theonevortex
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE

Former host of The Bitcoin News Show. Creator of https://bitcoindev.org. Bitcoin Is. And that is enough.

Public Key

npub1q5un2zq6d93ygesrg3rwmgehfkg9v5kah7pp0jy8pqvzdparxpnqkk6dh3

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsq2wf4pqdxjcjyvcp5g3hd5vm5myzk2twmlqshezrssxpxs73nqespz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds0ulew0

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1q5un2zq6d93ygesrg3rwmgehfkg9v5kah7pp0jy8pqvzdparxpnqkk6dh3

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-02-11 15:53:42 UTC

It seems BIP 110 folks are perfectly fine with breaking bitcoin's neutrality, removing important upgrade paths, destroying people's vaults, confiscating coins and causing a split. Awesome.

2026-02-10 00:26:41 UTC

Remember when everyone was like "hey devs shouldn't 'tinker' too much" when CTV was being proposed, and now people are literally going along with a far more significant update and endless SFing to stop spam. The irony is too much.

2026-02-08 15:18:06 UTC

- reply

lol muted

2026-02-08 00:55:29 UTC

Bitcoin is freedom money.
Bitcoin is fuck you money.
Bitcoin is NOT a democracy-good-feelz money.

2026-02-06 00:15:54 UTC

With the removal of the op return limit in v30 Core recognized that it's important we keep block space a decentralized market and not incentivize a private mempool with backdoor channels to miners.

2026-02-05 22:22:10 UTC

- reply

You don't remember agreeing huh, well were were you even in the discussions on the mailing list, in IRC or in delving in the first place? Do you even understand this discussion goes back to 2014? Or are you just an internet troll who can't even code?

2026-02-05 14:40:32 UTC

hodlonaut was a clown in 2017, and he's a clown now, the only difference is instead of begging for money he's begging for attention.

2026-02-04 05:52:48 UTC

See what Knots / 110 folks don't seem to understand is that Core tried to take a stand at the relay level (safer) and literally everyone ignored them.
So doing it at the consensus level (far more dangerous) would certainly cause a split, which is exactly what 110 is going to do.
And even then it doesn't actually prevent spam as Peter Todd proved when he embedded the entire 110 pdf doc in a 110 compliant transaction :/
So when the split inevitably happens and a future market forms, 110 will be on the losing end.

2026-02-01 15:33:52 UTC

- reply

There is no "project owner" because a maintainer is about as far from an "owner" as you can get, at least learn how FOSS works before making such an ass out of yourself.

2026-02-01 15:32:46 UTC

- reply

No you are wrong. Increasing the op return was issuing harm reduction into a new reality whereby the social contract of a public mempool had been already broken by miners like mara with slipstream. Learn your history because right now you have no idea what you're talking about.

2026-02-01 15:31:10 UTC

- reply

Muting your ridiculous conspiracy theories.

2026-02-01 15:30:36 UTC

- reply

A core dev advised a company using bitcoin how to use bitcoin better, OMG NO YOU DON'T SAY! You are a clown 🤡

2026-02-01 03:39:31 UTC

- reply

But hey have fun forking yourself off the network.

2026-02-01 03:39:07 UTC

- reply

Satoshi himself created op return, learn your history cause right now you have no idea what you're talking about.

2026-02-01 03:38:21 UTC

- reply

Yah that's not what I said but hey keep misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth and see how well that works out for a discussion.

2026-02-01 03:36:55 UTC

- reply

It's not just 6, the maintainers DO NOT control the project just like in any other FOSS project and are elected by the rest of the Core team based on their actual work. Learn this.

2026-01-31 23:35:39 UTC

- reply

Once again Core is one of the most transparent FOSS projects on the planet so you don't have to take my word for it. If you don't agree with this then that's your problem.

2026-01-31 23:33:51 UTC

- reply

There are no leaders, those maintainers didn't get magically anointed they proved their worth and were selected by the entire Core team like pretty much every other FOSS project, you clearly have no idea how Core's development process even works. Like I said, go back to basics before buying into psyops.

2026-01-31 23:31:17 UTC

- reply

Once again whether it's what Citrea "needed" or not it's what the reality of the network demanded and that's the point, the change is harm reduction to prevent large miners from gaining an advantage, not "sanctioning spam" and certainly not "gaslighting everyone".

2026-01-31 22:06:39 UTC

Bcash purists - "Bitcoin is cash"
BSV purists - "Bitcoin is satoshi's vision"
Knots/110 Purists - "Bitcoin is money"
We've heard it all before.
Ideology after ideology.
When people are unhappy with what bitcoin is they try to change it using fear, ideology and anti-core rhetoric but bitcoin changes you, you don't change bitcoin.
The reality is bitcoin is, and that is enough.

2026-01-31 21:39:31 UTC

- reply

It's pretty clear what that means, it means there's no leaders. There are maintainers, but these people do not speak for or override the rest of the core developers. If you're curious how core development actually works there are plenty of how-to articles to help you because it seems you need to start from the beginning.
https://blossom.primal.net/068ebedce8cfd2319d96bafab74e18792eba905c733e62581b3c921d0efa16a2.jpg

2026-01-31 21:38:05 UTC

- reply

Core is the most transparent software dev group in the history of FOSS so if you can't figure out that there are literally 100s of contributors from their open github then I don't know what to tell you except for learn how to read.

2026-01-31 21:37:05 UTC

- reply

Core is a decentralized group of devs with contributions from 100s of people all over the world, check the github. If one person said something that doesn't represent all of Core, you've bought into the psyop, congrats.

2026-01-31 21:34:52 UTC

It's pretty simple, all Tone is saying is he does want more people to run nodes, but would prefer the people running those nodes be more technical, which is exactly the opposite type of people that node in a box companies attract.
https://blossom.primal.net/d239d81a660d7d6c6e7cf239a105b80617ca4eb29f1a8a3552c185857c5d6609.png

2026-01-31 19:14:11 UTC

- reply

LOL Core is a decentralized group of developers that have no affiliation or contact with Citrea and these ridiculous conspiracy theories type of FUD helps nobody.

2026-01-31 18:59:32 UTC

- reply

Missed another one:
-Viruses will take down AWS

2026-01-31 18:57:18 UTC

- reply

Whoops forgot one:
-The CSAM in bitcoin will make running nodes illegal

2026-01-31 18:56:22 UTC

Points that have been walked back from the Knots side so far and counting:
-Core v30 will kill bitcoin
-Spam will kill bitcoin
-They won't fork

2026-01-31 16:17:40 UTC

Reminder:
The social contract wasn't broken by Core, it was broken in February 2024 when MARA launched Slipstream.
Slipstream is a service to mine any consensus valid transaction for the right fee, bypassing normal mempool policy entirely.
This contract was technically enforced by mempool filters like the 83-byte OP_RETURN limit, however Mara’s Slipstream proved that these filters were just "gentlemen's agreements" that large miners could bypass at will.
Core's op return changes 20 months later weren't "enabling spam", they were acknowledging this broken contract and that the filter had already failed because you can't enforce gentlemen's agreements when miners are openly advertising they'll ignore them.
These changes once again even the playing field for those wanting to get their transactions mined.
It's harm reduction, plain and simple.

2026-01-30 18:40:19 UTC

- reply

The only thing I've found so far is this on prediction markets, but rest assure there will be future markets at some point with only a 55% activation threshold. https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-the-reduce-data-temporary-soft-fork-be-consensus-enforced-on-the-most-work-bitcoin-chain-tip-by-march-1st-2026-1762275376

2026-01-30 18:14:58 UTC

- reply

Wrong, it's signaling now with over 1k nodes, there WILL be chain split in September.

2026-01-30 16:54:52 UTC

We are all Satoshi except Luke, Mechanic, Roger, CSW and Mike Hearn.

2026-01-29 21:22:13 UTC

The data doesn't care about your feelings on "spam". It only cares about resource costs.
If you want to run a node, you should be thanking the devs for op return because it’s the only reason your RAM requirements aren't 10x higher today.
If you can't distinguish between disk bloat and state bloat, you aren't ready for this conversation.

2026-01-27 00:45:40 UTC

People seem to forget and/or take for granted that Core is one of the most transparent software dev projects in history, especially relative to its value.

2026-01-25 16:00:39 UTC

110 does literally nothing to make bitcoin more of a "money", it already is money and 110 arbitrarily restricts script, confiscates coins and risks splitting the network, no thanks.

2025-12-21 16:28:56 UTC

Got news for you Carter, LN is doing just fine without your acknowledgement by pretty much every metric imaginable.
https://blossom.primal.net/a73d3b52ed3a2ecf9690adb54935bd86b739966f15836326379e9c1dd8962d59.jpg

2025-12-21 15:41:27 UTC

Yah almost like the rush to put in filters that could be as easily bypassed as the ones in Knots.
For those paying attention at home Samson is still just a larp who is too afraid to let anyone reply to his posts except the simps that follow him.
https://blossom.primal.net/b92a60019c77608b0c1c28325ac53b975bd0d35e23add83ef5d7ab0c29a2d0b3.png

2025-12-20 17:17:28 UTC

The Quantum FUD is just that, FUD, and Mechanic and Luke are still following in Roger's and eventually faketoshi's footsteps.

2025-12-07 16:46:59 UTC

If free speech is a threat to you, your soft fork probably isn't going to do well.

2025-11-27 16:22:24 UTC

Bitcoin is working as intended:
1. Thwarting spam making it unsustainable for any meaningful amount of time due to fees.
2. Resisting loud non-technical internet mobs trying to change it.
3. Tick tock next block.

2025-11-24 02:11:55 UTC

ZCash is just as much of a joke today as it was when it came out. No thanks.

2025-11-20 15:20:45 UTC

Knots folks: I'm here to save Bitcoin from "spam"
Also Knots folks: I don't know how spammers operate. I don't know what drives spam behavior. I don't know what tools they use. I don't know how their ecosystem works. I don't know a single spammer.

2025-11-19 15:19:57 UTC

Soon Knots folks will finally realize that the only way to fully stop "spam" is a central authority like OFAC, but hey, they'll get there eventually right?

2025-11-18 00:08:30 UTC

- reply

Agree diversity of clients is a success on some level, even though Knots is mostly Core anyway, it has just enough changes in it (~25-50k lines) that I would not trust it with LN or any mission critical operation.

2025-11-17 19:50:30 UTC

- reply

So Knots not being able to clear ~20% is a success for you?

2025-11-17 18:08:20 UTC

- reply

There's literally no activation client yet for 444 so it can't even actually be run and signaled yet. What does "it's happened" mean to you?

2025-11-17 16:01:28 UTC

So even with all that paid Ocean marketing Knots still can't rise above ~20% and only has a ~2% chance of actually happening in the betting markets.

2025-11-11 14:57:33 UTC

- reply

Playbook confirmed.

2025-11-10 15:03:03 UTC

2017 - miners and large corporations don't control bitcoin
2026 - an economically irrelevant but loud-on-twitter group of users don't control bitcoin
Let's see who makes this mistake next.

2025-11-07 04:25:47 UTC

- reply

Mechanic literally said v30 would kill bitcoin several times in tweets and on his youtube channel. Nothing about op return dilutes bitcoins purpose as money, what are you smoking. Are you having transacting because I can transact just fine.

2025-11-06 14:14:02 UTC

Are you sure about that mechanic?
https://blossom.primal.net/74e34f9b2ea44245239e73f435ae5a7ed45195ae18ff5e18c11c251723950ede.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/1ac264fe2da5bbacb7f328739a91000f52bdee315551f0eaa077b81376259ad6.jpg

2025-11-05 20:03:54 UTC

- reply

No. You are simply incorrect in your assumptions that op return can create new use cases that dilute the established purpose of bitcoin. v30 is still the same bitcoin as v29. If op return alone could kill bitcoin it would have already.

2025-11-05 15:11:46 UTC

- reply

No risk, no reward, such is life.

2025-11-05 15:11:18 UTC

- reply

Yep.

2025-11-05 14:39:37 UTC

Hey guys want to put your money where your mouth is on the 444 soft fork? You can find the link to the prediction market below, mechanic is blocking people like crazy over it, probably because the current odds of the SF activating is only at 6%:
https://blossom.primal.net/e2f8682b8d9a0c427143992ddc9ec945ff8da96301817b2a5d3b542f393bc230.png
https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-the-reduce-data-temporary-soft-fork-be-consensus-enforced-on-the-most-work-bitcoin-chain-tip-by-march-1st-2026-1762275376

2025-11-05 14:28:14 UTC

- reply

There's fundamentally no difference, people will put things on the chain whether you like it or not.

2025-11-05 14:27:21 UTC

- reply

I replied with information that disproves your comment. This is called english, learn how to use it.

2025-11-05 01:45:54 UTC

- reply

False. People have been able to upload data to the chain since almost the beginning when Satoshi first create op return in 0.1. Bitcoin resists governments and central authorities, it doesn't appeal to them. You need to understand safe harbor laws and how it protects node runners.

2025-11-04 20:06:50 UTC

- reply

There's literally nothing to suggest that Core wants to make bitcoin a data repo, seek help.

2025-11-04 13:34:16 UTC

The idea was to make bitcoin censorship resistant and threat-modeled to resist government control, to make governments comply with bitcoin, not the other way around. If you want your chain to be government friendly ethereum and solana are waiting for you.

2025-10-30 14:34:38 UTC

You know you have no integrity when you only let people who follow you reply to your tweets. Great job mechanic.

2025-10-28 14:04:04 UTC

Once again I'm here to remind you just as I did when Roger was spreading FUD across twitter and the media, the sky is NOT falling. There are simply those that would use fear to control others for the purpose of gaining power.

2025-10-27 14:23:13 UTC

- reply

Loans can be useful but yah KYC bitcoin is taking over which is not good.

2025-10-25 16:08:22 UTC

Bitcoin is for your enemies. But hey best of luck trying to tell people how to use their bitcoin though.

2025-10-05 16:05:13 UTC

Bitcoin is programmable money. Whether you like it or not.

2025-10-01 01:00:59 UTC

"Bitcoin will survive Core" - Mechanic
lol walk it back now mechanic, walk it all back

2025-09-28 16:39:19 UTC

Still trying my best to provide pure signal on my X/Twitter account but sometimes it's too tempting not to shitpost.

2025-09-26 16:27:17 UTC

bcash playbook all over again
1. demonize core
2. make incorrect technical assumptions
3. scream sky is falling
4. make an emotionally charged but technically unfounded call to save bitcoin from core
5. eventually fork

2025-09-15 00:23:05 UTC

- reply

bcash playbook all over again
1. demonize core
2. make incorrect technical assumptions
3. scream sky is falling
4. make an emotionally charged but technically unfounded call to save bitcoin from core

2025-09-09 14:21:52 UTC

- reply

There is no Knots vs Core, Knots is just a downstream fork from Core. People should run whatever they want but I surely would not use Knots for mission-critical operations.

2025-09-08 01:25:38 UTC

Luke is right when he says bitcoin is not finished and we need CTV.

2025-09-05 14:32:43 UTC

To all the non-technical folks riled up about spam, the fees have been cheap for years now except for a spike or 2. Maybe do more reading and less spouting misinformation.

2025-08-10 20:02:10 UTC

Mechanic continuing to follow in all of Roger's footsteps complete with fear mongering against core.

2025-07-02 23:14:16 UTC

- reply

> dishonest gaslighting
lol

2025-07-02 18:49:59 UTC

- reply

Coindance has been pretty inaccurate about node data but sure, again though ~3k nodes is hardly anything compared to the 100k+ core nodes, so best of luck trying to put a dent in that

2025-07-02 14:59:42 UTC

- reply

It was a wrong chart, have you never accidentally read an old chart? It happens. Above chart is current, can barely crack 10% and it's steadily going down.

2025-07-02 14:13:26 UTC

Knots still at only 10%, you'd think all that virtue signaling on social media would be worth more than 10%, but no.
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html
https://blossom.primal.net/90f81d49fd91b9623932348cee6fc1f0821f525d997810253eb4a9ac0512eea5.jpg

2025-07-01 13:42:18 UTC

- reply

*cause of

2025-07-01 13:41:58 UTC

Hard to believe there's so many altcoin treasury companies already and they're growing at a pretty fast rate, but then again altcoins were always the cause bitcoin's bear markets, it looks like this time will be no different.

2025-06-27 14:20:07 UTC

- reply

Virtue signal more why don't you.

2025-06-27 14:19:17 UTC

- reply

I'm not starting anything, just observing, you simply don't seem technical enough to make relevant analogies (so far in this convo).
Nobody needs technical knowledge to hold bitcoin, but it does help in order to have technical discussions about software development.

2025-06-27 14:15:37 UTC

- reply

> but hearing that people don’t want to work with Luke as if he is “bad for bitcoin” is a testament to their short comings. NOT HIS.
Whatever you gotta tell yourself to sleep at night when using knots.

2025-06-26 18:19:18 UTC

- reply

> They align with how I feel the world should be.
Unfortunately "feelings" alone doesn't produce good software.
> Why don’t Devs want to work with them?
That's the question you need to investigate further, from what I can tell no one wants to work with Luke.

2025-06-26 18:17:43 UTC

- reply

Yah not even close, your analogies seem to keep failing, perhaps because of a lack of technical understanding.

2025-06-24 19:27:02 UTC

- reply

Nearly impossible to calculate exact percentage, the chances of losing coin are simply higher when using non peer reviewed software vs peer reviewed.

2025-06-24 19:25:43 UTC

- reply

*chances of NOT losing coin are simply higher when using peer-reviewed software

2025-06-24 19:24:17 UTC

- reply

The chances are simply higher when using peer-reviewed software vs non peer-reviewed software. They literally can't even hire another dev for Knots despite their best efforts, but nobody wants to work on it 😕

2025-06-23 04:37:37 UTC

- reply

Yah not even close, I prefer not to lose coin.

2025-06-23 04:37:23 UTC

- reply

Please post a rebuttal, all else is a larp.

2025-06-20 03:12:19 UTC

- reply

Anyone else want to try to prove to me that Core is a monopoly, everyone in the comments so far has failed.

2025-06-20 03:11:05 UTC

- reply

Terrible analogy to software integrity.

2025-06-19 19:29:50 UTC

- reply

I've already said I agree we need a consensus library and that we need multiple clients, my only argument is that Core is not a monopoly.

2025-06-19 17:56:26 UTC

- reply

You’re right that shared consensus assurance matters but claiming non-Core clients are unfeasible ignores that BTCD, Libbitcoin, and even non-Core forks have validated the chain. BTCD’s historical fork incident proves the point as the network not Core enforced consensus, correcting the client. Core reflects consensus it doesn’t define it. Again I'm all for multiple clients but you cannot define Core as a monopoly.

2025-06-19 17:06:21 UTC

- reply

I agree that libbitcoinkernel will reduce Core’s centrality over time and that an ossified kernel is a good step but claiming non-Core clients are 'not feasible' is wrong. Knots, BTCD, and Libbitcoin exist today and function because feasibility isn't the blocker while trust, audit depth, and adoption are.

2025-06-19 16:59:56 UTC

- reply

Incorrect once again. You’re describing inertia not monopoly. Core’s dominance comes from historical trust and validation not lockin or barriers. The disincentive you mention is risk-aversion not enforced control because any client replicating consensus behavior can replace Core if the network prefers it. That’s not structural monopoly that is voluntary coordination or nakamoto consensus.

2025-06-19 15:58:23 UTC

- reply

No actually. You’re describing trust preference not a structural monopoly. Core holds trust because of review depth, audit history, and stability, not enforced control. Anyone can fork or reimplement consensus as BIP148 proved because consensus is what nodes run, not what Core ships. libbitcoinkernel may help modularity, but Core’s influence is earned, not imposed.

2025-06-19 15:26:25 UTC

- reply

No. You're conflating practical dominance with enforced monopoly. Core is the reference because of trust and audit history not coercion. Nothing stops an alt client from matching consensus behavior (see Knots, Libbitcoin). Core’s dominance remains voluntary not structural or enforced.

2025-06-19 15:06:00 UTC

- reply

Almost as much bullshit as meme reply with zero substance or rebuttal.

2025-06-19 15:03:37 UTC

- reply

Indeed. But let's not kid our selves, one implementation is far more robust than the other.

2025-06-19 15:02:41 UTC

- reply

No, that's a circular argument. Core implements consensus because it reflects what the network enforces. If Core pushed invalid consensus rules the network would fork or reject it. BIP148 (UASF) is a clear example: consensus enforcement came from users, not Core.