<unnamed>

Public Key

npub10r37rgdjcj6yprg4fdayd58dqfxpwnr8u59nun45q4mfg3vajg0s63625r

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs83clp5xevfdzq3525k7jx6rksynqhf3n72ze7f66q2a55gkwey8cpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskueqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucm4wfex2mn59en8j6gpzfmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ucpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqluyxrh

Publishing to

Last Notes

2026-03-04 05:14:18 UTC

- reply

OMG, people trying to sound smart debating terms they don't understand. 🤦
Permissionless means that everyone can use bitcoin, run a node & mine without an authorization from a central authority.
Does anyone here want a government to KYC us before we can even use bitcoin?? (except for Luke & Mechanic, who might actually mean that)
Some of you guys should start by learniny the basics before trying as heroic bitcoin defenders lol. (obviously, not talking about @nprofile…vnu3 here...)

2026-03-02 08:24:47 UTC

And the follow-up, because it's so gross I just can't keep it to myself:
"Thank you for the reply and uploaded information. We will review if you have returned to ******* and will contact you if you haven't."
#nevent1q…n5rk

2026-03-01 15:14:34 UTC

Just received that bitcoin ad. They're really giving their all on that one!
"Thank you for the reply. We apologise for our reply. To complete the verification, please still provide the following: We have noticed that you are in ******* for a while now. Can you please advise on the length of your visit? Have you moved abroad permanently? When are you planning to return to *******? You have 14 days to complete the process otherwise your Curve account may become blocked."
(Yes, they took 3 months to process my reply and now are pressuring me for delays they can't handle anyway. That's the kind of company they are 🤔)
#nevent1q…e4gz

2026-03-01 04:30:07 UTC

- reply

If it weren't temporary it would kill all chances of ever scaling bitcoin 🤔

2026-03-01 04:28:41 UTC

- reply

Interestingly, previous Jack's company also had intelligence at its core, as we've seen with the Twitter leaks. 😂

2026-03-01 04:20:24 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/69786b07bf30f16f7bf48c94ba4dea2d6c5588ac6fd8c3215225fc3313fac8b8.png https://image.nostr.build/27dc9159a4ac0cc14c0660f854de44450a98af6d3ef9e705cb5a482776e1dcac.jpg
Browsing Afternic with Brave browser since today, was perfectly fine last week... Talk about enshittification! (Afternic is one of the biggest domain name market place, owned by Godaddy)
#nevent1q…g3rv

2026-03-01 00:13:36 UTC

- reply

Fully agreed, multiple layers of divide & conquer strategies. We need level-headed peers who stay unswayed by it, and know how to expose their views without picking a war. 🤔

2026-02-28 17:43:33 UTC

- reply

Who said we can't do anything about it though? Certainly not me. ✊

2026-02-28 05:45:10 UTC

- reply

When both side are wrong, picking one is wrong. "The community" is mostly busy building or living their life & lost interest in that little war a long time ago.

2026-02-28 04:41:32 UTC

- reply

I didn't dig deep, but what the timelines seems to show is that, each time Epstein provided money to members the community it was short-lived,. You'd imagine that's because someone ended to run a background check and detected the red flags.
Cypherpunks are first and foremost a bunch of security-oriented paranoid that will instantly consider how someone like that could be leveraged against them & bitcoin.
Now, Back on the island is a whole other thing and it definitely calls for transparency. I also wonder how fast after that he did cut the financial ties.

2026-02-28 04:32:08 UTC

- reply

I think it's a fallacy. Just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it's not helping. BIP110 would definitely reduce spam. It's just that the cons are unaxceptable & the whole process is fucked up anyway.

2026-02-28 04:28:50 UTC

- reply

Just because you failed at doing the right thing doesn't mean you should suddenly engage in doing the wrong one. Tearing the community apart in a sloppy engineering contest & personal attacks is not going to fix anything.

2026-02-28 04:25:27 UTC

- reply

I would agree with you here. I think he had to put significant efforts into it, and I think it would be both harder and more expensive to make it BIP110 compatible.
So basically he's making two points:
- A motivated state actor will always be able to put contiguous csam on bitcoin if they decide to do so. — you just won't fix that.
- If we make it more expensive for spammers, we might end up in a situation where the spam becomes more damaging in order to get in anyway.
However, he's also showing that counter-measures make spamming significantly more difficult. The problem being, once someone writes and standardize a work-around, it becomes easy again (just more expensive).
Personally I would still favor easy/non-damaging counter-measures, but not as aggressive as BIP110 that will clearly come back to bite us.

2026-02-28 04:12:31 UTC

- reply

Resist to what? Personally, I would resist to bad engineering & bad faith, which in my view is *both* core v30 and BIP110.
If we keep going down that path, it could very well kill bitcoin. I want quality contributors & quality contributions. I think everyone should enforce have the same high standards.
I still think spam issues can be mitigated, but this needs to be done well by someone who's level-headed, not as some personal vendetta that doesn't care for the consequences.

2026-02-27 23:50:18 UTC

- reply

Actually current block subsidies are about $200,000 so it's about $475 per transaction. It's impressive how much of the security is paid by monetary emission. Though otoh bitcoin price doubling every 4 years is enough to compensate the halving.

2026-02-27 23:30:33 UTC

- reply

I saw that, not sure how accurate the "I could do one that respect BIP-110" claim is, since he didn't, but I guess that would be more of the same tricks.
I still fallback to the same idea that, just because you can't make it perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve it. I still think OP_RETURN should be capped and doing crazy shit should be made hard. Otoh I don't need to be convinced BIP-110 is a bad upgrade, since it's been my point all along.

2026-02-27 22:42:26 UTC

- reply

No, what he's saying is that making it BIP-110 compatible requires more tricks but is nonetheless possible without breaking continuity.

2026-02-27 17:42:00 UTC

- reply

I am not completely convinced of that continuity is meaningless. While are right that states & adversaries use csam against freedom projects, that's not a valid reason not to have measures against it. On the contrary, it is then quite logical to raise some defenses to limit their leverage.

2026-02-27 03:35:03 UTC

- reply

This is not true: OP_RETURN has been uncapped at the consensus level since its introduction in 2014, the attack vector was open all along and everyone technical knew about it, including the press.
You are actually contradicting yourself by affirming both "OP_RETURN is not the only vector" and "v30 opened this attack vector"... in the same message 🤦.
You also reject that capping OP_RETURN would be a sufficient change, but pretends that RDTS is doing nothing more than reversing Core v30... 🤔
Since you can't ignore that your arguments are loaded with technical and logical fallacies, and since you are essentially taking your peers for manipulable morons, I can only conclude that the good of Bitcoin isn't the point here. Sad to see a long-term contributor go down such a path, but at this point this is clearly malicious behavior.
Thank you for your past contributions. May you someday come back to your senses. 🫡

2026-02-26 13:18:33 UTC

Ideology is the mind-killer. Ideology is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my ideology. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn to see ideology’s path. Where the ideology has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

2026-02-26 13:03:22 UTC

- reply

Not at all, it was very interesting. If people can't read then they are the ones cutting themselves away from quality knowledge, and there's no fix to that. 🤔

2026-02-26 12:19:30 UTC

- reply

This is exactly how you're supposed to feel during a bearmarket. That way, big finance can hoard up the coins while retail stays out of the game til the next FOMO 🤔

2026-02-26 08:50:01 UTC

- reply

What I don't understand is, if contiguous, illegal content is the major concern here, why not exclusively focus on capping OP_RETURN and going for the kill? Why mixing it with additional restrictions that are addressing a different, less pressing issue, and that will objectively cause the whole thing to fail, when you had a clear shot at getting the high priority issue fixed?
Also, we've been aware of this attack vector for so many years? Why is it suddenly an emergency now, when even the press has been talking about it for at least a decade & contiguous illegal content could have been posted on chain anytime by a well organized adversary?
Finally, why pretending it's just reversing what core v30 did, when you can't ignore this bip is doing much more than that?

2026-02-26 05:07:01 UTC

- reply

Curious if you can use this in a private way, possibly paying with lightning?

2026-02-25 23:28:19 UTC

- reply

You are just being voluntary obtuse in order to win an argument. Anyone can pretend not to understand a point. Also, you talk like you are charge, but it's not like anyone is going to adjust anything at that point, right? It's just one small group trying to impose their views to everyone else no matter the disagreements, and going to fail achieving anything at all for that very reason. 🤔

2026-02-25 17:13:03 UTC

- reply

Thank you for the good work! 👊

2026-02-25 17:09:13 UTC

- reply

I feel like I didn't address your point. The bip110.org page clearly states that it is incompatible with BitVM, which I consider as a monetary use case.
The second thing, that's more technical and feeling a bit lazy to explain in detail, is that it forbids OP_IF in new tapleaves. Now, they say old transactions can still spend if they have that OP_IF, but it's not exactly true. Transactions can be chained — using pre-signed transactions — into multi-steps trees that are commited to ahead of time, and if one of these has as OP_IF in there, it'll be forbidden to be spend. I think it's a relatively marginal case, but I wouldn't say it's esoteric either. Bitcoin is an open system of programable money, and it's pretty likely that various people had build homemade contracts or small systems here and there having this in. If BIP110 were to pass, we would see some of the cases appear from time to time about funds blocked by it, from people being oblivious of the situation or the details of the forks.
Clearly this isn't my main reason to oppose BIP110, but it shows how sloppy that whole thing is. I'm much more concerned about the signal it would send to other builders working tirelessly to scale this thing, if a BIP hurting their work were to pass... Building on Bitcoin is demanding enough as it is; but having to secure funding for a tech that has just been made indefinitely impossible by some reckless fork is going to be a whole new level of pain.

2026-02-25 16:48:26 UTC

- reply

Well, I think I did both in my previous notes. BitVM, Ark and lightning are all going to suffer from this, and we're not talking about some speculative work, we're talking about updates that have been researched & pending way longer than BIP110. The update process in Bitcoin is not about pushing & bullying but about proving to the community that your solution is the absolute best one we can think off, and that the downside have been carefully thought about.
So not only BIP110 is a bad upgrade, but it would indefinitely prevent other, much better designed upgrade that have properly been trying to build consensus for longer than it has. 🤔

2026-02-25 15:27:42 UTC

- reply

Wouhou! My first zap, thank you friend 👍

2026-02-25 15:25:25 UTC

- reply

Ah, thanks! Wallet wasn't linked. Mind trying now? 🙏

2026-02-25 15:23:49 UTC

- reply

Sorry? 😁

2026-02-25 15:12:42 UTC

- reply

Oh wow I would really love to see that

2026-02-25 14:04:21 UTC

- reply

Honnestly I think it's hard to generalize the answer, because the non-monetary market oscillates between two states: hyped or dormant.
Hyped markets, such as during the inscription craze, can actually outprice monetary usage & that's precisely what caused all the resentment against these use cases - they are also incredibly hungry in block space and significantly deter scaling efforts, on a system that is already low throughput. Luckily, this state isn't sustainable - it's a bubble - but it's definitely a nuisance.
Dormant markets can definitely be outpriced, though the UTXO clutter and block burden from the past doesn't go anywhere, right? What's happening right now is that, because onchain activity is so low, miners will fill the blocks with whatever garbage at whatever price - which is always better than 0. In other words, for miners, there's always an incentive to fill the blocks no matter what. This is why I think we entered an era of forever-full blocks, because miners can now marginally stimulate markets that will buy the stranded block space for storage or meme.
This whole thing gives the statistical illusion that spam has been able to constantly occupy a significant portion of our blocks, and that it will be able to keep doing so; But that's conflating two different states of the market. In the first state, it was a real nuisance because it was outpricing bitcoin users, clogging the throughput. In the second, current state, it's not outpricing anyone, it's just that bitcoin is not being used at full capacity. Arguably, the spam market is now so weak that we could easily outprice it if more people were to use bitcoin - it's not clogging the throughput anymore, but it is definitely filling the blocks, adding unecessary weight to the blockchain.
My point in an earlier note was that, whether or not you manage to defeat that spam, it won't take long before the block fills again durably because of mass adoption. Either way, forever-full block is a state of things we'll have to adapt to. Now, if we could dodge another spam hype or two, that would definitely be a great thing — but doing so through a BIP that hurts bitcoin fundamentals & legitimate projects is definitely a bad trade.
Good engineering requires to be level-headed, patient, focused, and be willing to look at the problem from as many angles as possible in orders to discover the best trade-offs. Only the highest quality solutions should be allowed to make their way into bitcoin consensus. There's a reason why most proposal fails, and it's a very healthy state of things. :)

2026-02-25 09:09:21 UTC

- reply

Well, you are right, the technical arguments matter more. My issues are:
- The restrictions are too aggressive and hurts moneraty use cases and scaling solutions, even though the authors are not fully honnest about this.
- Among other issues, the proposal blocks any further upgrade to the consensus, which we will need to improve scaling through Ark & Lightning. (imagine if it were to last...)
- I don't believe a temporary fix makes sense considering the risks that come with changing the consensus, I don't want Bitcoin to go for Monero-like yearly updates/debates.
- Moreover, temporary already implies the solution is known to suck, and no good solution is available yet. I prefer to wait for a proper fix and activate that.
I think it would be more sensible to go for straightfoward, atomic, consensual fixes and respect the process of convincing the community more widely, as previously accepted forks did. Of course it won't be possible to go as far in terms of restricting spam, but it will also avoid stupidely hurting our owns.

2026-02-25 08:53:28 UTC

- reply

Oh ok I get your point now... Especially considering the price of RAM, agreed. Well, that would be an heavy hit in the nuts of ordinals for sure. Now, taproot assets creates the exact same type of UTXO fragmentation, and is it perfectly BIP110-compatible.
In any case, I think the previous wave is kind or dead, and BIP110 won't clean up the existing clutter... So the question is, will there be a new wave or not? And unfortunately the tools exist that would allow for one regardless of BIP110, so maybe there is a need for a different solution that specifically addresses low-value UTXO. (there is already an anti-dust policy that could be updated to higher values for example)

2026-02-25 08:45:08 UTC

- reply

Not if both buckets are already full... Also it's not free if there's a fee 🤔.
Anyway, I don't need to be convinced that spam is a bad thing. My point was that preventing contiguous harmful content onchain should be the priority for obvious reasons. But I think I already went over my point extensively so probably we should stop here?

2026-02-25 08:12:36 UTC

- reply

I think this is a bit disingenuous, because the tradeoff will be exactly the same a year from now. And that's the very reason why 'there's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution'.
I find it fascinating that both the BIP110 crew and the core v30 one borrow abundantly from the covid era rhetoric & strategies in order to impose non-consensual changes on the community.
You guys are really a beautiful pair! Going at each other's throats, but united in your belief that Bitcoin is yours to rule over... Unable to realize that the community's resistance is rooted in reasonable, logical, and poorly addressed objections

2026-02-24 16:30:33 UTC

- reply

It just shows that 80% of the bloat nowadays comes from OP_RETURN, as I already explained. You really missed the point on that one.
Btw, just a few years from now, our blocks will be systematically full of monetary transaction because of adoption. Do you think it will cause bitcoin to collapse, or to the least to centralize completely? Or, in your view, are non-monetary transactions the only ones that can cause a node to struggle? Because if full blocks are a threat to bitcoin, then mass-adoption is a threat to bitcoin too, isn't it? Then maybe we should make sure Bitcoin never expands and never growths, just like BIP110 proposes... :)

2026-02-24 10:17:41 UTC

- reply

That being said the cost of storage keeps getting lower and lower, but bitcoin block size is static, so all things consider it should only get easier to run nodes from now on.

2026-02-24 10:15:39 UTC

- reply

I think putting a hard cap on OP_RETURNs would be the single best non-risky thing to do. However, I think bitcoin adoption will cause blocks to be mostly full a few years from now - and the fees to be much higher. So it would only buy some time & avoid harmful content onchain.

2026-02-23 16:50:58 UTC

- reply

Well once again if you cap op_return, that leaves only witness-embedded spam that you can prune away. Your graph actually confirms that it doesn't amount to much, so I'm pretty confused about how you're reading it? The point is, we could have gotten rid of that op_return part with a simple, consensual fix but instead they wanted to push it too far to prove something, and what'll we get is no fix at all because this thing is crappy and won't activate.

2026-02-23 16:09:18 UTC

- reply

I'm familiar with this but either ways the facts are not siding with the idea of an emergency. Most ordinal projects are dead, investors are ruined, and tx fees have been ridiculously low for months.
Besides, you are conflating two very different issues, just like BIP110 is doing. Capping OP_RETURN, which has outlived its utility, to protect nodes from hosting contiguous illegal content is arguably very important. Dealing with witness-embedded spam is secondary and optional. Witnesses can be pruned away, and it's not even sure jpegs are coming back. The were economically viable just because of a hype that is long gone and, would it come back, unsustainable by nature.
As I said, by trying to achieve aggressively everything at once, this BIP is not only harmful to legitimate monetary projects lead by genuine bitcoiners, it's also condemning itself to fail, missing an historic opportunity to fix a long-standing vulnerability.

2026-02-23 15:28:05 UTC

- reply

I am opposed to core v30 for the exact same reasons I am opposed to BIP110: sloppy engineering forced through the community with poor arguments.
Btw, core v30 didn't enable posting contiguous harmful content on chain: it was enabled in 2013 by OP_RETURN, that was limitless at the consensus level from the start. And to be clear, the threat was well known all along. There are press articles from 2018/2019 that were FUDing about it during that bear. Anyone who's familiar with bitcoin, like Luke also is, has knew about this for years if not a decade — so why is it suddenly an emergency after all that time? Core 30 sucks and it shouldn't have happen - but it is simply not true that it made that attack viable, and anyone who thinks so is deeply miseducated about how bitcoin works.
All of this is just ego war and people wanting to feel great about themselves. If the priority was to protect bitcoin against this attack, then capping OP_RETURN size would have been enough, and much much more likely to pass. But ofc they had to overdo and turn this into a personal vendetta, and now the chances of fixing the actual important thing by the end or the year are 0.

2026-02-23 14:56:00 UTC

- reply

Very nice :)

2026-02-23 14:45:46 UTC

- reply

Maybe because different people have different opinions? Btw, this is not "my" framing, this is their framing:
"The one-year deployment allows the community to evaluate the impact while developers work on a longer-term solution. Some restrictions would severely constrain future upgrades if permanent, but are acceptable for a limited time to address the immediate crisis."
In other words, this solution sucks, but we have nothing better right now & there's an urgent matter that needs to be adressed right now. (which urgent matter, we are left to our imaginaion 😂)
Sincerely, I find it painful to discuss this matter with you since you talk like you know, and yet didn't even read the proposal itself. Also, that moving the goalpost each time proven wrong... That's not serious: Bitcoin deserves better considerations & care when it comes to touching the consensus. 🤔

2026-02-23 13:55:31 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/b2e63d222922eaaddb38b291772e88994ec516380c03c303ddeb75f4fd3c4bf5.jpg
I gave you my source. Also, I think you misunderstood how it works: it will prevent any consensus upgrade for the time it is active... And we all know how long emergency, temporary measures can last. Though in by view, "temporary" measures on something like Bitcoin make no sense start with. Either it's good and we keep it, either it's not and it never touches consensus. 🤔

2026-02-23 13:28:35 UTC

- reply

Oh, Knots is definitely fine, thought you were talking about that BIP110 thing.

2026-02-23 13:22:50 UTC

- reply

They might have good intentions, and curbing non-monetary uses is a great goal, but the execution is terrible, and this BIP would hurt bitcoin future if they had their way. Hurting by overprotecting... there was a pretty good video from Academy of Ideas about that theme 🤔

2026-02-23 13:06:07 UTC

- reply

"The 257-byte control block limit constrains large Taptrees. Advanced smart contracts like BitVM may need to wait until [BIP110] expiry or use testnet/sidechains." source: bip110.org — though on the same page they also pretend that "All known monetary use cases remain fully functional and unaffected.", which is quite gross.
Btw, let me add that blocking consensus upgrades will also delay any covenant update, that are required for Ark to become viable, as well as to upgrade lightning... Since I assume we all know what "temporary emergency measure" means.
Pretty interesting consequences of a sloppy design... If prevent harmful content on the nodes was the point, cap-sizing OP_RETURN would have been sufficient, but ofc they had to overdo it to retaliate and show everyone who's the bitcoin boss, and now we have this mess instead... Lame. :(

2026-02-23 06:22:51 UTC

- reply

A chain split will create two chains, like when Bitcoin Cash happened and lost the split. It became a minority chain no ones care about; anyway there were funds loss because at first transactions would happen on both chains at once and stuff like that, it was a messy process & we definitely don't need that now.

2026-02-23 05:40:43 UTC

- reply

Initially Core V30 removed filters on OP_RETURN sizes that protects against spam. However, on the consensus level, OP_RETURN don't have a size limit so miners were already spamming data on chain anyway. Core V30 making this easier definitely sucks, especially considering the way they forced it despite community backslash, but the fact remains that the attack vector was there all along.
BIP110 is aiming at fixing that by making consensus changes, however it is poorly engineered and will also prevent several some of the most promising ways to scale bitcoin. Moreover, the way they're trying to force their bad solution through is hostile in itself and suggest that it is more about a personal vendetta than about bitcoin future. 🤔

2026-02-23 04:09:31 UTC

- reply

2026-02-23 04:06:56 UTC

- reply

Well, they won't need to if we severe out paths to growth all by ourselves. 😂

2026-02-23 03:55:53 UTC

- reply

You're attitude is malicious in itself, regardless or whether you're right or wrong. I guess Bitcoin future is the least of your concerns and it's all about ego then. 🤔

2026-02-23 03:50:44 UTC

- reply

They're both wrong and trying to impose they views on the community, they both need to be pushed back against.

2026-02-23 03:49:35 UTC

- reply

Removing the OP_RETURN filter was wrong but BIP110 is sloppy engineer that will prevent scaling Bitcoin through BitVM & ARK. Way to shoot ourselves in the foot buddy.

2026-02-23 03:46:18 UTC

- reply

Sure.
1- It will ban BitVM, a legitimate Bitcoin project and promising scaling avenue. According to bip110.org: "The 257-byte control block limit constrains large Taptrees. Advanced smart contracts like BitVM may need to wait until expiry or use testnet/sidechains." However, they also claim that they want to "All known monetary use cases remain fully functional and unaffected.", which is obviously deceptive.
2- It will prevent running other soft forks. They claim it's not an issue since it's "temporary" and "the process takes more than a year anyway", though there are convenants proposals that are following this process already and are needed to make Ark, another promising scaling solution, fully functional. I think there's a theme here.
3- They say it's temporary and only a year, just to see how it goes... However, either it's a good solution - then why temporary? Either it's a poorly-engineer/understood solution, or at least not something people would want as a permanent thing - then it should pass at all. We all now what "temporary means" in this "emergency contextes". The rhetoric itself is problematic, pushing temporary changes to an immutable ledge is as well, obviously.
4- They want to force-through, just like Core v30 did, in an escalation of bad engineering and poorly thought arguments. This *is* an attack in bitcoin.

2026-02-23 03:36:41 UTC

- reply

Well, except BitVM who've been working hard on scaling Bitcoin and will be banned from building onchain cause...?

2026-02-23 03:33:41 UTC

- reply

That would the the obvious fix. These guys should have back off in the first place, not sure what's wrong with them.

2026-02-23 03:30:28 UTC

- reply

And BitVM... lol.

2026-02-22 14:31:13 UTC

Core V30 was a forced-through, misengineered update that will bloat the chain. Thus, some people thought they'd fix it by forcing through a misengineered soft fork that will bloat the consensus and the clients, killing bitVM as a bonus, because why would the other guys be the only one stupidly messing with bitcoin right??
This forcing through thing has to stop. You guys *are* the actual attack. 👊

2026-02-12 02:59:39 UTC

- reply

Using an argument of authority is itself brainless. There use to be an expert "consensus" that the earth is flat, or that you gotta bleed someone to help him recover from sicknesses. Using such a poor argument only shows you don't have much supporting your point...
Besides, what that "expert consensus" really is is just an active, vocal minority forcing through, isn't it? 🤔

2026-02-08 10:23:34 UTC

- reply

I love it, it's really awesome!

2026-02-06 05:43:24 UTC

Big buyers need a counterparty. Spreading fud generously at low prices is easily done when you have a large stake in multiple medias. This happens every single time. Great signal to buy, hope you get it!

2026-02-05 01:44:54 UTC

- reply

Leftists were the first to adopt bitcoin for activism purposes 🤔

2026-02-03 01:51:14 UTC

- reply

I wonder 🤔. Is it not just a single 42MB allocation that gets miscounted several times? 'Cause otherwise you'd grow to GB of reserved storage pretty fast! Anyway, I clear cookies on exit so what do I know. 😂

2026-02-03 01:49:08 UTC

- reply

He could have asked AI himself if he wanted that. 🤣

2026-01-21 15:28:46 UTC

- reply

Just VPN to Deutschland

2026-01-13 02:15:17 UTC

That sentence was popularized by Saylor, who made his fortune building analytics software. :P
#nevent1q…dvq7

2026-01-10 07:16:11 UTC

- reply

The pawn eats you

2025-12-31 13:55:17 UTC

- reply

@npub1yzv…rf8q Youtube embeds are pretty good too! It would be sick if it could keep playing even when turning the screen off, like Brave does! I'm 100% for watching Youtube videos from outside Youtube... Let them pay for the storage for the time being 🤭

2025-12-31 02:52:53 UTC

- reply

Oh sorry, forgot the link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-i_Q27WtMMM

2025-12-31 02:51:49 UTC

- reply

This makes me thing of these Academy of Ideas videos about the terrible mother archetype...
Their vision of security is an abusive restrain & overprotect, when an healthy vision of security is more about defending spaces of freedom by actively booting away the threats.

2025-12-30 11:22:59 UTC

- reply

Actually the section titles were really cool too!! ✊😂 <- (someone's way too lazy though)

2025-12-30 11:20:57 UTC

- reply

I feel lazy to read that article, but reading that title already made my day. Finally someone gets it the right way! 💥

2025-12-30 06:57:23 UTC

- reply

Don't complain about the price, complain that you don't have more cash to buy it... at least that's what I'm doing. 🤣

2025-12-30 03:22:35 UTC

Australia, EU, UK,... All busy enacting North Korean-like legislations while we're busy with creating new spaces of freedom & expression. Some people really never learn!

2025-12-28 13:50:04 UTC

- reply

The goat

2025-12-28 13:49:08 UTC

- reply

What will pass is the world, you won't

2025-12-28 07:37:30 UTC

The one main thing you'll be experiencing througout your life is your own mental state. 😎

2025-12-27 14:58:20 UTC

- reply

Trying Yakihonne right now 😎

2025-12-27 09:02:05 UTC

- reply

BitKey security model:
- They control both the server key and the app that manages the app key, meaning your key isn't cryptographically protected in case the company goes rogue, captured, or breached.
- The physical device doesn't have a screen, meaning the app can have you sign literally any transaction it wants. You just trust them to be honest with spending coins. From a security point of view, it's essentially a glorified software wallet, not a hardware wallet.
They present their product as a security improvement while the 2-of-3 voodoo is essentially concealing a clear regression. (scam comes to mind here)

2025-12-26 11:29:18 UTC

- reply

It's distributed. Block war already demonstrated that even with a majority of hashing power, you still can't force a change. Core v30 showed that the same applies to devs... But it's a complex & evolving dynamic, and there's no hard guarantees; only works with a strong, commited, well-informed community. Will we be able to keep that going? ✊

2025-12-26 01:10:22 UTC

- reply

Told them, thanks!

2025-12-24 06:34:20 UTC

- reply

I've been trying to orange-pill an engineer paid to improve a local landfill. They had fires, and now managed to funnel the methane in a safer way but IIRD they just send it up the air. 🤮 I shared a podcast & he seemed kinda interested in what you're doing.

2025-12-24 06:31:36 UTC

- reply

How can landfill contact you? Are you still looking for candidates?

2025-12-22 21:44:39 UTC

- reply

What do you mean? 😅

2025-12-21 02:49:03 UTC

- reply

Quantum-threat is a scam, will still be in 10 years. Don't fall for it.

2025-12-21 02:46:03 UTC

- reply

1. Sats don't prove you are human
2. Cloudflare is not about stopping bots but stopping DDoS (officially, but probably more about data harvesting right :p)
3. Why shouldn't bot be crawling the internet in the first place? 😅
4. Phone number, KYC, age restriction, "this website doesn't operate in your country", "I am not a citizen of"... Looks like the declaration of independence of the cyberspace is not being respected anymore...
5. Opting out, writing code, enforcing boundaries... If the commercial web wants to self-destroy, let it. It was already crippled with ads and trackers anyway.

2025-12-20 10:27:17 UTC

I like Primal UX but them asking me for private info just to create a lightning wallet weirds me out. What should I try instead, any ideas? 🤔

2025-12-14 14:16:28 UTC

- reply

"documents supporting payment transactions" is actually hillarious... uh, you mean... the transaction signature right? 🤣

2025-12-14 14:11:45 UTC

- reply

Here we go!! 🎉

2025-12-14 14:11:05 UTC

- reply

Hi, ever heard of IFS / self-therapy? Great self-sovereign approach to personal development. It gives you more than tricks: it gives you the keys :)

2025-12-14 01:43:19 UTC

- reply

Unfortunately tourist/expat-bashing is a low-risk strategy to get people your way. Looks like Thailand is pushing it to the next level, maybe some elections are not far 🤔

2025-11-26 07:37:27 UTC

- reply

What do you wanr them to do? Mind developing?

2025-11-26 02:38:06 UTC

- reply

Bitcoin wallets generally use new addresses for each transactions, so saying that a Starbucks employee could see you net worth & full transaction history is straight up lying to the audience and the gullible reporter, unfairly hurting bitcoin outlook and public understanding for the sake of having his own tool look better. It's outrageous that the guy goes to jail, but I really don't like the way he communicates.

2025-11-22 13:58:42 UTC

- reply

🤣🤣🤣

2025-11-10 07:13:00 UTC

Have you seen this ad for Bitcoin? It's pretty convincing!
"Curve like any other financial institution, must prevent financial crimes, properly implement anti-fraud measures and international sanctions controls. In implementing these requirements, we apply the world-recognised principle "Know your customer". We have to collect certain information about customers to know their payment habits, sources of income, to be able to respond to unusual activity related to payment transactions performed by the customer and have up to date customer's identity documentation. This information we must constantly check and update, therefore customers are regularly asked to submit and/or update customer awareness information (for example, customer awareness questionnaire, questionnaires, etc.) and documents supporting payment transactions."

2025-11-09 03:08:58 UTC

- reply

Great job guys ❤️

2025-10-26 01:25:44 UTC

- reply

Where is that? 🤔