anymore and not even for those who self custody.

2026-03-10 09:09:44 UTC

- reply

i'm talking in general, i have a rough idea about your work and can already tell it's not going to succeed. what you are actually doing is softening the resistance against trust and IOUs. and that's not going to end well. you could say my posts are 6 moves ahead not about your work.

2026-03-09 22:25:48 UTC

- reply

my interest in credit money is purely academic at this point and conditional to us figuring out we need an elastic money supply for a real world economy to function.
it's possible we are going to need it, but we should not capitulate just because scaling ownership without custodians and IOUs is a technical challenge.
If we end up needing it so the wheels keep turning, because we run into a liquidity crunch with base money alone. then we should explore ways that only introduce elasticity and not perpetual debasement!
https://x.com/4moonsettler/status/1892561462750502955

2026-03-09 22:09:30 UTC

- reply

"Atomicity scales further by digitizing trust explicitly, so obligations can be routed, netted, and settled incidentally instead of pretending every meaningful economic act must be immediate final settlement. It's a mutual credit system. It coordinates trust where it exists, not as a last resort."
hmm, yeah that does sound like hawala. so yes, trust and credit are the usual bandaids humans slap on settlement systems that are inefficient slow and expensive. congrats on reinventing the wheel.
if you ever care to take a look at where this all ended up with banks and gold, you will understand my deep rooted skepticism for this path.
there are 3 main variations of this theme. and this is the least outrageous to me, it's also not something that will find much adoption given centralized alternatives. (because it's fucking exhausting and lacks liquidity compared to the centralized alternatives) Hal's vision simply doesn't work, it's a straight path to monetary debasement; full-reserve banks are a pipe dream, a myth. Jal's vision is an abomination as far as i can tell, but could actually work for a change.

2026-03-09 21:57:16 UTC

- reply

"You're still conflating money, payments, settlement, and credit. "
no. i never make that mistake. what a weird claim.
"Bitcoin does not need to scale (it could never) for every economic interaction on-chain. "
that's a strawman. it's not my crusade at all.
bitcoin fails if the vast majority of users are intermediated in their ownership. there is no "censorship-resistance" or "sovereignity" in that setup, but that's not all. the 21m cap also does not exist in that world as far as price discovery is concerned.

2026-03-09 21:52:14 UTC

- reply

yes, there is nothing new or valuable there.

2026-03-09 17:05:40 UTC

- reply

no it's actually worse. if you don't, then it was actually a "ponzi".

2026-03-09 17:04:29 UTC

- reply

i went down all the rabbit holes, seriously entertained all the copes and evaluated them with a honest good faith approach. came out on the other end hollow and devoid of hope. they won't work.
we either scale bitcoin and people actually use it, or it becomes meaningless and useless on the custodial scaling path. credit is nothing new. we know what it does and know what people do with it. we have a very long financial and monetary history to learn from.
"You. Will. Never. Scale. Bitcoin. Trustlessly."
if you don't, it was all for nothing.
#nevent1q…pd32

2026-03-09 12:57:02 UTC

- reply

hardly. for that you would need to scale it with much better privacy. and people should feel a need to adopt it in a self-sovereign way. none of that happened.

2026-03-09 12:38:15 UTC

- reply

the third fallacy is something like this:
"you have to be real careful tying your shoes! you can even die if your shoestring unties at the worst possible moment! why not just go barefoot for a few years? we should be really careful to figure out the best way to lace and tie a shoe!! no rush!"

2026-03-09 12:36:57 UTC

- reply

the second fallacy is the "slippery slope" as in "if you start increasing the block size it will never end" which was used to stop scaling bitcoin on-chain to the point it comfortably could without losing it's decentralization properties. but that's how humans are in real life.
alternatively maximizing for eligible devices that could in theory run a bitcoin node instead of number of self-sovereign users that hold their own keys is just an insane and frankly suicidal move. because people who are priced out from participating the network as first class citizens will not run a full node anyhow.

2026-03-09 12:30:47 UTC

- reply

look the first fallacy is "(classic) bitcoin doesn't scale indefinitely, so we should not scale it at all!" the reality is that you only need about 2 magnitudes more scale for the base settlement layer. just 2 magnitudes, and any motherfucker that says bitcoin can't easily scale 1 magnitude on-chain is a fucking lying piece of shit or a huge retard.

2026-03-09 12:18:35 UTC

- reply

you all never ever gave it an honest attempt.

2026-03-06 20:28:48 UTC

- reply

"Freedom can't compete without coordination and trust."
that's true. but still #bitcoin is pointless if it requires trust for the vast majority of the population to access the most basic utilities of money and savings. lending and credit, that stuff can somewhat rely on trust (obviously the incentives have to align against fraud), altho does not always have to.
the "bitcoin doesn't scale" mantra is really just laziness and cowardice masquerading as wisdom.

2026-03-06 12:46:16 UTC

- reply

no. but i'm afraid to look it up after your rant about hawala. i'm very familiar with that cope. i don't think it will work for bitcoin or that you need bitcoin for it.
it's not that i'm dead set against credit in general (see my credit ecash writeup!). i'm dead set against the custodial trust relationship. it's a cope and a perversion. and when you say "all we need to do is give up the most defining feature of bitcoin, that it works without trusted third party intermediaries, and then we can have everything" (paraphrasing) then ofc i get incredibly irritated.
you may think you are some pioneer but it has been the defining characteristic of bitcoin discourse for the post 2017 era, that it copes about the trust creep and tries to pretend reintroducing trust is a feature not a bug.
https://blossom.primal.net/c46a6fc59e79983eef5299521a12801ecec1f9d6f1bb31d815d0f659f030a923.jpg

2026-03-05 14:45:36 UTC

man, i was looking forward to see if John's views finally evolved. but they just further devolved into a shameful display of coping about the "necessity of trust".
the entire point of #bitcoin, it's most important value proposition was that it does not require trusted third parties. that you can be selective about entering into a trust relationship on your terms when you see fit and not forced to do so for the most basic utilities.
the other common mistake John seems to still subscribe to is thinking the "ponzi" works without the freedom tech at scale. it does not. paper bitcoin undoes the scarcity. institutionalized bitcoin has no cap on the supply.
"your journey ends here insert coin to try again!"
trust and credit sure work. and scale spectacularly. they are also copes and clear capitulation from the mission. they also only work until they don't which usually the lesson every nth generation has to learn and then the world forgets.
@nprofile…7gj0 @nprofile…ly0z

2026-01-21 21:42:13 UTC

i just wanted to watch a video you fucking retard!
https://blossom.primal.net/f9a262f83386a9b1c76dd887468f21eff02a07dd749c35519aceb5e1f735a2d6.png

2026-01-09 10:18:37 UTC

"bitcoin can end government corruption"
my dude, if that was true devs and node runners would be hunted down and dismembered by UN death squads. chill the fuck out!

2025-09-01 11:21:04 UTC

- reply

i think from a privacy pov it's definitely a good idea not to reveal on-chain that it's an HTLC and what was the hash lock/preimage on the happy path.
i'm not sure about how UX is improved otherwise.

2025-08-20 22:49:25 UTC

- reply

lol! most places insisted on 20m / 10 conf already.

2025-08-19 21:53:44 UTC

- reply

maybe you should poll your knots friends on any scalability related soft fork proposal and check the results.

2025-08-19 21:13:11 UTC

- reply

the only thing that could bring us back to the ideological "roots" if somehow we got rid of all the luddites and custody apologists. most of whom are big fans of knots.

2025-08-19 12:46:07 UTC

- reply

to fix the incentive misalignment you need to make spam consensus invalid. then there is no problem.

2025-08-19 12:28:18 UTC

- reply

boring ass pedantic arguments don't change the fact that doing anything that incentivizes direct submission is a horrible idea and will harm bitcoin. you simply do not do that as a responsible developer.

2025-08-19 11:05:50 UTC

- reply

i'm so tired of the same arguments from both sides.
filtering spam is perfectly fine unless it has net negative effects. and in this case it has. it's also true that spam is completely subjective, yet somehow we "all" recognize it when we see it.
we had a window of opportunity very early on into the ordinals/inscription craze to act decisively. not with policy but with a consensus change. that's long gone, it only lasted for a few weeks. the entire world learned that core is impotent and maxis are impotent when it comes to fighting parasitic affinity scam shitcoin protocols.

2023-02-01 22:09:22 UTC

- reply

inspect element to the rescue!