<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1zhmsa0fs76dctwag0slvg4j9xqxu9q66dkkzxh7ls9pu4d0f9qkqgvs67x

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsptacwh5c0dxu9hw58c0ky2eznqrwzsddxmtprtl0czs72kh5jstqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvu89ttz

Publishing to

Last Notes

2026-03-15 09:44:46 UTC

- reply

Saying no to both LND and CLN (blockstream) is a bit too much IMO - it leaves few alternatives when it comes to lightning

2026-03-11 18:39:33 UTC

- reply

Thanks for confirming my suspicion, seemed like that to me as well after skimming through the Spark docs. Not sure why Cake Wallet decided this was now good enough for them, especially on the privacy side of things ( https://blog.cakewallet.com/our-lightning-journey)

2026-03-11 18:26:26 UTC

- reply

Is Breez fucking with us when they claim that they offer a “nodeless integration that offers a self-custodial, end-to-end solution for integrating Lightning payments, utilizing Spark with on-chain interoperability and third-party fiat on-ramps“?
https://github.com/breez/breez-sdk-spark-go?tab=readme-ov-file#what-is-the-breez-sdk---nodeless-spark-implementation

2026-03-05 18:04:11 UTC

- reply

I see what you mean. This has never sounded like a compelling argument to me: wouldn't the ideal block be full of actual transactions, with the associate utxo lookups and signature verifications cost? The opposite to me feels like saying that I prefer to use my car as a container for stuff because that's cheaper than actually going places.

2026-03-05 17:54:34 UTC

- reply

>Saying that spam kills bitcoin is like saying if bitcoin gets used, it dies.
What do you mean exactly?

2026-02-24 20:23:04 UTC

- reply

What privacy is he going to sacrifice and how?

2026-02-21 18:06:10 UTC

- reply

Why is LND bad for privacy? Also are BOLT11 invoices not that great too?

2026-02-17 22:00:34 UTC

- reply

Hey didn't you know that you're not allowed to have these kinds of reactionary ideas? Are you against progress or what?

2026-02-17 21:51:06 UTC

- reply

Do you have 60 minutes? https://youtu.be/JPE7X_q3A7A
Some good points made by mechanic here

2026-02-17 20:44:42 UTC

Wonderful article
#naddr1qq…ewc6

2026-02-15 23:59:34 UTC

- reply

What's the minimum liquidity for a channel open in your estimate?

2026-02-15 23:07:10 UTC

- reply

You mean we need to break into the mainstream media and show them the problem without writing boring books instead? That could work

2026-02-15 22:49:21 UTC

- reply

How do we go about making sure that people actually understand money? Not only that, they need to keep feeling the importance of the concept they learn day in and day out, otherwise the fact that their time and energy is being stolen via debasement might simply fade away in the background after a few days, leaving them more worried about incoming bills and second jobs than anything else.

2026-02-12 15:56:42 UTC

- reply

Are there any press releases or similar other sources I can check? I'm very curious but I couldn't find much to be honest, thanks

2026-02-12 15:49:48 UTC

- reply

Interesting, is Ingenico planning this? I had no idea!

2026-02-12 14:54:36 UTC

- reply

I see your point, yet TCP/IP's date of birth + 17 years doesn't equal the kind of internet adoption and use we associate with modernity, right?

2026-02-12 08:42:55 UTC

- reply

AI agents that craft personal nodes? How would that be good?

2026-02-08 16:23:45 UTC

- reply

Technically right, but is it still the least inflationary thing on planet earth right now, so I'm not sure how relevant that is with respect to NGU

2026-02-08 12:03:27 UTC

- reply

How do we know that there aren't factors leading to this outcome other than mindset, better privacy being the first one? Moreover, are you referring to NGU specifically?

2026-02-08 10:58:32 UTC

- reply

Organic MOE use will only happen in my opinion whenever merchants start wanting Bitcoin more than they want fiat.
We're otherwise placing the blame on consumers though, am I right? I don't think you can force the individual buyer to spend Bitcoin when spending fiat is so much easier, and we certainly cannot hope for Bitcoin to dramatically rise in use as a medium of exchange because a few bitcoiners here and there feel guilty for not spending it.
For me the question is: what is to be done for more merchants to start wanting to accept Bitcoin, maybe even offering a discount for paying in sats? What are the blockers? Are they technical/psychological/legal/fiscal in nature? If these issues can be solved, then consumers will simply start paying in sats more and more, but they're not the drivers of this solution.

2026-02-06 14:03:27 UTC

- reply

Well I'm sorry, the points you've mentioned aren't particularly convincing, hence my reply. No hard feelings on my part though.
My question regarding OP_SUCCESS didn't seem wanting to turn things into a debate either.

2026-02-06 10:41:40 UTC

Why would node runners and other Bitcoin users oppose this? Genuine question #asknostr #bip110 #spam
#nevent1q…hlxv

2026-02-04 11:10:44 UTC

- reply

Was having very similar thoughts after reading https://bitcoinawareness.substack.com/p/we-are-measuring-the-world-wrong
Technological abundance on the one hand, cost of living problems on the other? We are indeed measuring thee world very wrong!

2026-01-26 18:24:42 UTC

- reply

Genuine question: I see many posts like this, but what's the point of vibe coding another cashu wallet? Wouldn't this time be spent better by improving the protocol or contributing to existing wallets?
I hope this does not come off as confrontational, because it really isn't!

2026-01-23 12:36:10 UTC

- reply

No gold?

2026-01-23 09:54:31 UTC

- reply

I think KYC is impeding a lot of payment use cases, since in many (all?) jurisdictions one has to pay capital gains tax for selling Bitcoin.
Plus I'm not sure how things work on the merchant side of things. What new processes/problems do merchants have to go through in order to accept sats from a legal/fiscal point if view?

2026-01-23 09:38:41 UTC

- reply

Do we have some data regarding online payments?

2026-01-18 15:03:28 UTC

- reply

Is it actually that easy to associate an original (maybe KYC'ed) address with an output that has gone through, let's say, 10 or more rounds of coinjoins, where each round takes in ~30 inputs and produces 30 outputs for example? Honest question.
I'm not so sure about the other point. I often hear that outputs that have gone through coinjoins are easy to detect and hence will be blocked by traditional financial institutions. I can see how this is a problem for those who are trying to get in and out of the fiat system, but I don't understand why XMR would be better in this regard since it's often claimed that one of its main advantages is that it always gets removed by centralized exchanges. So XMR is not even trying to "mix" itself with the existing economic system, and this somehow does not matter in the analysis? Help me understand the comparison here

2026-01-18 13:27:45 UTC

- reply

You might enjoy https://youtu.be/SaSZdCauekg

2026-01-18 12:54:24 UTC

- reply

Aren't coinjoins a good enough solution though?

2025-11-26 14:40:39 UTC

- reply

Europe, specifically the European Union, is a colony of the United States. Is your last point implying that Europe is an empire in and of itself? It's not, or else Germany and Italy wouldn't have US bases within their territories.

2025-11-26 11:22:36 UTC

- reply

Will the masses ever discover zaps and v4v?

2025-11-13 10:14:54 UTC

- reply

I had no idea that taproot was presented, among other things, as a potential improvement with respect to QC threats. How could this have been given the exposed pubkey? Am I missing something either in my understanding of how taproot works or more generally?
Also what debate are you referring to? I'd like to know more, thanks

2025-11-06 10:00:31 UTC

- reply

That's the benchmark right there, can we have AI perform on junk food and drugs?

2025-11-06 09:25:56 UTC

- reply

Couldn't agree more, enough with the "we're winning" and "it's inevitable" memes.

2025-11-04 17:50:19 UTC

- reply

This! I feel a lot of people have a lot of expectations for no good reason

2025-11-03 12:19:27 UTC

- reply

"No personal data needed", but how many people are buying Bitcoin without going through centralized exchanges?

2025-11-03 11:27:59 UTC

- reply

France also had a revolution and got Napoleon just a few years later.

2025-11-03 11:20:44 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the reply, interesting points and I think I share your view. Maximalism per se doesn't guarantee a bright future, especially if Bitcoin gets transformed into some sort of financial asset the value if which gets measured in dollars and other fiat currencies.
My main doubt with solutions other than Bitcoin is simply one related to feasibility. It seems to me that in real life (in the west) almost nobody cares about Bitcoin, which is supposedly a household name by now. Or if people care, they do so only with regards to price whenever big moves happen, and that's the end of it.
Given that's already very hard to make the general public see the value of Bitcoin, what hopes can one have when it comes to Monero, Zcash, or something else entirely? Maybe this is not even the right way to think about the matter?

2025-11-03 10:13:15 UTC

- reply

Not if free banking were allowed: banks would issue their own notes backed by gold/Bitcoin/whatever and they would redeem them from each other as these circulated.
The act of redeeming them would prevent fraud.

2025-11-03 10:07:07 UTC

- reply

So the plan is for everyone to move to Monero? Genuine question

2025-10-23 11:47:05 UTC

- reply

Self custody or this was all a worthless adventure

2025-10-23 11:43:15 UTC

- reply

The most worrying thing for me personally is that the vast majority of people around me seemingly can't wait to literally outsource everything to AI, not sure why this is so appealing to them

2025-10-22 21:54:42 UTC

- reply

Self custody?

2025-10-22 12:52:50 UTC

- reply

I was expecting more debate on this point @npub1myg…sn5p - is it true that Monero is not experiencing these issues and if so, is it true that it would change if it crossed a certain size threshold? Why would that be in both cases?

2025-10-22 11:39:24 UTC

- reply

Fair points, can there ever be a culturally aligned user base for a tool which is as broad as an alternative monetary system though?
In other words, can anybody hope to unleash something like Bitcoin onto the world and expect it to be used accordingly?

2025-10-22 10:42:30 UTC

- reply

That sounds scary which unfortunately doesn't prevent it from happening

2025-10-22 10:40:26 UTC

- reply

Hard to disagree with this, yet I'm not sure the solution to centralization can only be technical in nature. Without the average individual being informed and interested in sovereignty, would ideally perfect UX and tools ever be enough?
What's preventing the average self proclaimed Bitcoiner from self custody + operating his/her own lightning node?

2025-10-21 12:02:07 UTC

- reply

Wake up? It seems you're inferring the totality of what I know or don't know from one or two sentences I wrote.
The fact that historically we always had to build a payments layer top of gold highlights a factual limitation of gold. Gold's use case is money, it's not that of being a reserve asset to be owned by a few centralized institutions. That happens because of physical limitations.

2025-10-21 11:53:53 UTC

- reply

It's not for that or it cannot be for that?

2025-10-21 11:50:47 UTC

- reply

Interesting, especially considering that fiat is engineered to lose value over time in order to make government expenses and the associated debt look sustainable over time.
Probably a lot of people don't understand the world they live in

2025-10-21 11:47:19 UTC

- reply

People had doubts?

2025-10-21 11:46:23 UTC

- reply

Fishy as in?

2025-10-19 22:03:49 UTC

- reply

Entities providing hashrate without deciding what block to mine are not miners since they have no say over what transactions go into the next block.
This means that mining can still be centralized even if hashrate providers improve upon energy efficiency. This is why adaption of StratumV2 and of solutions like DATUM (ocean) are crucial

2025-10-19 15:55:41 UTC

- reply

Sunday mountain view for me
https://image.nostr.build/a2dec6252d5a9fc534b3b3c514c750e708495a9b679434d3eae17064c4969b6b.jpg

2025-10-19 12:20:28 UTC

- reply

Matt Corallo

2025-10-19 11:26:41 UTC

- reply

I never understood the memes representing cats as superior beings. Fuck cats

2025-10-18 23:38:19 UTC

- reply

Weird also how the fact that the pound is called a "pound" precisely because it referred to a unit of weight goes entirely unnoticed

2025-10-18 23:34:45 UTC

- reply

That's a pretty unclear reply in my opinion. Data availability in an unconfirmed state for users that cannot wait?

2025-10-17 09:33:28 UTC

- reply

What's driving the current price action in your opinion? Forced liquidations? The buying spree these treasury companies are ostensibly on does not seem to add up with the current price level

2025-10-16 22:09:58 UTC

How many people can transfer a meaningful amount of gold to someone else and have it verified in around 60 minutes? #note1zsl…hc93

2025-10-16 17:01:55 UTC

- reply

Something shady has been going on for sure, paper Bitcoin would be my guess. Just cannot understand how companies trust their custodian/exchanges like that

2025-10-16 16:51:47 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/70debd5ab566b0f5924b56fbad37ee63ee76940627f3084348a8f2a25a0104fb.jpg
NGU

2025-10-16 16:43:50 UTC

https://video.nostr.build/8164a6a76763a54888bc8a433eb3675e6931f050beec2b55ef5824a960879f96.mp4 #note17s6…67vs

2025-10-16 16:27:45 UTC

- reply

As far as I'm concerned the value proposition for Bitcoin has not changed. You must have missed the "stay humble" part.
Bitcoin is always going to surprise us in both directions, such is the nature of things

2025-10-16 14:28:06 UTC

- reply

Interesting proposal, what are the implications for general programmability and for coinjoins in your opinion?

2025-10-15 17:40:07 UTC

- reply

Yet how does this work in practice? Wouldn't companies want some proof of reserves from Coinbase and friends?

2025-10-11 16:04:41 UTC

- reply

Don't know much about him to be honest, he seems to have done quite a few things for El Salvador as far as I know.
So yes we can have good leaders, I'm just not sure they're reliable over the long term. Best case, they get replaced over the decades and nothing ensures we get good ones again

2025-10-11 15:52:26 UTC

- reply

I'm not sure that going in this direction is fruitful since my question was really a rhetorical one.
I cannot imagine how we would be able to have any sort of institution/entity/dictator in charge that optimizes for what is morally good and ensures material abundance without ever failing.
I'd also state that this line of thought is based on a hidden premise: do you think we can, as mankind, define a set of objective values and goals to be pursued? The question of how to then pursue these is necessarily secondary

2025-10-11 15:23:53 UTC

- reply

If you could guarantee to me that we could have a benevolent dictator who would never do anything wrong and only implement incredibly great ideas for the benefit of each and every member of humankind, then sure!
Can we do that?

2025-10-11 15:18:15 UTC

- reply

Because especially when it comes to money you don't want to end up broke with all your friends and family members pointing at you as the guy who lost it all on the shiny new thing.
If it turned out that the shiny new thing were the highest instantiation of money humanity had ever seen, it still wouldn't help the average individual since they wouldn't know how to recognize it in the first place.
So in my opinion is not even the case that people need established options to think freely and critically, they need them precisely to avoid having to think. We're social animals and we feel better by being part of a group than by being right. I think it was Naval who said that groups aim at consensus while individuals aim at truth.

2025-10-11 15:10:09 UTC

- reply

I think there are various reasons for it, but mainly the fact that money, which in fact is quite a simple concept, has been made into a very esoteric subject precisely to prevent the average individual from thinking that they could have a say on any matter related to it.
Thinking deeply and independently about money does not even seem like an option for most people, hence the "orange pill" analogy.

2025-10-11 15:01:32 UTC

- reply

How do we know this? Anyone can have as many addresses as they please

2025-10-11 14:58:32 UTC

- reply

We'd first have to know how many Bitcoin users are out there, and categorize them into:
- non custodial users
- custodial users
Once we know this data we can probably start figuring out a few things. For example, how many non-custodial users run nodes?

2025-10-10 23:26:23 UTC

- reply

Yes, they get to do so for their customers. It's pretty good that Bitcoin does not require anybody to have anything to do with them since they can simply self custody

2025-10-10 12:22:09 UTC

- reply

> Chinese chick gets to be lead maintainer by being a dude's girlfriend
What are you referring to?

2025-10-09 19:10:05 UTC

- reply

Thank you for the detailed reply, it's always useful to have a debate of this kind. I can see where you come from and this reply you've just left helps to integrate my understanding of your original post.
I can also see where we might disagree. Your point on ethics is very interesting for example:
> This means before any macro, there are morals.
Meaning in order to understand the whole of economics we start from the ethics.
I have no direct knowledge of Aristotelian thought, so I might not grasp this statement in full, and when I think of economics I find the Austrian school to be the most "objective". This is what Rothbard states at the end of "Man, Economy, and State", which directly contradicts the point on ethics:
> The major function of praxeology—of economics—is to
bring to the world the knowledge of these indirect, these hidden, consequences of the different forms of human action.
> Praxeology cannot, by itself, pass ethical judgment or make policy decisions.
> ... praxeology retires from the scene; and it is up to the
citizen—the ethicist—to choose his political course according
to the values that he holds dear
I'm informed by this view when I think about money, so in my understanding money emerges naturally in a free market and, absent coercive action by any group of individuals, it evolves to serve the purposes of means of exchange, unit of account, and store of value.
What emerges on the free market as money cannot in my opinion therefore be placed in the same category as what as been co-opted by the government and the banking system into a tool of wealth extraction. These are not the same thing anymore, even though they share the same origin.
Would you agree that there is distinction here?

2025-10-09 16:24:29 UTC

- reply

Fun Dave

2025-10-09 16:18:18 UTC

- reply

Why don't they get the real thing? Still, better than nothing

2025-10-09 16:10:18 UTC

- reply

It is certainly so, yet how is your explanation that money is not broken different from me saying that anything at all is not broken given that it serves someone else's agenda in its current otherwise disfunctional state?
To propose a tangible example: a car works as intended when it goes from A to B efficiently. Somebody very powerful who doesn't want to me to go from A to B removes the driving seat and makes the steering wheel very hard to handle. I can still go from A to B, albeit with great discomfort and at my own peril.
Money in its current form serves the cartel known as central banking and government first. It works for them. Yet I'd like to argue that it's broken, since we can think of an ideal form of money and the qualities that it would have, and we can clearly see that fiat money doesn't possess any of those. Why would you argue that's not broken?

2025-10-09 15:25:10 UTC

- reply

Fiat money is a simulacrum: a copy the original of which no longer exists.
Therefore, it makes sense to say that money is broken, since by money we mean non fiat money and by saying it's broken we mean that the current instantiation of money is a simulacrum.

2025-10-09 15:21:10 UTC

- reply

Good old Dave

2025-10-08 07:16:03 UTC

- reply

The average individual works for 40 years in order to get a paycheck, yet there seems to be no time for them to stop and ask what this paycheck is made of.

2025-10-07 16:50:19 UTC

- reply

This is really fucking something!

2025-10-02 13:40:37 UTC

- reply

I mean it would be a hard fork to reduce the number of valid tx output shapes, which is why this cannot be done

2025-10-02 13:38:54 UTC

- reply

Sorry but the replies were way too quick haha
And this is also what a bot would say

2025-10-02 13:33:59 UTC

- reply

I understand the issue, I was now laying out a way of thinking about this,, i.e. what would be the guaranteed way to ban spam? Probably by allowing only P2WPKH outputs at the consensus level.
Since that cannot be done, we need to think of other ways and in order to do so we need a theoretical framework first so that we can define what is a valid transaction in the first place.
It seems to me that a valid tx can be defined as the one that transfer UTXO ownership in the most parsimonious way possible.
This is however hard to translate into software requirements without banning all transactions that don't have a particular shape.
Even if we banned OP_FALSE OP_IF at the consensus level there would still be other ways to embed arbitrary data, this is I believe the Cruz of the matter.
Do you agree? And most importantly, are you a bot?

2025-10-02 13:06:49 UTC

- reply

I'm not yet convinced. To bring back the free speech analogy, I would compare it to Bitcoin filters and spam in the following way:
- all words are allowed = all transactions that unlock existing UTXOs and create new UTXOs with the minimum set of operations are allowed. Notice how there is no moral judgment as long are the user is actually using words
- meaningless noise is not allowed = transactions embedding arbitrary data for purposes other than UTXOs transfer are filtered away. This means that, ideally, transactions that could transfer ownership of sats in a more parsimonious way should do so.

2025-10-02 12:25:58 UTC

- reply

I'm not sure insisting on the free speech analogy is the correct approach to be honest. Speech is general in content: I can arrange words in such a way so as to express whatever meaning I want.
Bitcoin is, in principle, not general in the kinds of transactions that are to be ideally allowed on its network.
Let's imagine for a moment a world where Bitcoin only allows P2WPKH outputs and absolutely nothing else. Let's imagine this is agreed upon by all holders such that all other outputs are transferred to P2WPKH ones.
Would this be problematic for Bitcoin as money?

2025-10-02 12:00:32 UTC

- reply

> With enough Bitcoin Nodes consensus is worthless, meaning they can do a new one.
Of course, Bitcoin is entirely voluntary. You're not replying to my point that spam can only be *conclusively* disallowed at the consensus level.
Notice the little star symbols around the work "conclusively"

2025-10-02 11:53:03 UTC

- reply

With enough guns your constitution is worthless. Bitcoin is different. I am on the conservative side when it comes to filters, meaning that I prefer OP_RETURN to ideally stay at 80 bytes.
However, inscriptions and spam can only be *conclusively* disallowed at the consensus level. How is this wrong?

2025-10-02 11:46:00 UTC

- reply

Nice! What's your setup? I'm considering getting one

2025-10-02 11:42:48 UTC

- reply

Why? He's correctly pointing out that inscriptions and other spam can only be solved *conclusively* only at the consensus level. That's factual.

2025-10-01 20:03:57 UTC

- reply

Sticking with 29 for the foreseeable future. Why is it broken though? I know that multiple OP_RETURN outputs are now going to be allowed adding up to the `datacarriersize` limit within a single tx, but it does not seem to be that relevant IMO

2025-10-01 12:02:53 UTC

- reply

I'm familiar with these points. I am not sure that fixing the current instantiation of inscriptions via OP_FALSE OP_IF checks would be enough though. There are ways ways to embed arbitrary data and it seems to be the only option to remove the possibility entirely is to only allow a set of well known transaction types, much more restrictive than what Core currently categorizes as "standard".

2025-10-01 11:52:45 UTC

- reply

I think it's great to disagree with Core. It's unfortunate that they chose to pursue this change because it doesn't seem to be necessary at all and it has caused a lot of chaos within the community, which was frankly the last thing we needed. Nevertheless, Bitcoin is made to survive adversity and it's up to node runners to guarantee its success in the long term.
As for Citrea, I'm not excusing them or anything. I think development on Bitcoin should be permissionless, so let them try build new stuff. They can turn Bitcoin into Ethereum only if the vast majority of users actually think that's valuable and start bridging their sats to their L2. I have no reason to believe this is going to happen.
The other unfortunate thing is that Citrea has developed its protocol in such a way as to require more than 80 bytes of arbitrary data, meaning they are going to publish it on the witness instead of as an OP_RETURN output. Had they been less careless with their technical choices, we would probably not be here. Hence my use of the term "unfortunate".

2025-10-01 11:33:11 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/56ebe43be8cf90110cd689a1ce67f3734b9bba9a102eea9cb87462fa16c50f0e.jpg

2025-10-01 11:29:59 UTC

- reply

Yeah I unfortunately agree that 100kb OP_RETURN was not needed at all, I think everyone was going to be comfortable with limits up even maybe 250 bytes, enough to use Bitcoin as a data availability layer for rollups.
For my part I'm not updating past Core 29.0, Knots is great to have as it shows that the community is all but complacent

2025-10-01 10:52:05 UTC

- reply

Nobody is going to force anyone to bridge their sats to Citrea though. Why shouldn't they try building it? Alpen Labs is doing something very similar, without even requiring more than 89 bytes OP_RETURN

2025-09-29 13:51:26 UTC

- reply

Probably endless when it comes to embedding data within script opcodes, I can imagine inscription spammers could easily update their protocol such that instead of embedding data within the OP_FALSE OP_IF .. OP_ENDIF envelope, they would do so within something a bit more convoluted, but still not executed as a logical branch, maybe take advantage of OP_ADD / OP_LESSTHAN etc etc
I think the only way to really remove the spam threat is probably by allowing only well known transaction types, which means a set of transactions even more restricted than what are currently deemed standard. I am not sure this approach would be definitive anyways, but it would be incredibly controversial probably and it would come with its own set of risks, if feasible at all. I am personally in no position to currently propose alternative approaches, even in theory, as I am far from being a Bitcoin expert, so these are just some thoughts off the top of my head.