GrassFedBitcoin
Bitcoin Mechanic

Public Key

npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4spz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwa5kuegpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet583myy6

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nostr.wine

nos.lol

nostr-pub.wellorder.net

Author Public Key

npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-04 11:34:31 UTC

- reply

I didn't say it's not permissionless dummy.

2026-02-16 17:41:44 UTC

- reply

I have said this. I can't pretend the desire to use a proxy for the USD isn't preferable to worse fiat for the global south. And telling them they have to jump straight to Bitcoin and just deal with the volatility is distasteful.

2026-01-20 02:37:20 UTC

The correct number of files to have on your desktop is zero.

2026-01-17 22:28:01 UTC

- reply

Thanks! That'll be the first one I try

2026-01-17 21:25:36 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the thoughts!
I downgraded to a "volt" as that is standards compliant (and just USB) so I have functioning audio on the machine right away.
Last time I used a DAW in Linux-land was Ardour about 11 years ago.
I never even liked protools (which is what Ardour is the FOSS equivalent of) so unsurprisingly I didn't get far with it.
I agree that great music makers don't need a billion fancy things to make good music. I'm happy going barebones with it.
BitWig comes highly recommended but it's not free and that undermines the overall effort of ditching MacOS in the first place.
I'll probably try Ardour again or Audacity.
Something to make simple video edits too would be great. Main thing is reliability and no weird linux stuff like random cutting out when you render files.

2026-01-17 21:20:26 UTC

- reply

It's working surprisingly well

2026-01-17 21:20:11 UTC

- reply

I still have it along with GNOME on here. Can switch to it again, though the keyboard navigation is actually pretty good on COSMIC already.

2026-01-16 08:44:44 UTC

- reply

Blurriness. Text unpleasant to read.
Apparently not uncommon to dislike KDE with this.

2026-01-16 08:23:28 UTC

- reply

Audio was the thing tying me to Mac all this time. I basically have to trash an old UAD Apollo now as it's thunderbolt and I doubt any of the hacks would make it usable.
If ableton would freaking add Linux I'd have made the switch a decade ago.

2026-01-16 08:19:33 UTC

- reply

I tried KDE and all my displays looked horrible. I think COSMIC have managed to so something pretty great with that

2026-01-16 01:22:21 UTC

Apple cancelled my order. Twice.
So guess I am switching to Linux for my desktop/daily driver.
So far discovered that Pop_OS! new COSMIC desktop requires restart if you ever want to change mouse speed.
Spending an hour making a mouse not move 20x faster than it should is peak Linux.
It's so annoying but I'm gonna make it work.
I am sustained by a deep loathing of Microsoft and Apple.

2026-01-09 00:41:06 UTC

- reply

What distro?

2026-01-09 00:38:45 UTC

- reply

Mac has less bloatware afaict. No stupid onedrive, Xbox gaming vouchers etc. Just please leave me alone computer.

2026-01-09 00:37:41 UTC

- reply

Cos I work for a company that has meetings with people

2026-01-09 00:36:32 UTC

- reply

Yep

2026-01-08 07:21:59 UTC

- reply

I asked Gemini to draw arch Linux if it was a car https://image.nostr.build/96b8615022fa3ff8da264cec900d6f7d90ba3947fdce14cce6b8727c3525ed44.jpg

2026-01-08 07:16:25 UTC

I bought a new computer.
It's a Mac.
Mac is the worst option for a main workstation except for Windows (obviously) and Linux. Leaving me with....Mac.
I use Linux all day every day but always CLI only and inside VMs/containers that are always set up for specific purposes.
Really just not feeling like ever having to fight to make a webcam work in a zoom meeting or something yet so I just doubt Linux desktop is ever gonna be a thing for me.

2025-12-22 23:44:02 UTC

- reply

That's... A relief frankly. That makes life a lot less stressful for coinjoin devs.

2025-11-10 12:41:21 UTC

Cypherpunks dox people.
https://image.nostr.build/43f503510036b1ce6b4b3e10149861fea0124e26ab0ac9fed05060d4eb8aa2ed.png

2025-11-05 16:45:51 UTC

- reply

Very cypherpunk, Satoshi is smiling.

2025-11-05 01:38:22 UTC

- reply

Thanks for stepping up!

2025-11-04 22:38:11 UTC

- reply

Live by the bullshit, die by the bullshit

2025-11-04 22:36:04 UTC

- reply

Cachu is for enemies

2025-11-04 22:08:45 UTC

"Junk data"
wtf, not very cypherpunk of you @npub12rv…85vg
https://image.nostr.build/40abe658744800cb98383dc6d368b839d6a8aa79a7aa8ede275ae65b598af324.png

2025-11-04 04:16:06 UTC

If a midwit becomes aware that he is a midwit, does he cease to be a midwit?

2025-10-16 20:44:13 UTC

- reply

Sir, this is a monetary network.

2025-10-13 19:14:24 UTC

- reply

Correct

2025-10-07 04:07:25 UTC

I peaked at 1960 at blitz chess.
Don't get to play so much these days, so dropped down below 1700.
Anyone here play?

2025-10-07 04:06:28 UTC

- reply

+1 lichess is great! been using it for 10 years

2025-10-06 13:31:20 UTC

- reply

Hence the last point

2025-10-06 12:47:54 UTC

Mining is centralized.
The concern around objectionable content is met with appeals to decentralization of mining - i.e a Bitcoin network that doesn't exist.
Until now, what has already been "technically possible" with storing nasty stuff in the chain wasn't.
1. "The" mempool was protected because everyone would filter a sick 100kb OP_RETURN along with *all* OP_RETURNs greater than 83 bytes.
2. The blockchain was protected because the few miners there are in the world would reject directly submitted malicious content.
This left one option for sabotage: an attacker mining a CSAM OP_RETURN directly into the chain themselves.
Referring to something as impractical as that as "technically possible" is entirely frivolous and it would have been laughable if it had ever happened. An "Unknown" pool finds a block that has a giant 1MB MP4 of something appalling in it? Obvious sabotage that we would universally eschew and I'm confident we would be able to resolve after the fact.
Now however the situation has changed.
F2Pool solicits this stuff directly from the p2p network and Libre Relay nodes along with Core 30 release candidates are willingly relaying it.
There is now an anonymous, p2p network for this attack that's free to access and there is a miner who will oblige it.
The combination of the above, in practice, drops the cost from six figures ($$$,$$$) to three ($$$) and makes it possible to do anonymously.
But more importantly, the mechanism of the attack makes the resulting content appear to have been endorsed by the network at the policy level rather than come as a result of a circumvention that exploits crude consensus rules.
If you still cannot understand the significance of that then you must simply not be aware of the changes that Bitcoin has undergone with all the malicious tweaking of late and the sheer desire there is to take Bitcoin out.
Again: The p2p network has protected itself from attack due to sane default mempool policies, while the blockchain has been inaccessible to attackers due to pools not wanting to be on the hook for blocks containing malicious data.
Those technically-circumventable factors are now gone and there is no practical limitation to the attack beyond cleaning some coins, and paying a couple hundred bucks in transaction fees to get unacceptable content into the chain.
If the network isn't going to protect itself from malicious, consensus-valid activity then the only option left is changing consensus and doing a soft fork to limit OP_RETURNs and perhaps other known types of data carrying.
That idea entered the arena on the mailing list on Friday from someone vocally against Knots (@PortlandHODL) and was received positively by the Core devs who responded. Some embellishment was offered by Luke (add additional data carrying types) to which there was not so much response.
Without community support a fork fails. It's possible if even the Core 30 proponents are OK with limiting this stuff at the consensus level though that there is community support and thus it could be the way forward.
I dislike it because it abandons spam mitigation occurring at the policy level which is where it belongs but the current environment isn't giving us a lot to work with.
It is probably appropriate to characterize the fork as defense we never needed against a specific type of attack versus spam mitigation in general which will have to be continue in parallel.
Fork?

2025-10-04 06:35:11 UTC

- reply

He does RT stuff he doesn't agree with.
Generally I get the sense he isn't buying the Core bullshit though.

2025-10-03 19:43:11 UTC

Bitcoin was not conceived of or designed as a system where random people would voluntarily run FTP servers and store random files forever for free.
That is being backward rationalized into a monetary system where that kind of architecture must exist for other reason but the incentive issue remains.
No one is going to do this for you, even if they want to for other purposes.
They are going to defend themselves.
They always have been, and are having to switch client to be able to continue doing so due to Bitcoin Core's negligence and downright malice.

2025-09-29 06:38:45 UTC

- reply

Srry fam

2025-09-29 00:11:08 UTC

- reply

Complicit

2025-09-28 23:36:03 UTC

- reply

Anyone amplifying Calle is - at best - a moron.

2025-09-28 22:55:25 UTC

- reply

Yes otherwise I'd let this nonsense go unchallenged

2025-09-28 22:45:01 UTC

- reply

Oops. Nostrudel makes me bad at Nostr.

2025-09-28 22:21:21 UTC

- reply

Lol.
PoW exists to make it hard to rewrite history, not to prevent spam.
This is obviously just more dishonesty masquerading as "bridge building" after a week of non-stop character assassination after many months of bad faith interaction.
Citing your credentials "I have worked on anonymous systems for over a decade. I have read tons of research on spam detection, rate-limiting, and I've implemented spam prevention techniques in the real world."
...is not enough to make people pretend you're arguing in good faith here which you obviously aren't having opened with rewriting the entire function of what PoW does and how Satoshi used it. We know specifically what Satoshi did about spam and you're ignoring it because that would contradict your premise.
(Further - spam filtration does not imply centralization. The opposite is the case. No one is going to run nodes if they do not posses the tools to prevent their mempools filling up with porn/malware and anything else that can leverage the idiocy of Bitcoin's developers.)

2025-09-26 18:19:00 UTC

- reply

the TMZ of bitcoin went after luke

2025-09-25 21:38:23 UTC

CORRECTION: NO HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY.
https://image.nostr.build/08f420928f28c39ae7955ffa2dbce878c06c4c34de018c43667992a9e28c16f3.png

2025-09-25 03:38:13 UTC

Sheesh, I didn't expect Core to shit the bed quite this hard.

2025-09-23 04:17:47 UTC

- reply

.........

2025-09-22 03:28:07 UTC

No wealth like a happy home

2025-09-17 04:25:23 UTC

- reply

You should.

2025-09-17 04:24:57 UTC

- reply

You gave them too much leeway with the fee estimation FUD.
If miners filter and your mempool is full of Core-endorsed garbage, then you just start overpaying fees for no reason - if for some reason you're using mempool-based fee estimation which is a terrible idea and Sipa/Greg et al know this perfectly well.
Nothing about Bitcoin, including fee estimation, requires mempool homogeneity. This was totally manufactured as a rationalization and only applies in scenarios where mempool policy and mining are both completely centralized. Which - to be fair - is the current scenario but not at all sustainable and makes no sense to rip filters out in an effort to placate something untenable that is in the process of being fixed.

2025-09-17 02:58:14 UTC

The emperor has no clothes.
Bitcoin is not in good hands.
#nevent1q…59xr

2025-09-15 23:50:18 UTC

- reply

I gave up when he started simping for the IRS regarding Roger. Crab in a bucket.

2025-09-15 04:16:37 UTC

- reply

Trust the science

2025-09-15 03:57:18 UTC

- reply

Of course

2025-09-15 03:48:33 UTC

What level of cope is this?
#nevent1q…nyvw

2025-09-13 22:56:17 UTC

- reply

Luke's stats show ~14% but they lag by a month. They cut out duplicates where possible, and treat all AWS as one node. I don't think it's possible to be more pessimistic than 14%. The 25% we saw yesterday appeared to be Umbrel users updating and getting counted twice, but that isn't happening today with the Start9 update so that theory is just wrong afaict unless I have some misunderstanding about how Umbrel nodes differ from Start9 nodes.

2025-09-13 22:41:06 UTC

- reply

It's just blocking multiple connections over same ISP is it not?
Also, appears to ignore Tor completely, so basically that dismisses the thousands of Umbrel/Start9 users. These stats aren't going to give you an accurate picture at all, if you're honest with yourself you'd dismiss them.

2025-09-13 22:08:24 UTC

- reply

I know we're both in our respective echo chambers but...you really think only 2.6% of nodes are Knots?
This seems to be more "most Knots nodes are in America, therefore ignore basically all of them"

2025-09-12 23:28:09 UTC

Today I learnt that `su` and `su -` do not do the same thing.

2025-09-12 18:10:31 UTC

- reply

Our adversaries aren't idiots. We can either officially sanction 100KB file storage or we can legitimately present it as something we push back against.
No technical difference so devs are blind to the world of difference in that.

2025-09-12 01:18:58 UTC

- reply

No, it's a silly meme. Pruning OP_RETURN means dumping all archival data along with it.
This is one of the most annoying misrepresentations about this. OP_RETURNs just don't exist in the UTXO set so people present them as harmless.

2025-09-10 05:27:51 UTC

Dang. Interoperability issue between LND and CLN keeps knocking my channel offline.

2025-09-09 17:08:06 UTC

- reply

miners only show up online if they have submitted a share recently. so bitaxes appear offline a lot cos they submit shares so sparsely. doesn't mean you're earning less.

2025-09-09 04:57:51 UTC

- reply

this is the clarkmoody dashboard @npub15n9…qru4

2025-09-08 20:32:48 UTC

- reply

Of course it _can_ but the only examples offered wouldn't mess with cloud stuff run at the hypervisor level on behalf of the *provider* - rather disk scanning stuff purchased by the customer.

2025-09-08 20:12:43 UTC

- reply

Already aware, as I said on twitter 4KB is less than 100KB.

2025-09-08 16:18:53 UTC

- reply

Right but there are ways to make estimates anyway.

2025-09-08 06:58:21 UTC

- reply

Responded to wrong note

2025-09-08 06:57:10 UTC

- reply

Calle lies like a fish swims.

2025-09-08 04:39:23 UTC

- reply

https://image.nostr.build/c876496a4e1ed3c2b72fe4cf68e61aea9105940a4d253e84d3c5fa1e3e3bdd65.png

2025-09-08 01:52:39 UTC

- reply

I doubt that's what's happening. Maybe I'm deluding myself but seems organic to me.

2025-09-08 01:50:30 UTC

- reply

It's not one man, this was the lie from two weeks ago.

2025-09-07 23:22:27 UTC

- reply

Lol, no thanks

2025-09-07 22:37:57 UTC

- reply

No, I can barely write python.

2025-09-07 22:36:19 UTC

- reply

@npub1ywj…6ejf can help!

2025-09-07 22:35:44 UTC

Heyo snobs - there are plenty of retards in the pro-Core camp too who have no idea what they're talking about.
#nevent1q…g2sg

2025-09-07 22:34:12 UTC

- reply

>placeholder
it isn't even doing anything.

2025-09-07 22:32:11 UTC

- reply

RIght, I think they only use ~32 bytes which Knots permits by default. They "reserved the right" to use 45 or something - as if you can reserve the right to use other people's computers.

2025-09-07 22:30:46 UTC

- reply

I'm not buying the "devs are actually the victims in all this" narrative.
There are also plenty of Core devs who think the way other Core devs have handled this whole thing is an embarrassing joke.
People care about Bitcoin more than they care about giving devs participation trophies.

2025-09-07 22:10:24 UTC

- reply

Knots is configurable and makes it up to the user which is the main principle to adhere to.

2025-09-07 22:05:09 UTC

- reply

(Got the ratio numbers the wrong way around - whoops).

2025-09-07 22:03:45 UTC

- reply

Dismissing it as manufactured eh?
There's about a 45/55 split between Core 29 and Knots 28.
Maybe time to reconsider whether pushing through changes people hate and lying about the rationale isn't the best idea?

2025-09-07 19:19:59 UTC

- reply

The joins should be fine, it's the needlessly large OP_RETURN that's getting your stuff rejected from Knots mempools (rightly so, we're not obligated to store placeholder metadata about your coinjoins).

2025-09-07 19:18:27 UTC

- reply

That pressure exists regardless. The more we relay it independently of them, the more plausible deniability they have that's all.
MARA will put junk in the chain that is relayed by <1% of the network currently so that isn't the factor at play here for the most part.
Delayed block propagation isn't really significant enough for miners to care. MARA did with the sub 1s/vb stuff but that's the world's least lucrative spam, and they seem to keep dipping into it anyway.

2025-09-07 19:15:53 UTC

- reply

Wrong Luke, sorry.

2025-09-07 19:15:35 UTC

- reply

No one knows. @npub1ry9…qy4m had stats that attempted to track non-listening but no one really agrees on how best to do it.

2025-09-07 19:13:28 UTC

- reply

Just spreading FUD or you actually think Knots doesn't work exactly the same as Core wrt all that stuff?

2025-09-07 16:28:33 UTC

- reply

I'll see your meme, and I'll raise you: https://image.nostr.build/0ec318134bbb5d19af8f92b86771b99c7382612d52715da130be6e8e3de97681.jpg

2025-09-07 15:02:46 UTC

Knots:
https://image.nostr.build/7e987f5f05ef1522d52f762b53aa150a91e4cacc0ff137761f2b088a4a156a59.png

2025-09-07 14:57:43 UTC

People seems to be enjoying the lack of Knots propaganda here so I'll commit to making more effort and getting out of the twitter echo chamber.

2025-09-07 14:54:29 UTC

- reply

For sure. But principle remains, there is always another sucker and we are not on a Bitcoin standard.

2025-09-07 14:48:08 UTC

- reply

Casinos will all disappear once everyone runs out of money?

2025-09-07 14:46:55 UTC

- reply

Knots leaves it where it is...

2025-09-07 14:36:48 UTC

- reply

Argument works in reverse. Spam just spent a couple years pricing out actual usage which is now utterly dead.

2025-09-07 14:35:09 UTC

- reply

How are you gauging their (our?) actual size?
Seems like about 50% of the updated nodes are Knots. About 19% of all nodes.
Given that the discussion has almost entirely happened on twitter that shows an insane pushback against blowing up datacarriersize.

2025-09-05 19:52:46 UTC

https://www.financialcontent.com/article/newsdirect-2025-9-5-bitcoin-knots-puts-power-back-in-the-hands-of-miners-and-users-with-v291-release

2025-09-05 19:43:48 UTC

Knots 29 is out!
#nevent1q…zm8t

2025-09-01 22:49:14 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/9dbe53bc9935e393ccb0f0c5b5ee1485b2c177bb92bce6165bdbf02b7584d60b.png

2025-09-01 01:04:28 UTC

- reply

Eventually you're going to need to update, to something that does what Core does without losing the ability to control what ends up in your mempool. That's just what Knots already is.

2025-08-31 21:31:23 UTC

Neutral monetary network = Defensible
Neutral file storage = Indefensible
This necessarily means maintaining the ability to discriminate between monetary activity and file storage.
This is self evidently the only way Bitcoin can realistically continue to exist without centralized gatekeepers having to moderate everything for us because we couldn't handle it ourselves.

2025-08-31 21:28:44 UTC

Old methods of storing evil stuff required obfuscation: they would need to break it up into multiple chunks and reassembly would require specific software and knowledge of what the data is and how to reconstruct and interpret it exactly.
The old formats looked like this:
"Hi, I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's my first output of 45 outputs - <filepart1>, here's my second output <filepart2>, here's my third output<filepart3>" along with a tonne of other stuff that has to get parsed out when processing the highly obfuscated material. This is thankfully also true of inscriptions.
OP_RETURN however is just a dump for raw, serialized data. It's not the same.
It says the equivalent of "Hi I'm a Bitcoin transaction, here's an unspendable output: <file> end".
This wasn't a problem for tiny OP_RETURNs i.e their current limit of 80 bytes.
If they're permitted to be 100kb, that's where the abuse begins.
And that's the end of plausible deniability.
When the stuff gets processed - which it has to be for your node to verify that they are valid transactions - then you just have a raw, unadulterated file that will trigger primitive antivirus/forensics software to alert the user: "Hi, you have CP on your computer."
You now need a licence to run a Bitcoin node, everyone thinks you're disgusting if you do, and they're not even wrong.
https://youtu.be/JLtmSzeLXOU

2025-08-28 23:11:11 UTC

https://image.nostr.build/ce89384719242d3d10a57f840eaa56f9e4fcee62cf2845ca71b775b1f2c9c6f8.jpg

2025-08-25 18:49:41 UTC

I've watched everything get destroyed at the identity level over and over again.
Here is the mechanism by which it always happens:
#nevent1q…72dp

2025-08-25 07:38:26 UTC

- reply

Spam costs money everywhere, Bitcoin is the cheapest system to spam by a mile.
If you hate spam but still relay it around the network then...idk what you are doing. The justifications for that are extremely weak.