dgy

Programmer, Bitcoiner & Cypherpunk

Public Key

npub1zqm7ahclw2zkzuuq3k50aw47j0zfh2x5hgsyvd0lvqxqr28hp4pqk6aryh

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqspqdlwmu0h9ptpwwqgm287h2lf83ym4r2t5gzxxhlkqrqp4rms6sspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5ejawrx

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1zqm7ahclw2zkzuuq3k50aw47j0zfh2x5hgsyvd0lvqxqr28hp4pqk6aryh

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-21 07:04:59 UTC

It is somewhat tragic to read the accusation that proponents of #BIP110 are all paid shills—though it remains unclear by whom. It seems unimaginable, in the godless fiat world of those making such accusations, that someone could act without fiat incentives. Have they never heard of doing something simply because it is the right thing to do?

2026-07-20 18:40:08 UTC

- reply

Yes, talking forever or about unimportant topics is their tactic to stall any progress:
#nevent1q…7lr4

2026-07-20 14:52:38 UTC

- reply

Yes, pre v30 is consensus #nevent1q…dpdc

2026-07-20 08:16:26 UTC

#BIP110 is all about the signal. It never claimed to stop spam, as the R in #RTDS stands for "reduced". It is another step to strengthen the decentralization of bitcoin again. Therefore, stop this infantile parroting that there will always be a way around to put spam in the chain, and start thinking several steps ahead. Imagine what the chain may look like in ten years if things do not change now.

2026-07-19 05:54:54 UTC

Miners can either bend the knee to the bitcoin community now or get fired later. Without #BIP110 bitcoin becomes Ethereum-like or PayPal 2.0 and then it will not need miners anymore in ten years. Therefore, choose wisely.

2026-07-18 09:04:09 UTC

- reply

...or this route: #nevent1q…huha

2026-07-18 06:38:19 UTC

What is bitcoin without the decentralized node runners? Maybe a dying distributed database or an over-engineered financial product? Miners ignoring that fact will find out that they are destroying their value proposition in the long run. Activate #BIP110.

2026-07-17 14:45:44 UTC

- reply

Read these books mentioned here:
#nevent1q…qznr

2026-07-17 08:52:54 UTC

Concerning the OP_RETURN policy, CoreV30+ is in the minority. Tyrannical core tried to force their spam policy on the community. This clearly shows that the argument was turned upside down: they accuse the guardians of the network of what they themselves did in the first place—attacking the network. Therefore, keep running #Knots with #BIP110 enabled.

2026-07-15 14:39:24 UTC

Unfortunately, it seems obvious that the spam debate is a divide-and-conquer attack on the bitcoin community. Therefore, the aim must be to prevent node runners from picking a team by following the simplistic arguments of famous and corrupted sinfluencers and celebrities. Saying "it will fail" without providing a reason is not an argument. Instead, wide-ranging arguments interconnecting economics, psychology, and other fields should be presented so that node runners can decide for themselves. #BIP110

2026-07-13 07:58:36 UTC

Activation of #BIP110 does not cause a permanent chain split. Therefore, people talking about selling one side of the fork are mistaken, as you cannot sell an unstable split (wipeout risk is a no go for exchanges). Furthermore, complaining about missing replay protection is misguided. If CoreV30+ wants to protect their spam chain in case of a temporary chain split—to make it permanent—then they have to hard fork themselves. The protestants (CoreV29-) will certainly not move there. So, posting this misinformation really reveals their desperation.

2026-07-12 05:40:16 UTC

The store of value narrative, lending against bitcoin, treasury companies, ETFs, and making it harder to run a node are all attacks against the self-custody of your bitcoin. The end result is disowning you from your asset, as described in "The Great Taking" by David Webb, meaning you have at best an unsecured claim for your bitcoin. Is that what you want? If not, hodl your coins in self-custody and run #Knots with #BIP110 enabled.

2026-07-11 06:25:56 UTC

Michael Saylor denying that bitcoin has a spam problem is like Roger Ver saying funds were safe at Mt. Gox in 2014 before it crashed. With such statements, you cannot hide the elephant in the room that will shortly jump into the pool—there will be some ripples. #BIP110 🌊

2026-07-09 04:52:29 UTC

Accusing the #BIP110 movement of lacking conviction because legitimate transactions will ultimately outprice spam is simply turning the argument upside down. Waiting and hoping that the problem will go away somehow is just superstition, as it could get worse and we end up with an unusable chain. Therefore, the community has to show proof of work to clean up the mess by running #Knots with #BIP110.

2026-07-07 17:06:40 UTC

- reply

Yes, we will see 👀

2026-07-07 14:28:03 UTC

- reply

Yes, tactics

2026-07-07 08:10:01 UTC

What is the point in complaining about SegWit, Taproot, etc., if you are not willing to act now by activating #BIP110 and correcting some of these mistakes made with those? Doing nothing means you end up with an unusable and centralized system in the long term. Apathy kills.

2026-07-05 14:56:55 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…fdqk

2026-07-04 13:08:08 UTC

- reply

I regret that you are so dismissive, but I understand that you picked your lane and now find yourself allied with the spam camp, which will not help you out in your long term mission to improve privacy on-chain, either. #BIP110

2026-07-04 09:28:28 UTC

- reply

With #BIP110 the limit is 83 bytes: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki.

2026-07-03 05:38:37 UTC

Hilarious thaT people who are overwhelmed by cOnfiguriNg a router try to convincE you not to run your own #BIP110 node ;-)

2026-06-30 14:50:33 UTC

- reply

But did we not yet reached peak attendance at conferences? Will maxis still attend those if only core aligned people are speaking there?

2026-06-28 11:45:46 UTC

After the magic has gone in the world of treasury companies, shitcoin companies have crashed, the bitcoin price is in bear territory, and sinfluencers are cheering themselves up in self-help groups, it would be wise for miners and hashers not to double down in a masochistic way against the bitcoin community by blocking the activation of #BIP110.

2026-06-27 05:36:01 UTC

Ignoring your users is fatal, and sooner or later you may have to reverse course to save the enterprise. Even large companies cannot do whatever they want—as the "New Coke" example shows, which was rejected by the market and forced Coca-Cola to revert to the old formula. This is even more true for an open-source network like bitcoin. #BIP110

2026-06-26 12:38:59 UTC

- reply

Yes, like "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it." commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels. We will be vigilant.

2026-06-26 08:55:44 UTC

The poverty of imagination of the played #BIP110 opposition on nostr is somehow amusing ;-) They are so lazy that they just invert some of the pro arguments, but it does not work that way. If you remove the shit—aka spam—from bitcoin, one cannot logically call the purified chain resulting from #BIP110 a shitcoin. The latter is a deviation from the monetary function of bitcoin.

2026-06-24 05:38:37 UTC

The carnage among the dependent sinfluencers almost seems greater than that in the price. We will note who fought among our lines and ignore them after the activation of #BIP110. They will not get away with it; bitcoiners do not like cowards or opportunists. Their high time preference—prioritizing short-term stability to avoid obstructing present sponsors—will not pay off in the long run.

2026-06-23 05:59:23 UTC

- reply

Indeed
#nevent1q…m5xm

2026-06-22 16:50:44 UTC

- reply

On such centralized platform, people with no followers can play at being important. There are some narrative leaders there and their groupies do the rest of the policing.

2026-06-22 11:18:48 UTC

- reply

Just another example I guess
#nevent1q…hsjj

2026-06-22 11:15:20 UTC

- reply

Flip-flopping one's opinion would not increase credibility. Person cult is fiat mentality, and he is certainly not the first or last who got derailed in his mission. He won't be remembered. Let's move on. #BIP110

2026-06-22 05:55:39 UTC

Sponsored bitcoin media content is like dog food—the one consuming it and the one paying for it are not the same. This restricts the independence of the journalistic work—here one could use the evil C-word, aka censorship—and may lead to pure propaganda. Furthermore, it shows a failure to innovate by adapting peer-to-peer cash into their media business, which is ironically the very thing they claim to discuss. #BIP110

2026-06-21 05:43:28 UTC

#BIP110 could activate smoothly, but exactly those people who basically hate spam and yet at the same time hesitate to support it because of fear that a chain split may occur make it likely that a temporary chain split may actually happen. This behavior basically leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

2026-06-20 13:22:53 UTC

- reply

Maybe they will disappear together with the companies that sponsored them. In the meantime unfollow them.

2026-06-20 05:36:33 UTC

Indeed #BIP110 can be harmful‒for shitcoiners, #sinfluencers, corrupted devs, willfully ignorants, and authors with diluted messages etc.‒but that is intentional and not something that should stop anyone from supporting it ;-)

2026-06-19 09:06:53 UTC

Rejecting #BIP110 among external advocates spreading bitcoin adoption in Africa and other regions is equivalent to proposing a new form of neocolonialism, because lowering the ability of communities there to run nodes makes them dependent once again on the most developed countries, which will run and control the nodes instead.

2026-06-18 14:46:14 UTC

- reply

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Sometimes you have to act and not wait, especially in IT security operations. #BIP110

2026-06-15 18:01:25 UTC

- reply

Your node does signal as well under "servicesnames" with "REDUCED_DATA?" when you call "bitcoin-cli getpeerinfo".
If you mine with BIP110, then the version of the block—if you mine one—would set the version bit 4 e.g. 20000010

2026-06-14 05:36:07 UTC

Even before the final showdown of the spam war, #BIP110 has already manifested its influence on the community by exposing and bankrupting more spammers, verifying instead of trusting what core developers are actually doing, running alternative bitcoin clients, slaying fake sinfluencers, home mining, renting hash rate, and more.

2026-06-13 10:47:15 UTC

Black pilled persons tend to become defeatist, but the only way for #BIP110 to lose is not to play it. However, #BIP110 is—as the block size war was—only a battle in an endless ongoing war.

2026-06-08 18:11:31 UTC

Mercenaries in the bitcoin ecosystem thinking in fiat terms such as hashers, developers, etc., will sell themselves to the highest bidder or move on to other fields. Is that a good thing for #BIP110? Probably, as they are not amenable to gaslighting if the money does not add up.

2026-06-06 05:36:57 UTC

As the Gregorian calendar is better aligned with the solar system, it is the superior calendar. Similarly, bitcoin is the better monetary system with #BIP110 activated to address spam. Do not reject it simply because you dislike the individuals who proposed it. In the beginning, the Gregorian calendar was rejected by the pope's enemies, but now almost all civic institutions are using it.

2026-06-03 19:03:22 UTC

- reply

...and exploited bugs and vulnerabilities that the developers refused to fix.

2026-06-03 18:18:57 UTC

As bitcoin is described as "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" in the whitepaper, returning back to a cash system by activating #BIP110 cannot be labeled as a precedent for future restrictions. That is just another example of politically motivated doublespeak.

2026-05-31 05:56:53 UTC

What is the "added value" if #BIP110 does not activate? Spam! Well, that is disgusting. ;-)

2026-05-28 16:59:45 UTC

You can always remain silent, but rejecting #BIP110 at this stage reveals you as a spammer or a zealot who follows authority without thinking for yourself.

2026-05-21 17:44:02 UTC

Paraphrasing Dr. Jack Kruse: You shall not mess with your DNA (the base chain). Not everything belongs on-chain. The Library of Alexandria isn't encoded in your DNA, either. #BIP110

2026-05-20 19:53:33 UTC

Allowing the destruction of the common land (time chain) by protecting the freedom to spam under the guise of "no censorship" seems to be the new tragedy of the commons. Indeed tragic ;-)

2026-05-19 19:47:28 UTC

In a hyperbitcoinized world, investing will again be done by professional investors, and regular people will focus on their craft and save real money.

2026-05-09 14:05:42 UTC

Will the "convenience layer" of bitcoin protect the "'right to spam" by doing nothing, or will they step up and choose the #BIP110 soft fork and avoid any potential disturbance in their cozy life? That is the question.

2026-05-09 05:39:01 UTC

Running Satoshi:29.3.0/Knots:20260508/ #BIP110

2026-05-06 17:46:40 UTC

Bringing up quantum FUD now in the bitcoin space just unmasks the sinfluencer as saboteur. Distracting from the most important thing - the exploding UTXO set by spam - just means literally following the "Simple Sabotage Field Manual" by the OSS (now CIA) step by step. #BIP110

2026-04-16 18:53:28 UTC

Linus Torvalds once said: "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." So, where is the code #ProductionReady? Cloning a repo is not a difficult task, but it is the first one and a visible one. The conclusion may be drawn that all of it is just obstruction if that does not happen soon. Especially if they criticize #BIP110 but do not deliver their promised alternative.

2026-04-08 18:15:02 UTC

How strongly will the different factions defend their positions in the showdown of #BIP110? The spammers have high time preference and will probably move somewhere else. The miners have high capex, and if they are public companies, they have fiduciary duties; therefore, they will probably minimize risk and forgo the 1% spam fee revenue. Sinfluencer will continue to confuse some bitcoiners with censorship talk, quantum FUD, attack theories, etc., but those bitcoiners will feel betrayed when they realize that all these talks and theories do not serve them in the end. The protestants (core v29-) did not move much during the last year, and #ProductionReady did not yet deliver anything. However, some maxis of the BIP110 camp may fight hard, a.k.a. "dying on that hill." So, what is the probable outcome?

2026-04-07 18:11:48 UTC

Only the president can stage a real war to distract from dirty pictures in "the files". The #sinfluencers have to try it with quantum FUD again to distract from their pictures on the chain. Do not fall for it. #BIP110

2026-04-05 08:02:02 UTC

Nolens volens, accepting #BIP110 seems the rational thing to do for miners. The outcome to avert is a phase of temporary, chaotic, and unstable chain splits (price volatility, chain wipeout risk, etc.). The alliance between the progressives (Core v30+) and protestants (Core v29–) does not serve the latter, as they reject spam and shitcoinery as well. Therefore, an alliance with Knots and the BIP110 moratorium serves them better, and that ultimately forms the majority.

2026-04-04 07:19:53 UTC

To say that fighting spam with #BIP110 threatens the credibility of the bitcoin economic system, while turning a blind eye to the storage of dirty pictures on-chain, is ludicrous. #Sinfluencers claiming this cognitive dissonance deserve an unfollow. Starve them with a decreasing follower count and reach.

2026-04-03 07:48:27 UTC

That one has to sacrifice the moneyness of money for the sake of its survival sounds stupid, but that is exactly what this talk about the "long-term security budget" is. No, we do not need the fees from spam transactions for bitcoin to survive; otherwise, it would have already failed. #BIP110
#nevent1q…g7y5

2026-04-02 19:15:59 UTC

If #BIP110 fails, we drift into a lane leading to an unrunnable chain filled with garbage. This then leads to the KYC chain because it can only be run by a third party, and you may only use it when authorized by the gatekeepers. And with that, the bitcoin idea has died.

2026-03-31 16:35:40 UTC

Ossification of the bitcoin protocol as any other protocol lies in the nature of a protocol as it gets embedded in more and more systems. Further development of the ecosystem will take place on layers above the base protocol. Therefore, being against #BIP110 because it may hinder further development is nonsensical.

2026-03-30 18:28:28 UTC

To say that you are just doing your job is the most agentless fiat behavior there can be. Reading up on all the information recently revealed about some core devs, I really get the impression that some people just did "a job" and were not even particularly interested in what it was. That does not sound like a novel movement that will change the world anymore. :-( #BIP110

2026-03-30 17:44:49 UTC

- reply

There are basically three camps at the moment: Knots, CoreV30+, and Core29-, but on legacy sites like bitref.com/nodes, coin.dance/nodes etc. the latter two are counted as one and this give the impression that there are only two camps with a large core share. This however, does not reflect reality. So, if #ProductionReady delivers soon and people running Core29- are changing to this implementation then the fact that there are three camps will be reflected as such everywhere. That would be a good thing in the medium term.
#nevent1q…lrhy

2026-03-30 07:43:33 UTC

- reply

Yes, they have to deliver something first. However they talked about another client for a long time. It is not a new idea.

2026-03-29 18:24:18 UTC

- reply

Yes, I guess that multiple options that involves more people may make this movement for less spam more probable.

2026-03-29 07:29:22 UTC

With #ProductionReady in place, it will potentially be more difficult for the progressive people in core to softly force people to upgrade to the newest versions of their software as older versions of bitcoin core software are no longer patched. As a result, you will probably have three major players in the market, with progressives in the minority, and ossification will accelerate further. #BIP110

2026-03-28 14:44:46 UTC

If users who have not yet updated to >=v30 or changed to Knots switch to #ProductionReady, then the loss of market share for Core would be correctly reflected even on legacy node statistics sites. The loss is, in fact, far more than 50%. I mean, how can you count the people who refuse to update to the Core camp? That seems like a classic instance of lying with statistics. #BIP110

2026-03-28 07:13:12 UTC

Getting accustomed to an existing codebase is a time-consuming endeavor in software development. The fact that the girls hired for DEI purposes struggled to produce anything useful for a long time underlines this point. Developing in the open (book recommendations: "Producing Open Source Software" by Karl Fogel, "Working in Public" by Nadia Eghbal) cannot hide politics or mediocre performance for a long time. In the end, everything will be revealed rather quickly, and forking the codebase is the result. #BIP110

2026-03-26 19:19:46 UTC

If a miner is relying on the additional fee currently generated by spam, then such a company is doomed soon anyway. The market gets more competitive with every halving, and these companies are the weakest link and are therefore eliminated first. Why should node runners subsidize such a dying business? #BIP110

2026-03-23 20:48:20 UTC

Just to say "#BIP110 will fail" is not a real argument. At least you need to provide an explanation of why you think so — only then a debate is possible. Until now, I have not heard any real arguments from the opponents; just confused statements or ones that were refuted long ago. Is it just laziness or is it escapism?

2026-03-22 08:00:06 UTC

Are you using the remaining time effectively? I could imagine that a lot of shaky and scammy crypto businesses will be eliminated by uncertainty and price volatility in the fall. As an end user, you have to ensure that all your funds are in self-custody. Avoid centralized services like the devil shuns holy water. #BIP110

2026-03-19 16:02:22 UTC

If you are against spam and against #BIP110, you can always propose a better solution. However, complaining and doing nothing is more of an obstruction than a constructive option.

2026-03-18 18:52:09 UTC

Kicking the can down the road and doubling down on exponentially growing money printing or bailouts without solving the underlying problem is fiat mentality. So, yes, there is urgency in #BIP110 in fixing the issue with spam as bitcoin is not fiat.

2026-03-17 17:31:36 UTC

Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Nazi" is just an expression of having no argument at all. Therefore, the term "Knotzi" can only have been coined by a retard. ;-) #BIP110

2026-03-16 18:04:12 UTC

Calling the proponents of #BIP110 a mob is quite un-American for an American to say, as the American Revolutionary War was precisely won by not following traditional "rules of engagement". For example, during the Revolutionary War, the Americans intentionally targeted British officers on the battlefield, which clearly contradicted European conventions at that time.

2026-03-15 13:22:56 UTC

- reply

Well, I never considered Coinbase an institution inside the community :->

2026-03-15 09:58:21 UTC

The podcast appearance of Giacomo looks like a smoke screen maneuver: a long-term maxi is openly criticizing #BIP110 and then later the host sarcastically asks if he is now a shitcoiner as well. But there are connections here: Todd. Older Twitter posts and shared appearances at meetups hint at a personal friendship beyond their professional interactions. //cc @nprofile…mycd

2026-03-15 07:36:38 UTC

In the current bitcoin crisis, not only are some corrupted and incompetent core devs the issue, but also some podcast hosts as well as some conference organizers, as they sacrifice the long-term future of bitcoin for short-term gains (high time preference) to produce regular content about unimportant sideshows. Business as usual is more important to them than thinking about the consequences of their ignorance. #BIP110

2026-03-14 09:44:39 UTC

Do not feel compelled to participate in any centralized prediction market concerning #BIP110. Do not accept the battlefield the enemy tries to force on you (Sun Tzu). Let the battle be decentralized and the "Fog of War" confuse the enemy.

2026-03-14 09:15:40 UTC

Hm, Adam Jonas, the little Epstein that actively corrupted bitcoin.
#naddr1qq…20rz

2026-03-14 08:08:50 UTC

Sad, another maxi turned soft, but probably not the last :-(
#nevent1q…0uak

2026-03-12 17:54:32 UTC

In https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA4T-66itoA @nprofile…m78m, @nprofile…rrsm and @nprofile…07hm made fun of the unusability and impracticality of running nodes of other chains, but I did not hear any thoughts about the fact that this could happen to bitcoin, too. Why do they not say the obvious and come to the only possible conclusion? #BIP110

2026-03-05 19:28:23 UTC

Being against spam and against #BIP110 is still being pro spam. It’s like: -1 * -1 = 1, which is effectively pro spam.

2026-03-04 17:57:13 UTC

Bitcoin is not a given. It is only as strong as the people protecting and fighting for it. Unfortunately, there are some bad actors in the space and many naive individuals who think that nothing needs to be done to keep it alive. #BIP110

2026-03-03 15:51:48 UTC

In bitcoin, you should not pick a team based on the popularity of persons aka influencers. Doing so is like the terminal stage of the fiat disease. In Roman times that was called panem et circenses (“bread and circuses”). You should not choose your money based on the fanciness of the paper it is printed on. Instead, select your money according to its monetary properties. #BIP110

2026-03-02 17:54:22 UTC

If you cannot run a node anymore, then self‑custody dies, and with that Bitcoin will die as well. Bloating the chain with spam and converting it into an Ethereum-like platform in which you can not run a node anymore without special knowledge and expensive hardware is exactly the thing that should be averted. #BIP110

2026-03-01 15:07:37 UTC

The block‑size war was only a battle in an ever‑ongoing war against control. If you want a permissionless and decentralized network, you have to fight every day. Bitcoin won’t die in a single blow; it will fade slowly and gradually over time. If maximalism dies, so will Bitcoin. #BIP110

2026-02-28 07:46:22 UTC

Saying that home nodes do not matter is like claiming we do not need customers and can still sell our product. #BIP110

2026-02-26 18:46:36 UTC

#BIP110 is not a precedent. Rather it is an answer to the precedent that happened before with not fixing the bug that enabled the whole disaster in the first place and with merging the controversial changes with v30.x.
#nevent1q…hla0

2026-02-25 19:48:20 UTC

Are there any "bitaxers" out there that would be eager to mine a possible spam chain in September? #bitaxe #BIP110 #asknostr

2026-02-25 19:35:38 UTC

Amusing the color choice on https://thebitcoinportal.com/nodes/
Orange for Knots and green for CoreV30.x.
Green was the color for Btrash (Bitcoin Cash) as well ;-)
#BIP110 #knots

2026-02-23 18:13:37 UTC

The argument that transaction fees will eventually price out spam is worn out, because until then the blockchain will eventually become unusable. Using this argument in 2026 is just lazy or hides another agenda.

2026-02-22 08:34:02 UTC

"Slay your heroes". Currently you can observe a changing of the guards: Many fighters of the 2017 block size war who fought for decentralization now hold their cozy VC backed job or similar and therefore have a conflict of interest. Do not blindly follow these influencers. Think for yourself and make your own decisions.

2026-02-22 08:32:57 UTC

What would be the conclusion of applying the following quote often attributed to Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." to the current spam debate in bitcoin in the sense that filtering is censorship and should be defended therefore? Since any action has opportunity costs it seems irrational to waste your time for such an endeavor solely for the sake of principle. I think preserving bitcoin’s survival and preventing its enshitification is more important.

2026-02-17 19:50:12 UTC

It is not a question of being for or against BIP‑110. It is a personal risk assessment if you want to risk your stack of sats and your stake in bitcoin. You can live well with less spam, but less so with a forked network. Bitcoin is not a democracy. We are not voting here with other people’s money; it is your own.

2026-02-09 18:55:34 UTC

The danger of the hype-industrial complex feeding perpetual change into bitcoin is real. We need maintainers with a low time preference and not a lot of careerist junior developers using bitcoin as a "career springboard".

2026-02-09 18:28:11 UTC

Although written in 1985 in "The Sachertorte algorithm and other antidotes to computer" by John Shore, the following sentence "The computer is important not because it allows us to do less, but because it helps us to do more." is still valid today. "Artificial Intelligence" is a powerful tool helping us to do more and not to replace humans. Reject any neo-Malthusian and neo-Luddite ideology.

2026-02-09 18:21:56 UTC

As recent event shows us, bitcoin developer do not necessarily have to be bitcoiners themselves. Some are just collecting a CV item that they can put into their résumé and a lazy HR agent will not and can not verify whether that work was wanted or was sustainable for the user base.
#nevent1q…7wk4

2026-02-05 19:38:19 UTC

- reply

-1 😀

2026-02-02 18:49:39 UTC

Will the "neutral majority" aka the users that have not yet updated to v30 or changed to Knots really risk increased price volatility for a long time or a fork because of spam which many of them dislike, too? Therefore it seems safer for them to ally with the anti-spam side.
Playbook à la "The Intolerant Minority" from "Skin in the Game" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

2026-02-02 18:24:59 UTC

Even if it takes several years, bitcoin maximalists will probably sit out the current crisis, whereas all those venture‑capital‑financed shitcoin companies will run out of money because they do not deliver anything useful.