<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1art8cs66ffvnqns5zs5qa9fwlctmusj5lj38j94lv0ulw0j54wjqhpm0w5

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw34nugddy5kfsfc2pg2qwj5h0u9a7gf20egnez6lk870h8e22hfqpp3mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7qg4waehxw309ajkgetw9ehx7um5wghxcctwvsqs7amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd4hk6pczm90

Publishing to

brb.io

eden.nostr.land

nostr.mom

Last Notes

2026-02-13 15:22:45 UTC

- reply

No, they’re mostly newer Bitcoiners— but my experience with them is very reminiscent of what I dealt with when engaging with big blockers back in the day. (The simplistic talking points, the misattribution of authority to Bitcoin Core, the conspiracy-fueled outrage…)
You just provided a few examples of this in your post as well.

2026-02-13 08:52:32 UTC

- reply

Pretty much! I contextualize Bitcoin as a spontaneous order in The Genesis Book. (“Shared hallucination” sounds a bit dismissive IMO.)

2026-02-13 08:43:25 UTC

- reply

Not unless you mean it in a “voting with your feet” kind of way.
Everyone can just use whatever software they want. Including software that is incompatible with the Bitcoin protocol.

2026-02-13 08:12:01 UTC

I was tagged in an X post by @npub1r8l…x5dk correctly dismantling the false narrative that BIP110 is today largely supported by the small block faction of the block size war era.
There’s been a bunch of stolen valor post-block size wars: maxis that associated themselves with the small block movement, but actually weren’t around at all during the 2015-2017 years, or at least weren’t well-known at the time.
Out of the prominent small blockers of these days, I believe *only* @npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk is now in favour of BIP110. Everyone else that I can think of is either against it, or maybe in a few cases still kind of neutral/undecided.
FWIW
https://x.com/stephanlivera/status/2022168410554347810

2026-02-12 19:53:35 UTC

- reply

Rather, it splinters it.

2026-02-12 18:23:17 UTC

- reply

Yeah I know, but it's arguably still more than nothing at all (ie. social media posts).

2026-02-12 11:40:09 UTC

- reply

No one “votes” with a node. (And that’s a good thing because if that were the case Bitcoin would be trivially Sybil-attacked!)

2026-02-12 10:19:49 UTC

- reply

Question for the taco plebs: which dev team is more centralized, Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Knots?
#nevent1q…tj9e

2026-02-12 09:55:08 UTC

- reply

No one is hard forking.
If they don't want to soft fork that's totally fine by me but then they should probably also quit the dumb posturing that does nothing but maybe waste people's time and attention.

2026-02-12 09:06:11 UTC

- reply

Thanks :) Not sure what’s up with that, it usually works. (Including earlier today…)

2026-02-12 08:54:26 UTC

- reply

So you gonna take on one of these fork futures offers, or just shitpost about things you don’t understand for clout?

2026-02-11 15:36:53 UTC

- reply

Absolutely. Somehow I didn’t become magnetic, go figure.

2026-02-11 13:21:10 UTC

- reply

#note13wl…4ewj

2026-02-11 13:20:27 UTC

As I already alluded to earlier today, unless and until any of these guys are willing to take this offer I really think they’re best ignored.
No need to invite them on your podcast, or hoist them onto your conference stage for yet another debate, or write a BIP110 explainer as if it’s at all serious.
All bark, no bite.
#note1ejs…0gqu

2026-02-11 12:46:49 UTC

- reply

Ik zeg ook niet dat experts altijd gelijk hebben.
Maar een daadwerkelijke “independent mind” is in staat de uitzonderingen te vinden — en dat zullen vrijwel per definitie inderdaad uitzonderingen zijn, niet de regel.

2026-02-11 10:25:11 UTC

If you always find yourself on the opposite end of expert consensus you don’t have an independent mind— you’re a brainless contrarian.
#note1awr…pvnw

2026-02-11 08:19:05 UTC

- reply

Right, this OP basically confirms my point.
“Taking a stand”, “strong action”, “support BIP110”… what does that mean exactly, making some angry and confused posts on social media? Maybe running a software client that you’ll just discard when it forks itself off the network?
Even in the post itself he leaves himself an explicit out, showing an obvious lack of conviction.
Or are you willing to put your money where your mouth is @npub1cjw…j2rh?

2026-02-11 06:29:31 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the reminder :D

2026-02-11 06:15:32 UTC

I received a few requests to write an article or record a podcast on BIP110, but frankly I don’t see the point right now.
Until someone is willing to put their money (no one has taken on @npub1emd…c9aw’s fork futures offer) or hash power (not even Ocean is signaling support) where their mouth is, it’s little more than a DOS-attack on our attention and time.

2026-02-08 20:20:29 UTC

- reply

I don't think these people are very interested in facts.
Having said that, yeah maybe I'd be up for that at some point. Maybe.

2026-02-08 10:36:25 UTC

- reply

Yeah same is true for BIP110, and that’s the point.

2026-02-08 06:27:32 UTC

- reply

You don’t understand what you’re talking about.

2026-02-08 05:48:32 UTC

- reply

Non-upgraded nodes just follow the longest chain, whether that’s the UASF or the URSF/checkpoint chain. They’re both soft forks.
But you can believe what you want to believe.

2026-02-08 04:54:04 UTC

- reply

The same is true for BIP110 so by your own logic that would be a hard fork too.
(Of course neither are hard forks; both are soft forks.)

2026-02-08 04:49:53 UTC

- reply

Wrong.
#nevent1q…g5ze

2026-02-07 20:08:33 UTC

- reply

No one says nodes don’t matter. Unless you mean non-economic nodes; yeah these are pretty useless.

2026-02-07 18:35:05 UTC

- reply

I’d been encouraging Bcashers to fork off for probably over a year before they finally did it, because I and many others were tired of hearing their dumb Bitcoin Core/Blockstream conspiracy nonsense. Sounds familiar yet?

2026-02-07 04:24:45 UTC

- reply

That we agree on.

2026-02-07 04:08:34 UTC

- reply

See, the error in your thinking is that you think "hard fork" means "chain split", and "soft fork" means "no chain split".

2026-02-06 20:34:30 UTC

- reply

It's not essentially a hard fork-- it's a soft fork. And it doesn't necessarily have to be done by Core. (Nor do I think their reputation is deteriorated in the eyes of serious people.)

2026-02-06 20:11:48 UTC

- reply

It does nothing useful.

2026-02-06 19:53:21 UTC

- reply

Nope. And BIP110 doesn’t stop that.

2026-02-06 19:29:59 UTC

- reply

Yeah that would be great.

2026-02-06 19:23:36 UTC

- reply

Cool go for it and we’ll see who’s right.

2026-02-06 19:19:50 UTC

- reply

Little incentive to invest time and effort in creating a URSF client when there’s ~no support for a UASF in the first place.
Post-fork, in the unlikely scenario that a re-org becomes even a even slightly feasible risk, a simple checkpoint suffices.

2026-02-06 19:12:04 UTC

- reply

Yes it is.

2026-02-06 19:10:02 UTC

- reply

I’ve been doing research and writing about this shit for longer than most of you have been in Bitcoin.

2026-02-06 11:40:54 UTC

- reply

There probably won’t be a re-org either because BIP110 never gets a majority of hash power, or because a re-org is simply prevented with a URSF/checkpoint/whatever. (Or both.)

2026-02-06 10:59:37 UTC

- reply

That’s what the block size limit is for.

2026-02-06 08:27:48 UTC

- reply

Done, thanks for pointing out that I can just do that on Nostr as well. (TIL!)

2026-02-06 08:11:20 UTC

- reply

Fork off loser.

2026-02-06 06:54:14 UTC

The Knots crowd has become toxic enough that I do in fact hope they fork off. I’ll happily sell my BIP110 coins back to them—assuming there will be enough blocks on this chain for these transactions to confirm—and they can go their Bcash way.

2026-02-05 15:30:38 UTC

Bitcoin is now trading lower than when “pro-crypto president” (read: shitcoin scammer) Trump was elected.
Some seriously thought getting him in office would speedrun us to hyperbitcoinization. Instead we got a temporary price pump and perhaps significant brand damage for anyone not in the MAGA cult.

2026-02-05 05:20:42 UTC

X drives people nuts.

2026-01-17 19:41:09 UTC

I visited “Bitcoin Jungle” (Uvita, CR) a few days this week.
Normally when I go to circular economy projects (Arnhem, Rovereto, El Zonte…) I link up with the organizer(s) and seek out the locations where I can pay with bitcoin, but this time I decided to run the experiment a bit differently: I just went to wherever I felt like going and then asked if they accepted BTC.
Out of about a dozen places I visited…
1 accepted bitcoin. (S/O to The Fistcuff Pub!)
1 had a Bitcoin Jungle sticker but didn’t actually take bitcoin payments. (Whale Tail Brewery)
1 did not accept bitcoin but seemed genuinely interested and would look into it. (Coffee Bear)
Out of the other ~10, about half just said no, and the other half clearly didn’t even know what bitcoin was.
So is this a bad result? Frankly, it’s roughly what I would have expected. I’ve long believed that spurring bitcoin adoption by convincing merchants is an uphill battle. You might get a few boutique shops and bars to participate, and then they find it’s kind of a pain to teach all their personnel how to use wallets just for maybe a handful of bitcoiners that show up once in a while.
I do like these projects, and if you _do_ seek out the bitcoin accepting spots you can probably go a long way without touching fiat for a few days— yet we also shouldn’t overstate the success or impact of such local initiatives.
I suspect it might just be a bit too early for this still… but if we do want to create hotspots with truly widespread adoption, what would that require?
I’d say:
- Instant fiat conversion is probably a must.
- Printable QR codes (BOLT12/Silent Payments) to make it easier for merchants to keep accepting BTC even if sparsely used.
- Ideally there’d be a source of “fresh” BTC that’s brought into the economy, whether that’s from local miners, or expats that get paid in bitcoin, or Bitcoin tourists, or…
- Ability to pay tax in BTC would be great but probably a long-shot in most places.
- What else?..
https://image.nostr.build/f8676261e4c940d0711e71bb2c222d6e4758546662d143b08a20f66ebdbbcc40.jpg

2026-01-10 14:47:27 UTC

- reply

Congratulations to Andreas!
#nevent1q…32h9

2025-12-24 07:23:31 UTC

- reply

Relevant bit at 20:42.

2025-12-23 17:38:31 UTC

Andreas Antonopoulos on “spam” transactions (in 2016): https://youtu.be/bFOFqNKKns0?si=Ie_VtqTPpk_ZM6l5&t=1242

2025-12-02 14:24:41 UTC

https://youtu.be/0dytKyBttIQ

2025-11-25 05:17:14 UTC

- reply

There is nothing to disagree on, it’s a fact. You’ve been misinformed.

2025-11-18 13:47:39 UTC

https://youtu.be/_DeSMpVffKk

2025-11-16 18:28:31 UTC

- reply

Free agent.

2025-11-16 08:08:27 UTC

Matthew Kratter (@npub1s33…252p) will talk shit about Bitcoin Core devs and other bitcoiners from behind his monitor reading out pre-written scripts all day long, but he does not even have the balls to come on a podcast and defend his position.
#note1syd…unvj

2025-11-12 14:43:04 UTC

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://image.nostr.build/4bddedb03b2ad50ea0ee31bd121ee101d4e4350400575bbd942d7d4971734e84.jpg

2025-11-12 08:22:19 UTC

- reply

The Genesis Book is also for sale in bitcoin: https://store.bitcoinmagazine.com/products/the-genesis-book?srsltid=AfmBOopMQMCWMFx99bhUwvY6c_Hn-0FKbx7Lb8gISEJzuhJpjklvri_R

2025-11-12 08:19:56 UTC

- reply

Yes, my labour.
I've been getting paid almost exclusively in bitcoin for about a decade now.

2025-11-12 07:54:16 UTC

- reply

There is nothing in Bitcoin Core 30 that makes it harder to run nodes.
(Also see @nprofile…vgs2's response.)

2025-11-12 06:30:03 UTC

- reply

Nonsense.

2025-11-12 06:01:09 UTC

- reply

These are the projects pushing this vision forward.
Not these "anti-spam" LARPers.
#nevent1q…3meu

2025-11-12 05:55:29 UTC

Do you think bitcoin should be used for monetary transactions?
Use bitcoin for monetary transactions, then.

2025-11-11 16:06:31 UTC

- reply

What do you say?
#note1syd…unvj

2025-11-11 11:30:17 UTC

- reply

It does. Rules without rulers.

2025-11-11 09:39:17 UTC

FWIW I agree you don’t have to be an anarchist to use Bitcoin.
…But Bitcoin *is* an anarchist form of money.
If you don’t like that, use fiat.
#note10cp…0f7z

2025-11-09 13:26:23 UTC

- reply

Not surprised.

2025-11-09 11:29:41 UTC

Yo @npub1s33…252p let’s do this.
https://image.nostr.build/bcbd1729be5b5a9b5ad0292cb02512abbacfc048ea8a062c146b651ba1b070b1.jpg

2025-11-09 07:24:20 UTC

- reply

Wait a minute…
@npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk what gives?
https://x.com/LukeDashjr/status/1986552777913303125
https://image.nostr.build/b45ef982e296a8229831816e0e16c566f8c04cd2153597ee12aa118614ed945d.jpg

2025-11-08 16:54:45 UTC

- reply

What do you mean?
I tagged Dathon so if he thinks I misrepresented him he can just correct me.

2025-11-08 16:40:45 UTC

Meanwhile, @npub1azr…jl96 says he is committed to finding consensus for his proposal within the technical community.
https://image.nostr.build/3e24d8f9ca1068b47efbcee022a1284082cebb457e0b0450e557cba21f434394.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/bc07125ab2c5f0b61231b3c8143ceb363f6a4b2a185389df7940f4248458d039.png

2025-11-08 16:33:06 UTC

In case anyone is wondering, for BIP444 @npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk is willing to throw BIP8 soft fork activation overboard in favour of a flag day activation with no miner signaling.
https://image.nostr.build/57cb51c7702a3429c057c1209caa4bcab3b75edeeb160fb5631aad9e6e2461fd.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/f0c862ba598763af6982ad21e61a6129222ef99de027dc1008c3932bbb98fb15.png

2025-11-07 09:23:44 UTC

- reply

This is a troll who's been posting that screenshot all over the place like it's some kind of gotcha.
It was part of a good back-and-forth I had with @nprofile…e6sl (IMO), you can read that back here if you're interested:
#nevent1q…56cq
#nevent1q…56cq

2025-11-07 06:13:49 UTC

Of course, @npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk is worried about fork futures because he knows that will effectively reveal the lack of support for his fork, just like it did for Segwit2X back in 2017.
https://image.nostr.build/ec2993d4f26516febd7cab0dabf6a62fe0271de43b84650f8cac2d86ac135cec.jpg

2025-11-07 04:55:36 UTC

- reply

I said several times, explicitly, if an owner/admin/mod wants me to stop talking and asking questions, they can just ask me to stop and I will.
Instead I was banned without any prior warning…

2025-11-07 04:34:40 UTC

- reply

How did I not behave like a normal person? (Feel free to share a screenshot of whatever it is you think warranted a ban.)

2025-11-06 19:14:58 UTC

- reply

I'm also banned.
@nprofile…vw43 @nprofile…566r care to explain why? Despite disagreements I don't believe I was rude or trollish or anything of that nature.
#nevent1q…jj48

2025-11-06 18:05:34 UTC

- reply

(He also doesn’t think that activation method should be removed from BIP 444.)
#note165t…wevh

2025-11-06 17:41:31 UTC

So @npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk wants to roll back the chain and activate a soft fork if CSAM is included in an OP_RETURN.
However he does not want to tell anyone how we’d even know it if that were to be the case…
https://image.nostr.build/3a4a0598d908f460ef6e236d746f45b6140c5b0a708077e2fecb8948de494c81.jpg
https://image.nostr.build/87c875f6321e9185f7463ab4a4ecb9ddbe254fdd8b4ebb0f4d9a9985370bf8d1.jpg

2025-11-06 15:18:05 UTC

- reply

Ok I think we’ve probably made it to the end of our argument tree: the “agree to disagree stage”!
I’ll post my responses; feel free to rebut them if you feel like you can and want to— or not. Up to you :)
1. Since both you and me run a node primarily for our own benefit, I think it’s reasonable to extrapolate that to other users as well. Since data in OP_RETURN would not discourage you or me from running a node (versus data in other parts of a transaction) I don’t think increasing the OP_RETURN relay default will have a centralizing effect.
2. I think over time monetary transactions will be outbid by other monetary transactions— spam will barely enter the equation, if at all. (Maybe if it’s very compact, Open Timestamps style, in which case it’s also not a big problem.) Also see: #nevent1q…5vw9

2025-11-06 14:04:32 UTC

Or if you prefer the drama there's this!
https://youtu.be/qaATHafnlHs
#note1gku…enew

2025-11-06 13:46:56 UTC

A new Bitcoin, Explained episode appeared!
On Bitcoin Core 30, the non-drama edition.
With @npub1s6z…wk4c.
https://podcastindex.org/podcast/3307835?episode=44789004081

2025-11-06 05:01:30 UTC

- reply

Mechanic says he betted his whole stash on fork futures in 2017, so I’m sure understands the concept at least: https://youtu.be/Lf5rqg61aYU?si=ayWBuCA_Hd5HSiT5&t=4503

2025-11-05 20:07:16 UTC

- reply

>would it for people on the Knots side either not be seen as CSAM because it wasn't [...] "sanctioned"
That's @nprofile…vw43's position yes, to the best of my understanding anyways.

2025-11-05 19:10:23 UTC

- reply

FWIW:
https://image.nostr.build/1325bb48593f42388773f7a2049253ed3413e9246ca4a68b891f09db2ae73c2e.jpg

2025-11-05 17:35:17 UTC

- reply

Other than watching a debate or talk when I was bored I ignored all this for a long time because I thought it would just go away. (As you know I was with you in that ordinals are retarded-- but I also didn't see it as some kind of fundamental threat to Bitcoin.)
But when the CSAM accusations started that was like a knife being pulled out during a pub brawl. A horrible escalation that could in some worst case scenarios actually be dangerous for both individuals and even the project as a whole.
Luke has always been "unique" but that should not mean ethical and moral lines don't apply to him. It's time to lower the temperature, but that is impossible if the _worst_ behaviour does not stop.
So when you do call out other behaviour but not his, that does not sit right with me-- or at least I don't think it's helpful.

2025-11-05 15:47:06 UTC

- reply

Someone should write a book about Bitcoin's origins.

2025-11-05 15:15:50 UTC

- reply

We’re probably close enough on 1 & 2 that we don’t need to split hairs :)
3. You could have just left out this point entirely and kept the debate in this thread technical and on-point. Instead you decided to insert a list of (what you perceive to be) bad behavior; completely unnecessary IMO.
But let me ask you a question then. What in your view has been a worse escalation:
A) _Anything_ any Core developer has said or done?
or
B) These accusations by Luke?

2025-11-05 08:08:08 UTC

- reply

No worries.
1. But this is making assumptions on why other people run nodes, right? Since you acknowledge that _you_ primarily run a node for your own benefit (and not taking your tx fees into account; that’s the next point), I don’t think you can honestly argue that 1MB of OP_RETURNs is worse for the performance of your node than 1MB (or more) of data in any other part of a block?..
2. Do you think spam will persistently outbid monetary transactions for block space?
Thanks for taking the time, I know this has been dragging on for a while now…

2025-11-05 06:53:06 UTC

- reply

🙄

2025-11-05 06:28:07 UTC

- reply

Stop weaseling out and make a counter-proposal then.

2025-11-05 06:10:37 UTC

- reply

URSF wouldn’t make a difference.
>Why not just do my proposed bet
Probably because you won’t follow through on it.
If you lock up the coins now no one can back out later.

2025-11-05 05:54:29 UTC

- reply

>Also once the chain splits there's a chance core URSFs.
Why would that make any difference?

2025-11-04 19:36:22 UTC

Actual fork futures (as per @npub1emd…c9aw’s proposal for example) would be much better, but this is nice too:
#note1cac…cgz4

2025-11-04 16:29:09 UTC

- reply

I’m not arguing semantics, it matters.
I and many others have explained this already, many times, including in the video this thread is a response to. I recommend watching it.
You can also read the article I myself wrote about this a month ago, in particular the “Bitcoin Core perspective” of course: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-core-or-bitcoin-knots-what-the-op_return-debate-is-actually-about
Or read what the Bitcoin Core developers wrote about it themselves: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/
If you prefer that I explain it to you again that’s also ok, but then I’ll start charging for my time. Shoot me a DM in that case!

2025-11-04 15:21:57 UTC

- reply

😅

2025-11-04 14:43:39 UTC

- reply

Core is Bitcoin's de facto reference implementation to the extent -- and _only_ to the extent -- that users treat it as such.
If you don't believe that to be true, what was the point of switching to Knots in the first place??

2025-11-04 14:15:34 UTC

- reply

Besides, if there's more data in OP_RETURNs, there less room for data in Inscriptions; 4x less even.
Nor does it widen the attack surface in any real way-- except perhaps the attack surface @nprofile…3s2u describes at the end of the video, which you're helping create by regurgitating this nonsense.

2025-11-04 14:02:51 UTC

- reply

There is nothing official in Bitcoin.

2025-11-04 14:01:06 UTC

- reply

👏

2025-11-04 13:04:50 UTC

- reply

1. I tried to earnestly understand and explore @npub1lh2…a9nk @npub1lh2…a9nk and @npub1yxp…399s’s arguments.
With Luke I just have to say “agree to disagree” when he argues that CSAM is _only_ illegal/immoral when it’s in an OP_RETURN up ‘till 100kb post-September 2025— everything else is “non-CSAM” in his view even if they’re the exact same bytes.
Super Testnet meanwhile seems to have gotten stuck on this question: #nevent1q…jxqn  2. It was never about Citrea specifically; Citrea just showed that there is demand for >80 bytes of data, and if such use cases can’t use OP_RETURN they’ll just use fake pubkeys which NO ONE should want.  3. Not a technical argument. But I’d say if anyone uses nasty triggers it’s Luke et al claiming (and this is a real quote) “Bitcoin Core is trying to force everyone who uses Bitcoin to distribute child porn”— not to mention the shit you’re throwing at the wall here yourself.

2025-11-04 07:29:57 UTC

Good video by @npub1yp4…kqyk.
https://youtu.be/smSCQ0RyFZg

2025-11-03 17:50:07 UTC

- reply

💯
Probably better even than any of the movies tbh.