orthodoxbtc
OrthodoxBTC

When and if we get there, if there exists a stable market to sell, I might possibly sell there.
But I would warn you that if the non-BIP-110 chain gets wiped out, you would lose everything. So, be cautious and understand the risks.

2026-07-25 15:31:37 UTC

- reply

I'm not for a proof of work change. I think that's the nuclear option, and we aren't that far up the escalation ladder yet.
I would resist a hard fork, as it removes the wipeout risk and creates a new coin. So, we soft fork the shitcoiners back to bitcoin proper.

2026-07-22 03:55:48 UTC

- reply

I will add this: The non-BIP-110 chain is dead to me. BIP-110 will win because after activation height regardless of outcome:
I will:
1) mine it at a loss, until I expire.
2) never accept a single sat of spamcoin unless it can be traded for a greater amount real bitcoin (BIP-110).
We should not accept a weaker chain because ultimately, it will fail.
Your assertion that you would "immediately URSF" seems speculative, assuming there is some resistance against the newer restrictive rules that a hard fork implementation exists.l? Unless you are planning to implement it yourself?
You are correct, and other than that minor point, I completely agree with you.
The digital control grid is on the way, bitcoin must succeed and not become an instrument of the state by being controlled by captured interests (corporate BTC).
Saylor and Blackrock are opposed because they are controlled.

2026-07-22 03:35:56 UTC

- reply

Let's see how many of them flip to: Oh, I was in favor of it all along.

2026-07-22 02:59:23 UTC

- reply

Peter Todd is simply doing us a service. Eventually bitcoin will be so simple it will only serve as money and we'll all thank him for his service.
"Thanks for playing 'bad actor' so we could harden bitcoin against this stuff. "
"The bytes are touching" would be funny, but the reality is: having file storage on chain creates un-needed moral and legal hazard.

2026-07-22 02:50:39 UTC

- reply

Certainty about the necessity of a lightweight blockchain containing the minimum necessary to serve as a global monetary settlement layer beats AI argument constructed by a fiat maximalist.
My guess is Michael is following orders here.

2026-07-22 02:42:14 UTC

- reply

Only follow interesting people.

2026-07-22 02:37:24 UTC

- reply

Where is the market this trade exists? As far as I know there is no such market, but you are pointing to the fact that there exists wipeout risk of COIN B.
Everyone gaming this out knows this is true. Which is why sane miners flip in favor of BIP-110, unless there is a counter-fork in favor of keeping Saylor/Blackrock coin.
You know it is written into Blackrock ETF terms they decide which coin is followed by the ETF. I think that's the game to steal all ETF bitcoin and dump the counter fork on retail. Then there is another bad bad public opinion about "Bitcoin".
Did Jimmy Song depart from the fence or am I mistaken?

2026-07-19 23:02:05 UTC

- reply

Vigilance is required. The battle has not been won until the blocks are mined, and the BIP-110 chain is stable.

2026-07-19 22:47:24 UTC

- reply

It's good. They've been exposed.

2026-07-17 06:42:19 UTC

- reply

We shall see if BTC passes this filter.
BTC is already too centralized from a mining pool perspective, not enough people using DATUM or Stratumv2. BTC could already be a ghost at this point.
Must fix, mining pool centralization.
BIP-110 is the test to see if BTC is still free. If corporations are in charge, where it goes next is not nice.

2026-07-17 00:24:42 UTC

- reply

Real American version is 256 ounces, you got the tiny version.

2026-07-16 05:27:58 UTC

- reply

12, there are 12 daily users.

2026-07-16 05:15:22 UTC

- reply

You are welcome. Keep going!

2026-07-12 13:42:59 UTC

- reply

Is this condition confined to your CORE lightning node? Is there a widespread problem?

2026-06-19 19:43:38 UTC

- reply

Single digit zap headed your way?

2026-06-19 13:28:04 UTC

- reply

Have bookmarked this and will be using. Thank you.

2026-06-19 13:21:10 UTC

- reply

The workflow and requirements are outlined in the link I posted. I'll be trying this at every Square merchant I encounter in the wild.

2026-06-19 13:10:44 UTC

- reply

It looks like this is more limited than I had naively imagined:
https://squareup.com/help/us/en/article/8622-accept-and-manage-bitcoin-payments

2026-06-19 04:07:31 UTC

- reply

Aren't bitcoin payments now enabled by default at all Square merchants?

2026-06-18 06:12:46 UTC

- reply

Amazing! My youngest is 3, enjoy these days because they grow up quickly!

2026-06-18 06:07:24 UTC

- reply

I am.

2026-06-18 04:14:06 UTC

- reply

I would like to see coin control in the software for situations where it's needed, but other than that, this is the absolute easiest path to cold storage for anyone. Especially the non-technical people in your life. Recommended.

2026-06-18 03:50:43 UTC

Testing new relay.

2026-02-11 03:56:17 UTC

- reply

Another thoughtful and well reasoned. This is the best thinking I'm seeing in this space.

2026-01-15 00:57:41 UTC

- reply

Have been using, thanks!

2026-01-08 09:51:34 UTC

- reply

Everyone with a bc1?? It's not going to happen. Only the wealthiest of the wealthy will own bitcoin UTXO's. Everyone else will just have portions of a single sat on layer 3.

2025-12-21 02:29:14 UTC

Made with AI:
https://soundcloud.com/charles-coughlin-music/drop-the-keys-nostr-anthem-v2
Feedback?

2025-10-30 05:40:37 UTC

- reply

This attacker is playing the long game, waiting for the file storage use case to be entrenched. Timing of the attack is key. The goal is to force a fork and select the most easily controlled version. Kill freedom money by making self-custody and node running difficult.

2025-10-28 11:43:23 UTC

- reply

It looks like a statement of fact.

2025-10-26 13:22:23 UTC

- reply

Read, looks good. Will install when available.

2025-10-19 07:27:28 UTC

- reply

That too!

2025-10-19 00:22:14 UTC

- reply

So we're back to the "gold" problem. The only way to avoid this is self-custody and proof of reserves. Not your keys, not your coins.

2025-10-18 18:21:08 UTC

- reply

If I were a sophisticated nation state actor intent on controlling BTC:
I would be in favor of Corev30 changes, so that it would be easy to SPAM BTC with CSAM, create/enforce regulations so that most sane people would stop running nodes.
Centralization achieved, BTC as freedom money dies.
The debate boils down to: Is the bitcoin network openly supportive or openly hostile to arbitrary data storage?

2025-10-13 15:45:10 UTC

- reply

Nothing beats BTC in self custody. Use BTC treasury companies with money trapped inside the legacy system, such as 401(k).

2025-10-13 14:33:16 UTC

- reply

Required reading.

2025-10-13 06:04:39 UTC

- reply

As a full-time consumer of BTC content, this is the best info and analsys I've read in years. Absolutely a must read!

2025-10-13 04:29:20 UTC

- reply

This is absolutely the best analysis I've read. Bravo!

2025-10-12 23:37:58 UTC

In order for BTC to survive as freedom money, the blockchain must be as lightweight as possible so as many people as possible can run full nodes.
Anything which compromises this principle should be considered an attack.

2025-10-12 13:02:08 UTC

- reply

Only 5 BTC!

2025-10-11 17:52:39 UTC

- reply

I agree in principle.
However, estimating human population into the future is uncertain. The subset who truly understand BTC, is still quite small.
Let us pray that understanding increases.

2025-10-11 17:14:31 UTC

Running Knots since OP_RETURN controversy was brought to my attention. Thanks @nprofile…t200 @nprofile…fg0n @npub1lh2…a9nk